And, I have compared the American Revolution to the Russian Revolution multiple times here.
Cottage industry was a thing, but ultimately it was land enclosure and the resulting exodus of farmers to the cities that created the excess labor force for capitalism in the UK.
Rurality has everything to do with it, especially in a country like the United States with a massive expanse of land. Whilst I know and actually approve of the expropriation of native land, most of the land conquered West was unsuited for slave plantation labor. In fact, the Republican Party's initial popularity under Lincoln's electoral campaign came from fears of Western farmers of plantation owners expanding slavery out west. The farmers of the west relied on themselves, their families, and later machines for agricultural labor, not African slaves. Most African slaves remained in the coastal South. And, who cares if a few thousand Indians, who already mostly died from smallpox and live inefficiently, had to move to a reservation to make room for millions of poor settlers who would be proles otherwise.
And, that is blatantly false. France's population growth has been slow and even stagnant during most of the 19th century, especially compared to Germany. If France took in a similar immigration rate as the United States did, the native population would've either had not bred at all or France's population should be astronomically higher that it was or even is today. So, it was the slow population growth that probably increased the worth of labor. France's nice and slow industrialization is also actually closer to the norm for continental Europe than Britain's industrialization model. Though, France did have a well-documented wave of immigration in the 1920s and 30s, perhaps in response to the losses of WW1. I haven't been able to find any distinct information on 19th century immigration aside from the slow population growth which suggests that you are wrong at least in the rate of immigration.
Yeoman farmers actually did have plenty of say in politics, in both the South and North. It was mostly indentured workers and slaves who lacked suffrage. The latter were liberated by the end of the American Revolution by Jeffersonian efforts, and the vast majority of the white population owned property during 1776. In fact, income equality was high compared to today.
Yeoman farmers also were behind many rebellions, had many of their own in government, and essentially were the third most powerful force in American politics, next to the mercantile elites and the planters. The planters felt no threat from the yeomanry specifically due to the excess land of the West, which prevented a situation where farmers would run out of land and thus rebel against the plantation owners like what happened during Bacon's Rebellion. The mercantile elite's attempts to subverting the yeomanry led to various rebellions happening, especially in Northern states where the political extremes between antifederalism and federalism were strongest.
As for the Russian Revolution, I would say that the anarchists and SRs were the Jeffersonians/Anti-federalists of that revolution, while the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were the Federalists. Kronstadt could be considered the Shay's Rebellion of Russia.
