3 ms·
You should've led with the American Revolution, which was more of an insurrection than a true revolution. It's usually the poster child for a "good" revolution,
by jacques_chester 11y ago
You should've led with the American Revolution, which was more of an insurrection than a true revolution. It's usually the poster child for a "good" revolution, though.
But all of the ones you cited support my argument: the process of revolution is brutally destructive and rapidly promotes psychopaths into positions of murderous authority.
Reform is often possible without them, which is why (fortunately) true revolution is relatively rare.
- ionised 11y ago> But all of the ones you cited support my argument: the process of revolution is brutally destructive and rapidly promotes psychopaths into positions of murderous authority. I don't think they do. Both the English and French revolutions led to better societies for the average citizen in spite of the bloodshed and chaos that was present initially. I would go so far as to say it was necessary. What group of powerful elites will relinquish total control willingly?
- jacques_chester 11y agoVery few elites start with total control. Most of the reforms that have led to modern liberal democracy were taken voluntarily, even if begrudgingly.