NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to open this up for general discussion. How and why have revolutions in the past succeeded or failed? To be clear I'm not talking only about violent revolutions or only about social revolutions, any revolution on a large scale is acceptable. I'll add my throughts as the discussion progresses (if it progresses).

A revolution by its very definition is a success. A rebellion is a failed revolution.

A revolution by its very definition is a success. A rebellion is a failed revolution.

So add the word "attempted" before revolution and discuss ideas not sematics please.

I'm not, I was responding to your proposition. I gave you a clear, concise answer on what you put forth. Every revolution has succeeded in the past and every revolution shall succeed in the future.

succesfull revolutions generally occur when the existing regime is unable to accomodate change. Cultural change, technological change or changes in external political environment can all contribute. The classic social revolutions in France, Russia, and China all fit this description.

ooh, i remember another point (I think I'm ripping off Hobsbawm)

Revolutions dont occur when good regimes go bad, they occur when bad regimes attempt to reform. Moving towards reform is a sign of weakness that often lends momentum to revolutionaries.

I'm not, I was responding to your proposition. I gave you a clear, concise answer on what you put forth. Every revolution has succeeded in the past and every revolution shall succeed in the future.Jeez, get with the program. Substitute 'attempted revolt' for 'revolution' and lets move on. It's not like we don't know what OE means.

Success depends on a overwhelming dissention between the populace and the rulers. There must also be something to bring cohesiveness to the masses.

I'm not, I was responding to your proposition. I gave you a clear, concise answer on what you put forth. Every revolution has succeeded in the past and every revolution shall succeed in the future.

You have failed entirely to answer the question which is how and why do revolutions succeed, and you continue to debate the semantics of the word revolution without adding "attempted" or understanding that to the common sensibility "revolution" refers both to the attempt and the success. You also fail to understand that not all revolutions are the product of successful rebellions and that many are accomplished not by any act of conscious but by uncontrolled social drift. Only adding to your past failures you use the word revolution in a way disparate from your own stated understanding. You say that a revolution is by definition a success and then say that "every revolution has succeeded" which is tantamount to saying "every success has succeeded," which makes little sense. If you were to say, "All revolutionaries have succeeded" then it would make sense, but would still leave much to be desired in your answering of my initial question.

Actually, a rebellion can have succeeded, but it is true that a revolution can not have failed. Anyhow.

Revolutions have generally succeeded because of wide-scale support from the people whom the revolution affects. Otherwise the sheer uphill fight has been enough to crush things before they get started. Get enough support, and things can be overlooked and minimalized before any counter-revolution action can be taken.

That's what I think at least...

Any sort of revolution needs to have the general support of the nation's indigent people behind it. Even if the imdigents do not actually support it, they cannot be opposed to the revolution or it will fail. In every type of revolution this can be seen:

U.S. Revolution - the general public supported the fight for independence from the British Empire they were willing to fight in the army, hide soldiers, provide supplies, etc . . . If the general public had been opposed, Washington's army would have had no recruits and no where to hide. The fact that a revolution has friendly terrirtory to work in provides an immense benfit to the revolution.

Ghandi's Social Revolution - the use of non-violence as an appeal to the world and to his own people, Ghandi was able to find the backing of the people to free india from British rule. He held a hungar strike and organized marches against the British. All of this occured on friendly terrirtory with the help of the Indians who wanted their own freedom. Result- Ghandi gets his wish, British withdraw from India

Che's Revolution - failed. Che, depsite all of his efforts and his excellent fighters did not have the indigent population on his side. The government had too much control over the people and indocrinated them to hate Che. Che had to hide in the jungle and was constantly facing shortages of supplies. Eventually, he was killed.

You have failed entirely to answer the question which is how and why do revolutions succeed, and you continue to debate the semantics of the word revolution without adding "attempted" or understanding that to the common sensibility "revolution" refers both to the attempt and the success. You also fail to understand that not all revolutions are the product of successful rebellions and that many are accomplished not by any act of conscious but by uncontrolled social drift. Only adding to your past failures you use the word revolution in a way disparate from your own stated understanding. You say that a revolution is by definition a success and then say that "every revolution has succeeded" which is tantamount to saying "every success has succeeded," which makes little sense. If you were to say, "All revolutionaries have succeeded" then it would make sense, but would still leave much to be desired in your answering of my initial question.
Course your original question asks "How and why have all successes either failed or succeeded." No, that makes no sense either. A revolution isn't a "product" of a successful rebellion. A successful rebellion IS a revolution...Anyways, I am done with this, I made my point about the fallacies within your question.

succesfull revolutions generally occur when the existing regime is unable to accomodate change. Cultural change, technological change or changes in external political environment can all contribute. The classic social revolutions in France, Russia, and China all fit this description.

