I'm just saying historically whenever there's a violent revolution there's usually rich people from the government involved

Your only example is the American revolution. Division in ruling circles is more important.

The peasant classes rarely if ever have risen up entirely on their own unless it was a matter of life or death.

Peasant revolts were very common, but they were small-scale rather than large scale. It was "keep your hands off us" rather than "we're going to change the central government all the way in Paris".

The use of force doesn't necessarily need to mean significant violence but the threat of it can be enough as well like when militaries execute coups, they can often be minimal in the amount of violence used.

Use of force can be, from the perspective of the would-be revolutionary, productive or counterproductive. Were I in their position, I would focus on mobilizing discontent, attempting every peaceful avenue (in order to ensure that blame is pinned on the other side, both to fracture the ruling class as well as to bring along your own moderates), and only then, seemingly or actually reluctantly, use the minimum necessary amount of force as a last resort - or even better, use force in response to unjustified force initiated by the other side.

The American revolutionaries were actually quite clever in this. Their slogan was 'no taxation without representation'. This was a slogan many could get behind. But the radicals had no intention of actually accepting representation in Parliament, because they thought or at least argued that they could not be represented so far away. The obstreperousness of the British government prevented a fracture between the moderates and the radicals.

If you want change, step 1 is to do no harm.