• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Was there ever a revolution where the results were immediately positive?

 
 
 
P

Playball40

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
2,273
Location
Gallifrey
Basic Beliefs
Non-religious
I'm curious because of so many 'failed revolutions' in recent history. But, and maybe my history is just limited, it seems that most revolutions do/did not bring on immediate positive results. That there were growing pains/adjustments/anger from other factions that didn't seem to change until those that participated died off. France was a century before democracy took hold. America certainly wasn't immediate and we still ended up in a civil war less than a century later. Spain? Cuba? Russia? Middle east? Africa?

Can someone give me some historical insight?
 
This question requires some very subjective quantification of results. America went from a collection of colonies to a confederation of sovereign states, each of which was a democratic republic.That could be viewed as a positive result, if one thinks democratic republics are a good thing.

As for the American Revolution, with the exception of Iceland, the United States is the oldest functioning governmental structure in the world. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the other nations of the world were ruled by hereditary monarchs whose powers ranged from despotic to constitutionally restrained. In the intervening years, a few of those countries have been through many and sometimes radical changes.

For all it's problems, Cubans now have a higher standard of living than before their revolution. Some people say they suffered the oppression of a Communist dictator. This maybe a fair trade off, maybe not.

One of the problems of this kind of question is it doesn't take into account what conditions were before a revolution. When a situation comes to the point that violence is the only viable solution, things are pretty fucked up. It's unrealistic to expect something positive from armed conflict.
 
It also depends on what you mean by 'immediate.' Generally the hubbub of a revolution will produce all kinds of short term problems, including displacement of people, economic disruption, hostility from foreign powers, etc. Generally, these all have to be worked through. I can't think of one that went through with no hubbub and netted results most people would call 'immediate,' as in no time between revolution and prosperity.

If you define 'immediate' in a more historically sound fashion, say 'within 10 years,' possibly the American Revolution, and possibly the Meiji Restoration in Japan both led to great growth in a relatively brief time. One could argue that the Chinese Communist revolution and the post war 5 year plan led to a great deal of growth and prosperity, until it got too far ahead of itself with the 'Great Leap Forward.' Of course, you also have to say whether you consider the Meiji 'Restoration' to be a 'Revolution.' Also contenders: the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy by Garibaldi, and the German Empire by Bismark. Do those count as 'revolutions?'
 
So a minimum of five to ten years really does seem to be necessary in any kind of drastic government change? What made some successful and others fall apart? In a different thread they are talking about Libya and how horrible it is now (and supposedly how much better it was under Gaddafi). So what would have been needed to see stability in a place like Libya or Egypt or Iraq? What did the US and Japan have that these other countries did not? I'm trying to find the common denominators.
 
Playball40 said:
So a minimum of five to ten years really does seem to be necessary in any kind of drastic government change? What made some successful and others fall apart? In a different thread they are talking about Libya and how horrible it is now (and supposedly how much better it was under Gaddafi). So what would have been needed to see stability in a place like Libya or Egypt or Iraq? What did the US and Japan have that these other countries did not? I'm trying to find the common denominators.
Click to expand...

In both of those cases, the victors had a large army and no other factions had an army. That drastically cut down the level of post-revolution chaos because order could be imposed. The same thing happened in the Iranian revolution. In the ME countries today, there are dozens of heavily armed factions, all with their own agendas, and none of them can impose their brand of order on the rest.
 
Playball40 said:
So a minimum of five to ten years really does seem to be necessary in any kind of drastic government change? What made some successful and others fall apart? In a different thread they are talking about Libya and how horrible it is now (and supposedly how much better it was under Gaddafi). So what would have been needed to see stability in a place like Libya or Egypt or Iraq? What did the US and Japan have that these other countries did not? I'm trying to find the common denominators.
Click to expand...

It is very difficult to create a democratic republic culture where none has ever existed. Great Britain started to develop what became Parliament in the 13th century, but by 1776, still had a King who held considerable power. The US had the example of Parliament and each colony eventually created its own legislatures. After that, all we had to do was tell the King to go piss up a rope. The American Revolution was more technically a divorce, where a couple sever ties and divide property.

As for Japan, that republic was created under the guns of the United States military.
 
The english had a proto-parlimentary system before the Norman Conquest, which was suppressed by the latter. It took many centuries to restore.

And I hope we are talking about all forms of government. The Meiji Restoration was the overthrow of a military dictatorship and replacing it with a more 'modern' absolute monarchy. Which some people might consider an improvement, and others might not. However, the country indisputably advanced economically as a result. Of course, the nominal head of state remained the same, only he went from being nominal to de facto.

How about Peter the Great's reforms, which sparked conservative revolutions against him, which he crushed? Does that not count as a revolution, just because it was led by the nominal head of state against entrenched interests? If not, it is a good example of how internally initiated reforms can be more effective than revolutions.
 
Arguably, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. Possibly in France, after the Franco-Prussian war, the rise of the Republic and end of emperors and kings. The revolt in England against King James II and the ascension of William of Orange as king and the resultant "Glorious Revolution". Possibly, one could argue, Costa Rica.
 
The revolution was called 'the Glorious Revolution,' but it didn't lead to much other than the repression of Catholics and the replacement of one monarch with another. The only thing to say for it was that it was relatively popular and bloodless.
 
The Glorious Revolution wasn't a revolution as such; it was an invasion by a foreign army - just not one that met military resistance. You could as well describe the invasion of Norway by the Nazis as a 'revolution'.

The British system of government is about ninety years older than that of the USA - after the English Civil War, Restoration, and the 'Glorious Revolution', the system was basically established in its current form. Sure, there were some adjustments, but then, the same is true of the US system of government. If the amendments to the US constitution since the late 18th century don't count as sufficient to change the 'system', then nor do the similarly minor changes to the British 'system' since 1688. If they do count as sufficient, then the US system has only been in place at most since the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971.

