Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the Post-WWII era, have violent revolutions deposing existing governments more often made living conditions in the country better or worse in the ensuing years?
As a rule, yes. Eugene Debs once famously observed that "The most heroic word in all languages is revolution." While politically immature people tend to love the romantic notion of violently overthrowing the old order and installing the new, they fail to appreciate a different truth spoken by Robespierre on the way to his execution, namely that revolutions eat their own children. The reason for that is simple. Once people get into the habit of simply shooting those with whom they politically disagree, it becomes awfully hard to stop.
The French Revolution began with ideals and ended in disaster. It was finally resulted in Napoleon's lemming-like crusade to conquer the world. In retrospect, France would likely have been better off with the Bourbons--no matter how many Frenchmen celebrate the revolution and Napoleon today.
The Russian Revolution led to Lenin and Stalin, and 70 years of repressive rule that made the Czars look benign in comparison.
The Iranian Revolution led to an Islamic fundamentalist state.
Even the English, a people who normally have good sense, had frequent civil wars, one of which led to the Interregnum under Oliver Cromwell.
In the Cuban Revolution, Che Guevera was in charge of the revolutionary tribunals and firing squads that sent untold numbers to their deaths. Whenever I see someone lauding the man or wearing the guy's image on a t-shirt, I know there's a halfwit on my hands, someone who values image over actions.
China's Revolution was horrific in its aftermath. Revolutions in Latin America and Africa simply replace one band of thugs with another. The people who deposed Gaddafi in Libya are now looking to be cut from a similar cloth.
And the list goes on.
In that sense, the American Revolution was almost historically unique. Aside from a few thousand Tories exiled to Canada or England, there was little in terms of social costs. No long lines of condemned awaiting the hangman's noose or firing squad, no violent reprisals, no counterrevolutions.
I think, for that, George Washington is owed a tremendous debt. The man voluntarily stepped down from office, thereby creating the precedent for the orderly succession of power in this country. Of course, the exception to all this was the Civil War, where the South did not accept this principle, seceded, and paid the price in the form of 300,000 dead and a ruined region. I would also submit that non-violent revolutions such as those in South Africa and the Philippines have also been positive ones.
As a rule, yes. Eugene Debs once famously observed that "The most heroic word in all languages is revolution." While politically immature people tend to love the romantic notion of violently overthrowing the old order and installing the new, they fail to appreciate a different truth spoken by Robespierre on the way to his exception, namely that revolutions eat their own children. The reason for that is simple. Once people get into the habit of simply shooting those with whom they politically disagree, it becomes awfully hard to stop.
The French Revolution began with ideals and ended in disaster. It was finally resulted in Napoleon's lemming-like crusade to conquer the world. In retrospect, France would have been better off with the Bourbons.
The Russian Revolution led to Lenin and Stalin, and 70 years of repressive rule that made the Czars look benign in comparison.
The Iranian Revolution led to an Islamic fundamentalist state.
Even the English, a people who normally have good sense, had frequent civil wars, one of which led to the Interregnum under Oliver Cromwell.
In the Cuban Revolution, Che Guevera was in charge of the revolutionary tribunals and firing squads that sent untold numbers to their deaths. Whenever I see someone lauding the man or wearing the guy's image on a t-shirt, I know there's a halfwit on my hands.
China's Revolution was horrific in its aftermath. Revolutions in Latin America and Africa simply replace one band of thugs with another. The people who deposed Gaddafi in Libya are now looking to be cut from a similar cloth.
And the list goes on.
In that sense, the American Revolution was almost historically unique. Aside from a few thousand Tories exiled to Canada or England, there was little in terms of social costs. No long lines of condemned awaiting the hangman's noose or firing squad, no violent reprisals, no counterrevolutions.
I think, for that, George Washington is owed a tremendous debt. The man voluntarily stepped down from office, thereby creating the precedent for the orderly succession of power in this country. Of course, the exception to all this was the Civil War, where the South did not accept this principle, seceded, and paid the price in the form of 300,000 dead and a ruined region. I would also submit that non-violent revolutions such as those in South Africa and the Philippines have also been positive ones.
