3 ms·

> The problem is that the Revolution did not stop at killing the King and its supporters, it basically turned into a massive genocide where everyone could becom

> The problem is that the Revolution did not stop at killing the King and its supporters, it basically turned into a massive genocide where everyone could become the next target So, just like almost every other revolution in history, eh? (The American Rebellion and the English Civil War are arguably two exceptions, both enabled by extremely special circumstances.) The curious thing is that that anyone bothers with revolutionary change any more. "I know! Let's have a revolution! That's hardly ever worked before so it's bound to work this time!" Admittedly, revolutions do happen in part because of the breakdown of tyrannical regimes, but incrementalism, even in the face of tyranny, is historically far more likely to produce better outcomes. It is what freed most of Eastern Europe from the Soviets, for example. Unfortunately incrementalism takes patience, and humans are far too willing to pursue quick fixes that don't work over long games that do. It's a very curious thing.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> So, just like almost every other revolution in history, eh? (The American Rebellion and the English Civil War are arguably two exceptions, both enabled by extremely special circumstances.) There's actually lots of examples from regional separatist movements that had strong buy-in from the local elites, like the American Revolution (to use its popular local name, though it really wasn't really a revolution.) > Admittedly, revolutions do happen in part because of the breakdown of tyrannical regimes, but incrementalism, even in the face of tyranny, is historically far more likely to produce better outcomes. Tyrannies violently purge even incrementalists, and revolutionaries (because they start out with stronger boundaries and an expectation that they'll be hunted whereas incrementalists are more open expecting to be able to work within the system) are, on average, more prepared to deal with that kind of effort. > It is what freed most of Eastern Europe from the Soviets, for example. It may be what freed most of Eastern Europe from Soviet-style local tyrannies, but what freed them from the USSR was the economic collapse of the USSR after a protracted spending war with the most developed economies in the world (no small part of which involved the more developed countries backing revolutionary groups in places that were within the Soviet sphere of influence, so in a very real sense revolutionaries were quite instrumental.)

dragonwriter 12y ago

> So, just like almost every other revolution in history, eh? (The American Rebellion and the English Civil War are arguably two exceptions, both enabled by extremely special circumstances.) There's actually lots of examples from regional separatist movements that had strong buy-in from the local elites, like the American Revolution (to use its popular local name, though it really wasn't really a revolution.) > Admittedly, revolutions do happen in part because of the breakdown of tyrannical regimes, but incrementalism, even in the face of tyranny, is historically far more likely to produce better outcomes. Tyrannies violently purge even incrementalists, and revolutionaries (because they start out with stronger boundaries and an expectation that they'll be hunted whereas incrementalists are more open expecting to be able to work within the system) are, on average, more prepared to deal with that kind of effort. > It is what freed most of Eastern Europe from the Soviets, for example. It may be what freed most of Eastern Europe from Soviet-style local tyrannies, but what freed them from the USSR was the economic collapse of the USSR after a protracted spending war with the most developed economies in the world (no small part of which involved the more developed countries backing revolutionary groups in places that were within the Soviet sphere of influence, so in a very real sense revolutionaries were quite instrumental.)