Why do most historical revolutions lead to garbage outcomes, save America and a few others?

Is it an ideological issue?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yes. America had a democratic ethos going back to the Mayflower Compact, Virginia House of Burgesses, etc.

in some circumstances its the state in which the people revolting are in. The american colonists were some of the best off, they had a growing economy and population with it whereas revolts in france (1783) and the russians (1917) for example had rampart poverty and little food. Another possibility is the people behind the revolts and their efforts, whereas Samuel Adams and other rebels ran along the streets shouting that the regulars are coing or when americans dropped their farming equipment to quickly run to the fight the french beheaded guards and the russian hung a bunch of people. Another fact is that the americans had the possibility to sit Washington on the american throne just as Napoleon later did but they, unlike any other civilization, truly fought for freedom.

A revolution is a process of increasing radicalization, and by the time the government is radical enough to defend itself using violence cucks like op think it's trash. The American war of independence wasn't a revolution, there was no societal change

American revolution was much less of revolution the strongest power in the colonies didn't change the elite remained for the most part the same. It really.is more accurate to call it a revolt.

except for the largest empire of the time and along with it the entire world changed...

There was no radical movement who gained power and tried to fundamentally reshape society like the jacobins or the levelers
It was a tax dispute

What became the elite in the USA were nobodies, your comment is therefore wrong.
>1776
nice
yes there was, the Patriots. They gained power over the parliament (and truthfully they only wanted to because of taxes) but their revolt had ended up creating a new form of government and the hope the french and others were inspired to follow.

A lot of the revolutionaries were already important figures in pre-colonial society, and there were no radical egalitarian movements or changes in social strata. It wasn't a revolution

*pre-independence

but the fact that a lot weren't important figures is what changed the world. Americans created a society truly based on meritocracy, something no monarchy of the time had.

But there were numerous republics in the world before the American Revolution.

They may have been nobodies to the British but the vast majority of revolutionary leaders were the powerful people of the colonies. Remember that the British were really hands off in governing the colonies for most of their existence.

No they didn't
The people who owned land, were wealthy, and held high positions in society before the war were almost entirely the same after the war

Jews and the wannabe jews (aka masons).
Masons in particular shit everything they touch.

USA wasn't so much a revolution as it was an assertion of the facts. The men in charge of the colonies in North America became independent from Britain in the same manner that Carthage became independent from Phoenicia, or Syracuse from Corinth. It wasn't until after the revolution that the events got swept up in enlightenment ideology and acquired their now semi-mythical status.

The people's revolt aspect of the revolution got swept aside very quickly once the Virginia aristocracy assumed control of it. The people stayed in line while the fight was still against Britain, but once that was over and they found they had exchanged their distant British masters for ambitious new Virginian ones they tried the revolt a second time. This time it didn't work out.

The ideology that many associate with the revolution and the founding fathers wasn't really the norm in the actual government until the Jeffersonian revolution in 1801.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

American revolution was just an independence war and no real revolution.
It was not much different from what the Dutch and Venetians did centuries earlier when they bailed on Spain and Byzantium respectively.

>no meritocracy
Niqqa what, mongols are the go to example of meritocratic rapists, royal favour is a well known phrase
Honestly burgers just admit the American 'revolution' was just independence

Because revolutionaries tend to be good at revolutions but shit at administration and all the "boring" work of actually making a successful society (because if they were good administrators and politicians, they would join the establishment instead of fighting it). They run their countries like they ran whatever revolutionary group they were in.

>Americans created a society truly based on meritocracy

Yeah, like 70+ years after independence. Wasn't until the Industrial Revolution was there any major growth in the middle or upper classes. A lot of the founding fathers were more in favor of an oligarchy than a true meritocracy.

>all revolutions with outcomes I like are a success and vindicate my conception of history

t. whig

I would love to see an in depth analysis on the issue. Every discussion/piece I've seen has been plagued by people struggling to define what is and is not a revolution, discounting many historical events that could be considered revolutions, and poor analysis of the aftermath of revolutions.

Counter revolutions generally don't count. The Meiji Revolution is generally ignored when talking about modern revolutions, the focus on France, Russia, and the US. Ancient events like what some of the Greek Tyrants did aren't considered in the calculus of "what revolutions have and have not been successful". Monarchs or autocrats who overthrew the existing order and ushered in a new one are rarely considered either (was Augustus a revolutionary?). I'm not sure why the revolution in Russia is considered to be a failure. They established a regime that lasted for several decades that would become a superpower before fading out.

>largest empire on earth
>1776
wew

Most revolutions destroy the existing social, economic, and political infrastructure in place, on purpose. The American Revolution was succesful because it wanted to empower the current (democratic) infrastructure.

>Every discussion/piece I've seen has been plagued by people struggling to define what is and is not a revolution
That's the problem though, defining what is a revolution, a revolt, or a reformation isn't clear. IMO Meiji or Augustus would be closer to reformations due to a steward supervising and keeping stability, while revolts go against the current authority and revolutions go against the current order of society.

implying the US is a good outcome heh

>IMO Meiji or Augustus would be closer to reformations
Maybe Augustus but not the Meiji revolution. The changes it ushered were too vast/sudden and like other revolutions they suffered from a short period of instability where the old order tried to reassert themselves (see things like the Satsuma Rebellion for example) before they could finally claim supremacy.

The 13 Colonies had basically been running themselves for more than a century. Then after the revolution they stuck to trying a government with the maximum amount of freedom and minimum amount of centralized power.

Other places (France/Russia, Latin America) were too used to a strong central government and when the chains were broken, chimped out and then turned to the nearest strong-man that promised to fix shit leading to endless parades of dictatorships, juntas and other assorted banana republics.

/thread