I wonder if France had rebelled first if the US would have had a far more bloody revolution than it did. Our revolution inspired theirs and ours was far less bloody. If we'd followed their tradition?
The US Revolution is also a civil war that the rebels won. But it was not the respectful act that we were commonly taught in school either. Civilian on civilian violence was common. Torries got burned out and patriots did too by the other side. No revolution can avoid the vengence played on an individual basis against the other side.
The good or harm a revolution does is relative. The immediate in any violent revolution is bound to make life far worse. Wars and insurgencies do that. In the long term, so much depends on what basis the change has in the society. The unique thing about the US was that there already was a parlimentary govenment and a historical tradition of law which the revolution continued. The French did not have this, just the absolute power of kings, nor did the Russians. The democtratic govenment there was born of a small intelligencia but had not touched the aristoricy or the pesants and was in some ways bound to fail when faced with trumoil.
First, a revolution tears apart. Then it puts it back together. I think this is why so many, even the majority of revolutions where there was no real practice of 'freedom' end the way they do, since once you take out the top there is nothing to replace it but the same with new faces.
The PBS series on South Africa was so intersting since it was a world wide effort which forced the end, largely employing worldwide economic power, and there was a structure to simply replace with a wider range of people. The amnesty given was also a part of it not turning bloody in the aftermath, a firm step moving away from violence.
I wonder if France had rebelled first if the US would have had a far more bloody revolution than it did. Our revolution inspired theirs and ours was far less bloody. If we'd followed their tradition?
The US Revolution is also a civil war that the rebels won. But it was not the respectful act that we were commonly taught in school either. Civilian on civilian violence was common. Torries got burned out and patriots did too by the other side. No revolution can avoid the vengence played on an individual basis against the other side.
The good or harm a revolution does is relative. The immediate in any violent revolution is bound to make life far worse. Wars and insurgencies do that. In the long term, so much depends on what basis the change has in the society. The unique thing about the US was that there already was a parlimentary govenment and a historical tradition of law which the revolution continued. The French did not have this, just the absolute power of kings, nor did the Russians. The democtratic govenment there was born of a small intelligencia but had not touched the aristoricy or the pesants and was in some ways bound to fail when faced with trumoil.
First, a revolution tears apart. Then it puts it back together. I think this is why so many, even the majority of revolutions where there was no real practice of 'freedom' end the way they do, since once you take out the top there is nothing to replace it but the same with new faces.
The PBS series on South Africa was so intersting since it was a world wide effort which forced the end, largely employing worldwide economic power, and there was a structure to simply replace with a wider range of people. The amnesty given was also a part of it not turning bloody in the aftermath, a firm step moving away from violence.
Thanks for a well-considered response. I'm not so bamboozled to believe that the American Revolution took place in perfect civility and that there were no civilian reprisals or casualties. As clarification, the point I make is that, compared to other revolutions, the fallout was very light.
And I agree with you on South Africa. I think the smartest thing Mandela did was form his committees of reconciliation, creating a situation where massive reprisals for decades of Apartheid and repression didn't take place. As a result, there was not massive emigration, capital flight, or the confiscation of assets that happened in Rhodesia. Sad, however, that the example will not be followed elsewhere.
South Africa is an interesting case study how to win the war but lose the peace. That country was very well off economically, but they really made a huge mistake giving away the store to the current leadership. Now, it's a economic disaster, huge crime problems and for many blacks they are just as poor as before the current leadership took over.
I wonder if France had rebelled first if the US would have had a far more bloody revolution than it did. Our revolution inspired theirs and ours was far less bloody. If we'd followed their tradition?
.
The revolutions were different in character and I suspect that those differences would have more to do with the outcomes than would the chronological order.
While the American Revolution did contain a Civil War within the conflict, after the Declaration, the American perception was firmly in place that this was an international war, one nation against another. On its outcome hinged the question of whether America was to have home rule, or continue to exist as a political sub unit of the British Empire. Consequently, the goal was pretty simple and the end could be clearly identified because it would consist of either the British formally acknowledging American independence, or in the alternative, the American army dispersed and the members of the Continental Congress awaiting trial for treason.