You consider France, Russia, and China to have undergone successful revolutions? I for one, do not. The primarily complaints of the revolutionaries in all three of those countries were continued or extremified under their new leadership after their respective revolutions.

All your responses have been good so far, but remember not only political, but cultural and social revolutions. I view the revolutions in France, Russia, and China as political in nature and with very little substantive changes actually accomplished.

Actually, a rebellion can have succeeded, but it is true that a revolution can not have failed. Anyhow.

Revolutions have generally succeeded because of wide-scale support from the people whom the revolution affects. Otherwise the sheer uphill fight has been enough to crush things before they get started. Get enough support, and things can be overlooked and minimalized before any counter-revolution action can be taken.

That's what I think at least...
not neccesarily. In many cases, revolutionaries are part of small minorities and not untill counter revolutionary action do they gain popular support. Ireland is the classic case. The 1916 revolutionaries had virtually no support yet within 5 years, they won a separate state in the southern 3 counties.

Well most of the sucessful ones succeed by attracting the middle class, when situations get to be such that they feel that revolution is preferable to the security of the status quo, watch out. A revolution of the poor has it's limits, most of them are resigned to their staus, and they tend not to be ambitious (since they woud become at least middle class if they were ambitious). A caveat is order, when the ambitous poor percieve there being no chance for them to advance, and this is supported by fact, the poor may become revolutionaries but very rarely are they sucessful without suppport from some other group, mostly because they are poor and don't have the resurces to support a sucessful revolution. But here we come into a consideration of how to define the sucess of a revolution, if the intent is to force changes then many revolutions which fail to overthrow the established order suceed in changing the status quo - witness SA. Attracting the middle-class to a revolution is a difficult task, they actually own stuff and don't want to see those houses and businesses destroyed in the revolution, so if want to rouse the middle class you must convince them that their stuff is endangered by the status quo to such a degree that the risk of revoluttion is less than the risk of inaction. As for the upper class, well it is unlikely they will participate or encourage revolution, if so it comes from a perception that they would be able to profit from the revolution more than from the status quo, unlikely since they almost by definition are the beneficiaries of the status quo but still possible- witness the Glorious Revolution.

Course your original question asks "How and why have all successes either failed or succeeded." No, that makes no sense either. A revolution isn't a "product" of a successful rebellion. A successful rebellion IS a revolution...Anyways, I am done with this, I made my point about the fallacies within your question.

I say again, the common sensibility (the only real judge of the meaning of a word) holds that revolution can mean either the success or attempt at widespread change. If you are unable to understand it that way, substitute "attempted revolution" or "potential revolution" in place of simply "revolution." Your point was a waste of your time and mine as well as being indefensible, you merely stated that the meaning of a word was one way and not another despite the fact that every other person read the question and understood the intent. Language is not a rigid system, it exists only to facilitate communication, so as long as everyone understood what I said (which it appears they did) then my attempt to communicate was successful and your point is mute.

You consider France, Russia, and China to have undergone successful revolutions? I for one, do not. The primarily complaints of the revolutionaries in all three of those countries were continued or extremified under their new leadership after their respective revolutions.
Oh come on, all three of those are consistently regarded as the 3 defining revolutions of the modern era.

All your responses have been good so far, but remember not only political, but cultural and social revolutions. I view the revolutions in France, Russia, and China as political in nature and with very little substantive changes actually accomplished.
China's revolution had enormous consequences though. Prior to 1906, confucianism was the dominant mode of thought in imperial China and through the May 4th movement from 1919 onwards, China's intellectual elite began to look to the west for inspiration in arts and culture. Surely that counts?

Revolutions require the same thing, as most things seem to need to be successful: marketing (yes the dark side). You need intelligent, charismatic leadership and a strong message to get people to fight and die for your cause. You also need to win over a strong power base and to stay loyal to them, no matter what. Whether or not it’s winning over the merchants or the peasants, you need someone in your corner or you have nothing. Moreover that power base has to have something substantial to gain from the revolution, since zealots can only get you so far.