So the idea that the US has the oldest 'System of government' bar Iceland's is highly questionable; the British certainly have at least as strong a claim to having a system that is fifty percent older than that of the US.

To the OP, whether a revolution improves things depends entirely on who you ask. The Russian Revolution of 1917 certainly improved the lot of most Russians; life under Bolshevism was no picnic, but it wasn't worse than serfdom under the Tsars, at least for the majority of the population. Of course, that large minority who had the misfortune to be starved in Stalin's collectivisation famines wouldn't agree.

Revolutions rarely lift the oppressed very far - but they often lift them a little, and a little makes a big difference for a lot of people.

The 'important' people - those who had wealth, power or stature before the revolution, almost always end up worse off, and most reportage focuses on them, so it's easy to get the impression that revolutions have always made things worse, but that's far from a universal truth.
 
It depends on one's perspective, but the revolution in Cuba was somewhat successful in a short period of time. The majority of Cubans were little more than slaves to American fruit an sugar companies prior to the revolution. Thanks toothier arrangement with the USSR after the revolution they had education benefits and medical care, essentially a fairly dramatic shift in their lives. The Cuban middle and upper classes, not better and for some, exile to Florida.
 
The Glorious Revolution in England created a government where the king was limited by law and by parliament. It ended the last dregs of divine right of kings in England and feudelism. Not perfect by any means but a big step forward.
 
bilby said:
The British system of government is about ninety years older than that of the USA - after the English Civil War, Restoration, and the 'Glorious Revolution', the system was basically established in its current form. Sure, there were some adjustments, but then, the same is true of the US system of government. If the amendments to the US constitution since the late 18th century don't count as sufficient to change the 'system', then nor do the similarly minor changes to the British 'system' since 1688. If they do count as sufficient, then the US system has only been in place at most since the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971.
Click to expand...
William and Mary had serious power over government decisions. Victoria was a figurehead. That's an "adjustment" comparable to reducing the voting age by three years?

So the idea that the US has the oldest 'System of government' bar Iceland's is highly questionable;
Click to expand...
Definitely: Iceland's claim is based on a few hundred years of independence back in the Middle Ages. Iceland was ruled successively by Norway, Sweden and Denmark from 1264 until 1918.

the British certainly have at least as strong a claim to having a system that is fifty percent older than that of the US.
Click to expand...
Bah, humbug. San Marino has been operating under its current constitution since 1600.

To the OP, whether a revolution improves things depends entirely on who you ask. The Russian Revolution of 1917 certainly improved the lot of most Russians; life under Bolshevism was no picnic, but
Click to expand...
Which Russian Revolution of 1917 are you talking about? The February revolution against the Tsar or the October Revolution against the liberal democracy?

it wasn't worse than serfdom under the Tsars, at least for the majority of the population.
Click to expand...
The Tsars abolished serfdom in the 1860s.

Of course, that large minority who had the misfortune to be starved in Stalin's collectivisation famines wouldn't agree.
Click to expand...
Likewise that large minority who had the misfortune to be starved in Lenin's collectivisation famine.
 
bilby said:
The Glorious Revolution wasn't a revolution as such; it was an invasion by a foreign army - just not one that met military resistance. You could as well describe the invasion of Norway by the Nazis as a 'revolution'.

The British system of government is about ninety years older than that of the USA - after the English Civil War, Restoration, and the 'Glorious Revolution', the system was basically established in its current form. Sure, there were some adjustments, but then, the same is true of the US system of government. If the amendments to the US constitution since the late 18th century don't count as sufficient to change the 'system', then nor do the similarly minor changes to the British 'system' since 1688. If they do count as sufficient, then the US system has only been in place at most since the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971.

So the idea that the US has the oldest 'System of government' bar Iceland's is highly questionable; the British certainly have at least as strong a claim to having a system that is fifty percent older than that of the US.

To the OP, whether a revolution improves things depends entirely on who you ask. The Russian Revolution of 1917 certainly improved the lot of most Russians; life under Bolshevism was no picnic, but it wasn't worse than serfdom under the Tsars, at least for the majority of the population. Of course, that large minority who had the misfortune to be starved in Stalin's collectivisation famines wouldn't agree.

Revolutions rarely lift the oppressed very far - but they often lift them a little, and a little makes a big difference for a lot of people.

The 'important' people - those who had wealth, power or stature before the revolution, almost always end up worse off, and most reportage focuses on them, so it's easy to get the impression that revolutions have always made things worse, but that's far from a universal truth.
Click to expand...

Close, but no cigar.

In 1776, Britain had a hereditary monarch who controlled the military and foreign policy. Such a thing has never existed in the United States.

Our Constitution, with it's three branches of government and system of checks and balances, still stands as it did the day the Constitution was ratified.
 
The American Revolution was neither American nor a revolution, discuss.

But seriously, it was unlike France, Russia, China and most other "revolutions" in that was against the rule of a distal foreign power. It was somewhat of a blend between a revolution and expelling an occupying power. The people who were killed and defeated were essentially foreigners rather than members of the community whose associates and relatives remained part of the post-revolution community.
 
ronburgundy said:
The American Revolution was neither American nor a revolution, discuss.
Click to expand...

I'm going to say the American Revolution was more akin to a revolt as it did not significantly alter the ruling class or government structures. It just removed the colonial layer of organization and replaced it with a federal one.
 
I'd argue there were plenty of immediate positive results from the American Revolution. For one thing, Britain no longer had to babysit us, or engage in a costly war that they couldn't win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom