If the French and Russian revolutions taught me anything is that Revolutions lead to extremists in power and a shit ton of executions.
Was all the murder and State atheism really worth it for the destruction of governments that were not so good but at least held stability and Christian virtue?
Besides the American revolution has any historical revolution been all that good in it's wake?
In general, the colonial revolutions of the Americas probably ended better because they were simply declaring independence from a distant administration, whereas in the French and Russian revolutions the administration is much more present where the revolution was taking place, causing radicalised policies to sustain themselves, such as the extensive executions of the French and the cult of personality of the Soviets.
>Stability
>Gets into succession wars.
>succession wars
>common or particularly destructive
Pick one. The Kingdom of France lasted 800 years.
A Christian revolution led to the death of 21 million people in china it's not Christian virtues but the status quo.
Likewise the most violent revolutions are those who are at most risk from foriegn intervention.
As for revolutions that have done good look at the English, Dutch , bolivarian, South Korean , Vietnamese and Turkish revolutions
>Besides the American revolution has any historical revolution been all that good in it's wake?
Up to half the population of the new USA was deported or repatriated following the war, to say nothing of the massive free-for-all it created in the economy that lead to some robber barons whose dynasties are still players in American politics. We know less about it because the ARW is so mythologised (even outside America) and because it was so long ago and so (relatively) far away from the center of world culture in Europe. The French revolution is painted as much more violent but probably directly harmed fewer people, at least until the whole of Europe declared war on them.
But yes, this has been my conclusion from the history of revolutions, they enable extremists and radicals and psychopaths to reshape societies in fundamental and lasting ways. The outcome is wildly unpredictable but always involves mass deaths, revolutions as a mechanism for social change is like using a chainsaw to amputate a gangrenous finger.
>A Christian revolution led to the death of 21 million people in china it's not Christian virtues but the status quo.
>taiping rebellion
>christian
>English, Dutch , bolivarian, South Korean , Vietnamese and Turkish revolutions
None of those revolutions can be called good other than maybe Korea.
Short answer
>no
Long answer
>no, read Hobbes "Leviathan" for more information on the cost of revolution compared to societal stability and order under an imperfect government
>the French and Russian revolutions taught me anything is that Revolutions lead to extremists in power
If you define extremist as any anyone who dares to question the status quo, then sure.
>shit ton of executions
Yeah bud, your precious little monarchies were totally innocent of any violence I'm sure.
>State atheism
Like it's something bad
Yeah, Jacobins and Bolsheviks totally weren't ISIS-tier extremists, they were just questioning the status quo
Whilst the violence and bloodshed didn't have to happen in France, the status quo did very little to prevent it and they're unwillingness to relieve themselves of the vast privileges they had which made their countrymen suffer sowed the seeds for their own downfall.
Man is an animal. Bloodshed will happen from time to time.
...
Japanese revolution was good. Very similar to American one.
>If the French and Russian revolutions taught me anything is that Revolutions lead to extremists in power and a shit ton of executions.
That's what revolutions are for, you hippie
>Russian revolution
Let me guess, you think the only Russian Revolution was the Bolshevik one and the only alternative to that was the monarchy, right?
>turks destroy the decadent and backwards ottoman empire
>create a modern nation state
>drive back the invaders and at least keep the turkish heartlands
That seems like a good revolution to me
>anatolia
>Turkish heartland
The difference between the American revolution and the French or Russian revolutions was that the American patriots didn't really sought the utopian transformation of the entire society through political action, like the Jacobins or Bolsheviks. They instead wanted a return to a previous standard, which they saw in America before the increased interventionism of the British monarchy after the Seven Years War.
What usually leads to extremism and tons of execution is the belief that this violence is justified by the imagined future they are about to bring. Bolsheviks weren't just psychopaths murdering millions just because, they literally believed they were bringing communist utopia, so it was with Robespierre and liberty.
By the time that the French Revolution got dirty and the Terreur began, the nobles and the clergy had forsaken most of their privileges. Louis XVI was not executed because he was a tyrant, but because we was accused of treason.
The American Revolution wasn't really a revolution, it was an insurgent campaign designed to beat out a supposedly foreign government.
The French, Iranian, or Russian revolutions were actual revolutions and imbued their people with crazy high confidence, especially with the French and Iranians. I guess that's somewhat good.
>ITT: all these posters pretending Jacobins were the only ones in charge
desu baka senpaitachi
this
fuck off back to stanistan
bump
>christian virtue
What the fuck is that?
What the moneygobbling protestants preach, or what the child-fucking catholics preach?
Or maybe what the hate-mongering orthos preach?
Also, it's not revolution - it's the institutionalization after revolution.
Most of them have been shit, yes.
>ancien regime
>christian virtue
i think you need to read a book instead of browsing /pol/
>that Revolutions lead to extremists in power and a shit ton of executions.
That's a shit lesson you've learned. You haven't learned why did revolutions happen or did they had any other effect than those mentioned factors.
>Was all the murder and State atheism really worth it for the destruction of governments that were not so good but at least held stability and Christian virtue?
Totally.
>Besides the American revolution has any historical revolution been all that good in it's wake?
Revolution is the result of natural course of history, it can't be good or bad. It just happens. And the executed people mostly deserve what they get.
get a load of this jacobin
It's somewhat erroneous to call the civil war that precedes a radical restructuring of society the revolution.
The revolution is the restructuring itself which happens once a power block has been establish.
To give example of the French Revolution the insurrections, barricades, and terrors themselves are a relatively small part of the conflict, and to consider them immense acts of barbarity is a stretch.
It was the large scale military actions against marginalized parts of France, the forced "Peasants into Frenchmen" policies under Napoleon, and the leviathan of the Levee en Mass that led to millions of soldier and civilian deaths; all of which occurred more or less under the guise of 'business as usual' for the nations involved; two legitimized governments engaging in one another.
Likewise relatively few people died in the early soviet terrors compared to the millions killed later once the power block had consolidated and foreign powers became involved, eg. Polish-Soviet War, WWII, etc.
It's hypocritical to take issue with a government for killing its own people more than when that same government kills foreigners; so this emphasis on the 'terrors of revolution' is somewhat odd considering the real bloodshed always happens once 'business as usual' is returned to.
TLDR; the violent overthrow of authority is going to be bloody, no shit. Where the importance lies is what the new regime does afterwords and how other powers react to it.