It was never a war to vanquish British culture, merely British overlords. Americans were not out to alter their lives or society in any drastic manner. The post revolution world was expected to be very much like the pre revolution world, only with local autonomy rather than Trans Atlantic supervision.
The French Revolution was an internal class war. It was a great deal more difficult to identify what would constitute the end point. Would it be when the nobility was removed from power? When the wealthy estates were broken up and their wealth distributed to the poorest classes? When all the people suspected of being counter revolutionaries were dead? When some sort of power sharing arrangement between the existing estates was worked out or when all estate distinctions were eradicated? Would the revolution be complete if the Catholic Church was left intact or did that need to be utterly destroyed? How would anyone know when enough societal reform was enough?
It was the difference between changing landlords, and changing the entire concept of land ownership. The latter is certain to be more chaotic.
However, I do agree with cpg who credited George Washington for preventing post revolution disorder. Washington set an incredibly good example with his behavior. Despite Congress giving him plenty of justification for overthrowing them, despite his soldiers often urging him to lead them to Philadelphia for that purpose, despite many telling Washington that he could be King if he wished, George never once wavered in any manner. The military was to be subordinate to civillian authority in America, and that was that as far as Washington was concerned. He would permit no talk of trying to upset this arrangement, no talk of any sort of title for himself, and he continued to treat Congress with the courtesy expected of a subordinate. Washington could not be corrupted by his own ego, it was splendid behavior, and we owe him much for it.
I guess that some revolutions are a backward step, I'm thinking of the Iranian and Cuban revolutions. Others are benefical, but taking into account that revolutions also brings terror and dictatorships.
I guess that some revolutions are a backward step, I'm thinking of the Iranian and Cuban revolutions. Others are benefical, but taking into account that revolutions also brings terror and dictatorships.
I think the difference lies in the background and what they are built upon. If its just rage, then it provides good fuel to create the revolution but not much of a good basis to grow from. If its got rage and a history of some functional system then if lucky that system fills in the gaps between new and old. In an absence of that, it creates a vaccuum for the power grabbers to take hold unopposed.
Even revolutions which had a moderate support base, France and Russia, failed because it wasn't strong enough to hold and 'added on'. France, those who were inspired by the US wanted democracy, but most of the poor who embrased the revolution just wanted revenge. In Russia, the early reformers did wish to practice democracy but also did not have the support of the pesantry. And the 'theory' was very pure. If there was to be no privilidge, then even officers in the military didn't differenchiate themselves. The social democrats gave way to the theoretical marxists, who also failed because Marx was an optimist about human nature. Thus in the trumoil, those who would do as needed to create order took over. No matter they called themselves communists or marxists, in reality they were really just despots with a different label.
Somebody wins every revolution. Unless there is more than a cadre of support for the idealists, they tend not to be the winners.
I think Grandstander did a good job summing up why the American Revolution was different. It was ultimately not a revolution to overthrow or abolish an existing system and culture as much as it was to establish the independence of a part of an empire and establish a more refined system of one that was already essentially in existence. The American colonies possessed "an American style government" in practice, long before anyone signed a declaration.
When it comes to other revolutions, the direct outcome is most often a massive bloodletting as one ideal replaces another. Even after that, there is often another period of bloodshed or counter-revolution as the nation attempts to establish balance, which of course is different for every nation and can be separated by decades. I think ultimately, people are trying to reach an equillibrium. When one side of the scale tips too far, revolution is response. If the revolution creates an extreme, which it often does, there is a counter-revolution to attempt to restore balance. What that balance is, is the unique question for each nation/people and is often greatly influenced by outside events.
One of the more interesting precepts of the American model is that "revolution" is virtually built into the system. The people have the ability to change their government on a regular basis to suit the direction of the majority and even have a method for radically altering the design of the country through amending the constitution. It is also unique in that the original American revoluationaries had the good sense to give up power based on the Washington model. Often times the problems with revolutions is that revolutionaries tend to make poor leaders and don't know when to get out of the way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