Without that strong backing from a powerful segment of the population (not necessarily the majority), you’re just another whacko living on the lamb in the jungle. It of course always helps if this backing has money, like the merchants who backed the US revolution against the British for personal power and gain, and a shot at expanding into Indian lands.

The Bruce

Actually, a rebellion can have succeeded, but it is true that a revolution can not have failed. Anyhow.

Revolutions have generally succeeded because of wide-scale support from the people whom the revolution affects. Otherwise the sheer uphill fight has been enough to crush things before they get started. Get enough support, and things can be overlooked and minimalized before any counter-revolution action can be taken.

That's what I think at least...

Would you agree that it is not the number of people affected, but the power of those people to enforce their beliefs on others that determines the success or failure of and attempted revolution? Also, what of revolutions that take place with little or no intentional participants, such as a Industrial Revolution, which was the result of innovtion and not motivated revolutionaries?

Would you agree that it is not the number of people affected, but the power of those people to enforce their beliefs on others that determines the success or failure of and attempted revolution? Also, what of revolutions that take place with little or no intentional participants, such as a Industrial Revolution, which was the result of innovtion and not motivated revolutionaries?
(Without wanting to sound all marxist) the industrial revolution was launched by a new class in society, the merchants, who, as a group had vested interest in replacing agriculture (from which they were excluded by titled and hereditary nobility) as the dominant form of production. While, like you say, it is dificult in this case to define individual revolutionaries and specific revolutionary activity, it is possible to use group interest to explain the industrial revolution.

Would you agree that it is not the number of people affected, but the power of those people to enforce their beliefs on others that determines the success or failure of and attempted revolution? Also, what of revolutions that take place with little or no intentional participants, such as a Industrial Revolution, which was the result of innovtion and not motivated revolutionaries?I don't consider the Industrial Revolution a true revolution. It was more of an evolution. Revolutions in my mind require change to be forced upon those not wanting it.

Oh come on, all three of those are consistently regarded as the 3 defining revolutions of the modern era.

Certainly, they embody and archtype of sociopolitical revolution, but I hold that they were not successes based on their failure to resolve the problems that caused them. In all three countries the majority of the population had little or no political power and was living in poverty. After each revolution the same situation prevailed but under different leadership. In France and Russia, in particular life was made worse as a result of the revolutions. The Reign of Terror in France and Stalin's purges were worse than anything that the French kings or the Russia Czars had done.

China's revolution had enormous consequences though. Prior to 1906, confucianism was the dominant mode of thought in imperial China and through the May 4th movement from 1919 onwards, China's intellectual elite began to look to the west for inspiration in arts and culture. Surely that counts?

That is an important change as a result of the revolution their, but why do you think that happened while the majority of the population remained out of government and in poverty when that was the primary motivating force for the revolution? I think we can view it as two seperate events, a successful cultural revolution from Confucianism to Western semi-agnostic scularism, and a failed sociopolitical revolution from totalitarianism to more totalitarianism. My question to you is, why was one so successful and the other such a monumental failure despite being run by the same people?

I don't consider the Industrial Revolution a true revolution. It was more of an evolution. Revolutions in my mind require change to be forced upon those not wanting it.And the Industrial Revolution wasn't? There were Luddites throughout the world opposed to the Industrial Revolution and the whole Arts and Crafts movement was an unsucessful counter-revolution to the Industrial Revolution.

(Without wanting to sound all marxist) the industrial revolution was launched by a new class in society, the merchants, who, as a group had vested interest in replacing agriculture (from which they were excluded by titled and hereditary nobility) as the dominant form of production. While, like you say, it is dificult in this case to define individual revolutionaries and specific revolutionary activity, it is possible to use group interest to explain the industrial revolution.

Do you think that the emerging merchant class were able to devise better methods of production to suit their needs, and if so could this need (necessity is the mother of invention) be used to foster further innovation today?

And the Industrial Revolution wasn't? There were Luddites throughout the world opposed to the Industrial Revolution and the whole Arts and Crafts movement was an unsucessful counter-revolution to the Industrial Revolution.

The majority of people are naturally conservative, change is scary. It takes conditions being extremely bad before people are willing to change the pillars of their society. This natural conservatism makes progressive revolutions, like the Industrial Revolution very difficult. The Industrial Revolution wasn't a movement to solve problems, it was to broaden horizons, which at the time seemed unecessary and even stupid to many people. Hundreds of people were actually killed (executed by the government, not gang style) for possessing and distributing printed fabrics because it hurt the business of the existing fabric makers.

Certainly, they embody and archtype of sociopolitical revolution, but I hold that they were not successes based on their failure to resolve the problems that caused them. In all three countries the majority of the population had little or no political power and was living in poverty. After each revolution the same situation prevailed but under different leadership. In France and Russia, in particular life was made worse as a result of the revolutions. The Reign of Terror in France and Stalin's purges were worse than anything that the French kings or the Russia Czars had done.
That is an important change as a result of the revolution their, but why do you think that happened while the majority of the population remained out of government and in poverty when that was the primary motivating force for the revolution? I think we can view it as two seperate events, a successful cultural revolution from Confucianism to Western semi-agnostic scularism, and a failed sociopolitical revolution from totalitarianism to more totalitarianism. My question to you is, why was one so successful and the other such a monumental failure despite being run by the same people?
You are a sly one arent you but i can answer that.

The crises that caused these revolutions were not caused by popular exclusion from the decision making process. You are trapped by your upbringing into assuming that people wanted a say in the way things were done yet this is not the case. In all these cases, the existing regimes had quite successfully (over many centuries) been able to create political cultures that were perfectly accepting of monarchy. The causes of these revolutions were that the existing regimes were unable to embrace modernity and in each case, this lead to military and economic collapse when presented with external competition.

I cant claim to know too much about the french revolution but in both Russia and China, the main outcomes of the revolutions were modernization and thus they were successful.

And the Industrial Revolution wasn't? There were Luddites throughout the world opposed to the Industrial Revolution and the whole Arts and Crafts movement was an unsucessful counter-revolution to the Industrial Revolution.Meh, still seems wrong, you expect more flash bang for a revolution, the Industrial revolution was a big change but it was glacier like compared to say the french revolution.

The majority of people are naturally conservative, change is scary. It takes conditions being extremely bad before people are willing to change the pillars of their society. This natural conservatism makes progressive revolutions, like the Industrial Revolution very difficult. The Industrial Revolution wasn't a movement to solve problems, it was to broaden horizons, which at the time seemed unecessary and even stupid to many people. Hundreds of people were actually killed (executed by the government, not gang style) for possessing and distributing printed fabrics because it hurt the business of the existing fabric makers.I wasn't aware of people being executed in defense of pre-industrial fullers, although I knew of a fair number of crimes asssociated with industail products, especially textiles. Regardless, I was only adressing the concept of the Industrial Revolution being forced upon the unwilling, not the efforts by governments (and others) to surpress the willing. However this does bring up an interesting point about the Industrial Revolution, once one group/nation adopted industrialization then others would have to follow, willing or not, in order to be competative.

I wasn't aware of people being executed in defense of pre-industrial fullers, although I knew of a fair number of crimes asssociated with industail products, especially textiles. Regardless, I was only adressing the concept of the Industrial Revolution being forced upon the unwilling, not the efforts by governments (and others) to surpress the willing. However this does bring up an interesting point about the Industrial Revolution, once one group/nation adopted industrialization then others would have to follow, willing or not, in order to be competative.
In many cases, revolutions are characterised by the counter revolutionaries. Gransci argued that all social change is generated through the process of different groups asserting their preferences. Without opposition and counter hegemonic efforts, revoltions are evolutions.

Similarly, Jurgen Habermas' theory of the public sphere rests on the idea that interests are formed and developed through the process of argument (though i think he was referring to peacefull debate, rather than machine wrecking).

Meh, still seems wrong, you expect more flash bang for a revolution, the Industrial revolution was a big change but it was glacier like compared to say the french revolution.Only if you limit the concept revolution to government revolution or similar. But the original defintion was constructed to include social revolutions, perhaps "overturnings of the status quo" would be a better terminology if you don't consider social revolutions to be revolutions.

You are a sly one arent you but i can answer that.

The crises that caused these revolutions were not caused by popular exclusion from the decision making process. You are trapped by your upbringing into assuming that people wanted a say in the way things were done yet this is not the case. In all these cases, the existing regimes had quite successfully (over many centuries) been able to create political cultures that were perfectly accepting of monarchy. The causes of these revolutions were that the existing regimes were unable to embrace modernity and in each case, this lead to military and economic collapse when presented with external competition.

I cant claim to know too much about the french revolution but in both Russia and China, the main outcomes of the revolutions were modernization and thus they were successful.

In a political sense, yes, the majority of people in those cultures were willing to accept that they would never have a say in the way the country was run, but the military and economic collapse you spoke of was blamed on the government by most people, and as such a change in leadership was desired. The people weren't looking for democracy, they didn't want to become the rulers, but they did want someone new in power.

Modernization as a result of the revolutions in Russia and China was limitted. Stalin decided he was going to measure the success of his new government in steel and killed millions in his pursuit of higher steel production, even to the exclusion of food production. Russia's economy wasn't modernized (if we are to call Capitalized modernized) because the planned economy failed to correctly balance its attributes. The U.S. won the Cold War, not by superior resources, but by superior distribution. The market economy works to balance resources ideally, while the Communist planned economy attempts to do so it is far less efficient. The same basic issues occurred in China. Resources didn't go to serving the populace, they went to funding war and to building industrial facilities and guaranteeing jobs for every worker despite constraints of resources. The average worker in a guaranteed job in China produces less than half as much as the average worker to recieve a normal job since that time, but the guaranteed workers use the facilities (which are far from modern) so the newer works can't.

On top of all that, their success was limitted to modernization (to the degree that even that happened) while they failed to remedy the problems of poverty and mismanagement of resources.

Meh, still seems wrong, you expect more flash bang for a revolution, the Industrial revolution was a big change but it was glacier like compared to say the french revolution.

It also worked while the French Revolution was a collasal failure.

I wasn't aware of people being executed in defense of pre-industrial fullers, although I knew of a fair number of crimes asssociated with industail products, especially textiles. Regardless, I was only adressing the concept of the Industrial Revolution being forced upon the unwilling, not the efforts by governments (and others) to surpress the willing. However this does bring up an interesting point about the Industrial Revolution, once one group/nation adopted industrialization then others would have to follow, willing or not, in order to be competative.

Yup, people were executed by "the unwilling." Governments were among those unwilling to accept the changes the revolutionary manufacturers proposed. Problem was that mass produced goods were too valuable for governments to stop their production effectively. It was like the War on Drugs today, they stopped some, but it was so valuable that people kept making more and selling it.

I agree, one revolution demands another. Both by planting the seed of revolution in the minds of others and by forcing the hand of others by the increase in effeciency, revolutions tend to be global even if they start on a relatively small scale.

It also worked while the French Revolution was a collasal failure.You seem to be setting a pretty high standard for sucess of a revolution, but I am not clear on what it is. What do you consider the standard for a sucessful revolution? The French Revolution as a reform of the social order was a sucess, as a means of disposing of the monarchy it also was a sucess, since those were the only goals that can be considered general to the revolution and they were met, how was it a failure?

In many cases, revolutions are characterised by the counter revolutionaries. Gransci argued that all social change is generated through the process of different groups asserting their preferences. Without opposition and counter hegemonic efforts, revoltions are evolutions.

Similarly, Jurgen Habermas' theory of the public sphere rests on the idea that interests are formed and developed through the process of argument (though i think he was referring to peacefull debate, rather than machine wrecking).

I don't remember who suggested it, but social trends can be modeled like a sign wave. Societies tend to drift toward the radical until they become too extreme and then are reigned in by a counter-culture movement at which point they swing back into the conservative until they become to extreme and another counter-culture movement has to bring them back towards a more benign steadiness. The 60s was a counter-culture to the 50s and the 70s and 80s countered the 60s, while the 90s further countered the 70s and 80s. This past election is a good example of the "trend toward Republicanism" which has been described in the media which is essentially the counter-90s movement.

The majority of people are naturally conservative, change is scary. It takes conditions being extremely bad before people are willing to change the pillars of their society. This natural conservatism makes progressive revolutions, like the Industrial Revolution very difficult. The Industrial Revolution wasn't a movement to solve problems, it was to broaden horizons, which at the time seemed unecessary and even stupid to many people. Hundreds of people were actually killed (executed by the government, not gang style) for possessing and distributing printed fabrics because it hurt the business of the existing fabric makers.I disagree with you on this assesment. The industrial revolution was about money not broadening horizons. It was the era of the Robber Baron. Making money has always been in style, there was no scary change there.

You seem to be setting a pretty high standard for sucess of a revolution, but I am not clear on what it is. What do you consider the standard for a sucessful revolution? The French Revolution as a reform of the social order was a sucess, as a means of disposing of the monarchy it also was a sucess, since those were the only goals that can be considered general to the revolution and they were met, how was it a failure?

Every revolutionary movement has goals that they set for themselves. If, after deposing the old leaders they abandon those goals then either they were untruthful from the beginning and were successful in gaining power, or they were unsuccessful in their revolution because they failed to achieve the goals they set for themselves.

The French Revolution disposed of the monarch very well, but did nothing to despose of the monarchy. The Reign of Terror was worse, in the same vein, than anything the king had done. Essentially they got rid of their dictator but he was replaced by another and their society did not change. It was not until the advent of the true French Republic that the goals of the original revolutionaries began to be accomplished. In the long run, and with a second revolution needed the goals of the French Revolution were achieved, so in that sense it was a success, but not immediately, and not at the hands of its original proponents.

I disagree with you on this assesment. The industrial revolution was about money not broadening horizons. It was the era of the Robber Baron. Making money has always been in style, there was no scary change there.

Making money hasn't always been in style, and the Robber Barons actually came many years later. There was a time when if a person was offered a job that payed more they would simply work fewer less so that their income was the same. Furthermore, there was a time when the capitalist pursuit of money was entirely nonexistant.

The Industrial Revolution was the beginning of a larger Revolution of Rising Expectations which continues to this day. Essentially the Revolution of Rising Expectations says that each generation should be better off than the previous generation, and in keeping with that idea the Industrial Revolution provided far more materials for the second generation than the first as well as far greater efficiency in the distribution and manipulation of those resources.

Making money hasn't always been in style

when has it not?

when has it not?
zoolander?

when has it not?

Before the rise of the merchant class, essentially. Capitalism is a relatively new concept.

can be modeled like a sign wave.

sine

Before the rise of the merchant class, essentially. Capitalism is a relatively new concept.

that all depends on you definition of in style i suppose, before the rise of the merchant class, those with money still rocked.

Every revolutionary movement has goals that they set for themselves. If, after deposing the old leaders they abandon those goals then either they were untruthful from the beginning and were successful in gaining power, or they were unsuccessful in their revolution because they failed to achieve the goals they set for themselves.

The French Revolution disposed of the monarch very well, but did nothing to despose of the monarchy. The Reign of Terror was worse, in the same vein, than anything the king had done. Essentially they got rid of their dictator but he was replaced by another and their society did not change. It was not until the advent of the true French Republic that the goals of the original revolutionaries began to be accomplished. In the long run, and with a second revolution needed the goals of the French Revolution were achieved, so in that sense it was a success, but not immediately, and not at the hands of its original proponents.The Reign of Terror is traditionally considered part of the Revolution, not the result of it. Napoleon might be considered the result of the Revolution, but originally it was the Republic which he supplanted, unless you consider the Republic part of the Revolution and the Empore to be resilt? I'm not certain how you are measuring the failure, just because the Republic fell does not mean the Revolution was a failure only that the Republic was. If we consider The Committee to be the result of the revolution instead of part of the revolution then I can see it as a failure, it failed to produce a stable society, but again traditionally this is considered part of the revolution.

As a note, it is "sine wave" pronounced "sign wave", no biggie, just a note.

that all depends on you definition of in style i suppose, before the rise of the merchant class, those with money still rocked.

money has always definied success to the average public, its just that untill recently, it hasn't been attainable to the average public. capitalism, IS a relativley new concept, but just because the average person couldnt attain money before it came along, doesnt mean it wasn't "in style"

sine

Yeah, screw you hippy :P

that all depends on you definition of in style i suppose, before the rise of the merchant class, those with money still rocked.Actually, before the advent of the industrial revolution, social class was far more important than money and wealthy people of low class were treated worse than poor people of low class. Social Status rocked, money and merchantilism were petty, sorrid things not to be considered by true gentlemen. One of the causes of the French Revolution was the rise of monied non-gentlemen, who were unworthy of polite society but useful to have arround even if you'd sooner dine with a slops collector.

Well I don't wanna get too mystical, but the time of revolutions has ended with the worst balance; they have become dictatorial systems. Now we are all trapped into the capitalist system, we can do nothing, a violent revolution from the masses is unbelivable. The true revolution is the inner one, inside each of ours. Of course it's slow, but let the common sense flow, and we'll get a better society for all.

Dargor (some kind of anarchist)

Well I don't wanna get too mystical, but the time of revolutions has ended with the worst balance; they have become dictatorial systems. Now we are all trapped into the capitalist system, we can do nothing, a violent revolution from the masses is unbelivable. The true revolution is the inner one, inside each of ours. Of course it's slow, but let the common sense flow, and we'll get a better society for all.I think we are actually seeing the decline of capitalism right now. The rise of instant communications and near instant shipping is converting the capitalist economy based upon control of real property into one based more upon one based upon knowledge. One can even view the current fray about intellectual property as an attempt by capitalists to make information conform to the capital instead of being information. Power is already becoming less concentrated in those with money and more concentrated in those with knowledge. Capital is becoming less relevant every day.

Revolutions generally follow a pre set route anyway.
Look at both the French and Russian Revolution.
Conditions needed for Revolution
An old system that has not been updated for a very long time. Generally is called the ancien regime and usually involves an absolute monarchy. As capitalism replaces feudalism, the middle class rapidly expands in size. This new class have no political voice in the ancien regime and so try to bring about limited reform. However the monarch of such a period will usually be inflexible and a weak leader. Therefore middle classes will seek revolution simply because there is no real alternative.
Phase 1: The middle class revolution
This is usually a very small and insubstantial revolution that could even be classed as a non event. It usually happens very quickly and can be quite unexpected. The Russian monarchy collapsed very suddenly without any real fighting. The middle classes then set up a democratic method ofgovernment and liberalise the old system. However democracy directly after a revolution is never a good idea as it divides rather than unites an internally weak country.
The Conservsion to Terror
This can be generated by many causes, war being the dominate one. In response to security worries, a well being middle class government will introduce harsh restrictions.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
The working classes will at some point take advantage of the middle class weakness: this usually done via mob force and so the working class imprints its will on the government. The government is limited in what power it has because if the people disapprove then they can simply rebel and place a new, more flexible government. This will usually happen under a charismatic leader such as Robespierre or Lenin.
Terror
The forces of patriotism are hijacked by the dictatorship in order to maintain the harsh regulations placed upon the regime for security reasons. The Terror is usually a parnoid period where people are arrested and executed for merely voicing mild discontent.
Collapse for coup d'etat
The regime of terror is undermined by a large force, quite usually the army in conjunction with oppostion politicians. The regime may then revert to the middle class democarcy of earlier times.

During all of this, the revolution will generally change back towards the tendacies of the ancine regime. Awards and titles are granted again. Dictators become kings in all but name.

A rebellion is a failed revolution.
What about in "Star Wars"? That was a rebellion...
*SPOILER*
and they won in "Return of the Jedi"!
*/SPOILER*

I don't think you can find only one cause for revolution failure or success when you take such a broad definition of a revolution.
The hippy revolution, the industrial revolution and the french revolution have little in common.
Also, if you are going to define the success of a revolution as how much good it does, revolution have negative and positive effects and it all depends on your point of view and priorities.
In other words, the thread is not specific enough to have something meaningful to debate.
You have to specify which kind of revolution you are talking about (political/industrial/social/linguistic/sexual/religious/whatever) if you want to get something coherent.

Revolutions generally follow a pre set route anyway.
Look at both the French and Russian Revolution.
Conditions needed for Revolution
An old system that has not been updated for a very long time. Generally is called the ancien regime and usually involves an absolute monarchy. As capitalism replaces feudalism, the middle class rapidly expands in size. This new class have no political voice in the ancien regime and so try to bring about limited reform. However the monarch of such a period will usually be inflexible and a weak leader. Therefore middle classes will seek revolution simply because there is no real alternative.
Phase 1: The middle class revolution
This is usually a very small and insubstantial revolution that could even be classed as a non event. It usually happens very quickly and can be quite unexpected. The Russian monarchy collapsed very suddenly without any real fighting. The middle classes then set up a democratic method ofgovernment and liberalise the old system. However democracy directly after a revolution is never a good idea as it divides rather than unites an internally weak country.
The Conservsion to Terror
This can be generated by many causes, war being the dominate one. In response to security worries, a well being middle class government will introduce harsh restrictions.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
The working classes will at some point take advantage of the middle class weakness: this usually done via mob force and so the working class imprints its will on the government. The government is limited in what power it has because if the people disapprove then they can simply rebel and place a new, more flexible government. This will usually happen under a charismatic leader such as Robespierre or Lenin.
Terror
The forces of patriotism are hijacked by the dictatorship in order to maintain the harsh regulations placed upon the regime for security reasons. The Terror is usually a parnoid period where people are arrested and executed for merely voicing mild discontent.
Collapse for coup d'etat
The regime of terror is undermined by a large force, quite usually the army in conjunction with oppostion politicians. The regime may then revert to the middle class democarcy of earlier times.

During all of this, the revolution will generally change back towards the tendacies of the ancine regime. Awards and titles are granted again. Dictators become kings in all but name.


I'd like to highlight one failure in your arguement here especially about Russia. You state as your subheading "The middle class revolution" however the first revolution in 1917 was not begun by the middle classes but the working classes; as such for all a middle class government was set up through the Old Duma it was still a working class revolution, not a middle class revolution. The middle class revolution was that of the Bolsheviks' in the October, but even then it is questionable whether it was a middle class revolution for many of the Bolsheviks were of working class or peasant origin in the Central commitee; and their support base was within the Working class populace of Petrograd.
Furthermore for an example of two other revolutions that were not brought about by the middle classes, I would highlight the German revolutions of 1918, where by it was first the Revolution from above and then a short while later the Revolution from below. This was caused/started by the soldiers and navy, which then passed along to the working classes who deposed the Kaiser. I can give further details later, however I don't have my notes etc on me at the moment.
However, out of curiousity, I would like to ask you a question about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; for many have argued that for all Lenin set about starting the Dictatorship (or at least said he was) it was never achieved. I'd just like your opinion of it. I'm also curious about why you've placed Lenin there, (I'm not saying he wasn't charismatic) I think it may have just been your wording that has me a little confused. :)
Thank you.

(Without wanting to sound all marxist) the industrial revolution was launched by a new class in society, the merchants, who, as a group had vested interest in replacing agriculture (from which they were excluded by titled and hereditary nobility) as the dominant form of production. While, like you say, it is dificult in this case to define individual revolutionaries and specific revolutionary activity, it is possible to use group interest to explain the industrial revolution.

Change merchant to another word please, the merchant class has existed since Greek times. As such they could not have been a new class within society during the industrial revolution.

Change merchant to another word please, the merchant class has existed since Greek times. As such they could not have been a new class within society during the industrial revolution.The merchant class was a new one in western fuedal society, although merchants had existed throughout the fuedal period they never constituted a seperate class until the end. The Greek's went through a similar upheaval in the 7th century BC, the creation adn rise of a merchant class althoguh prior to that they also had merchants. Call them new again if you want.

The merchant class was a new one in western fuedal society, although merchants had existed throughout the fuedal period they never constituted a seperate class until the end. The Greek's went through a similar upheaval in the 7th century BC, the creation adn rise of a merchant class althoguh prior to that they also had merchants. Call them new again if you want.


Well they definately existed in twelth century Britain due to Chaucer referring to one of them within his Canterbury Tales, indeed one of the characters is a merchant, as such they clearly did exist as a seperate class. And so long as trade has existed so has the merchant class, as such it is impossible for them to be called new.


(My mention of the Greeks was simply to try to prove the point that they have existed for many long years).

Well they definately existed in twelth century Britain due to Chaucer referring to one of them within his Canterbury Tales, indeed one of the characters is a merchant, as such they clearly did exist as a seperate class. And so long as trade has existed so has the merchant class, as such it is impossible for them to be called new.


(My mention of the Greeks was simply to try to prove the point that they have existed for many long years).Merchants as opposed to the merchant class, have existed for a long time. One of the defining features of the middle ages is the lack of trade, without a strong government for protection trade effectively disappeared though much of Europe and what remained were limited and dangerous routes, spelling the end of the merchant class. Along about the 11th Century things had settled down enough and the larger kingdoms established, so that trade became viable again, and the merchant class began to redevelop. This does not mean there were not merchants and pedlars and such before then in Europe, but the merchant class did not exist (for the most part they were actually part of the classless/outlaw class). They really did not reach sufficent mass to be considered a seperate class until the 12th century when various guilds began to form, but their status as a class was in flux still during the end of the 14th century (when The Canterbury Tales was written, not the 12th). The Middle Ages had a pretty simple class structure, nobility-clergy-peasants-outlaws, with gradiations within them, and occasional variations like the english yeoman, but no merchant class or even a tradesman class. Once the guilds began to form, they rejected the lack of rights of the labourer class (serfs) and demanded more rights but were obviously not of the Noble class and certainly not members of the clergy, thus creating a new class at the end of the middle ages.