NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a bit of a history buff, so those those like me I wanted to ask what you think was your favorite historical revolution. poll coming

Sexual.

I rather like the Industrial Revolution.

But to be more serious, I think the American revolution had some good premises. The 1848 Revolutions in Continental Europe were quite significant as well.

But my favourite would probably be the overthrow of communism in eastern Europe. Largely peaceful, good cause and huge popular support.

Or, as a weird outside choice, the Makhno and company in the Ukraine, 1919. Just because it's cool.

I am a bit of a history buff, so those those like me I wanted to ask what you think was your favorite historical revolution. poll coming

I am an American, so I place a high value on the revolution that brought my nation into existence.

As for a favorite, though, I have to agree with Neu Leonstein about the overthrow of communism. Much better to watch sensible revolutions occur with a minimal amount of bloodshed than horribly disgusting revolutions like the French one that went nowhere.

I rather like the Industrial Revolution.

But to be more serious, I think the American revolution had some good premises. The 1848 Revolutions in Continental Europe were quite significant as well.

But my favourite would probably be the overthrow of communism in eastern Europe. Largely peaceful, good cause and huge popular support.

Or, as a weird outside choice, the Makhno and company in the Ukraine, 1919. Just because it's cool.

More like 'counter-revolution' friend, notice how Polish Solidarity and other lefitst groups are the ones who led it yet what they got was crony capitalism, classic example of the Revolution Betrayed.

For me, its the anarchosyndicalist Spanish Revolution of 1936. The most thorough test of anarchist methods, which was largely successful, albeit hopelessly outnumbered.

Or, as a weird outside choice, the Makhno and company in the Ukraine, 1919. Just because it's cool.

I'd never figured you'd give favor to anarcho-communists.

I am also partial to the recent Bolivarian Revolution.

More like 'counter-revolution' friend, notice how Polish Solidarity and other lefitst groups are the ones who led it yet what they got was crony capitalism, classic example of the Revolution Betrayed.

Not really, at least in the Baltic republics. Crony capitalism seems to be endemic to Russia and the Asian SSRs...I think a lot of it has to do with differences between the rest of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

The French Revolution did not go "nowhere". It is of course true that the first French Republic quickly crumbled, but it is useful for all you liberals to remember that the French Revolution was the historical event that established a foothold for liberalism (read: the ideology underlying all present-day European states, as well as the USA) in Europe.

The effects of the American Revolution were not felt outside North America until a long time after the event, when the US became a major player in world affairs. The French Revolution, on the other hand, changed the world overnight and dealt the first serious blow to feudalism and the divine right of kings.

And to those of you praising peaceful revolutions (which are more often than not reactionary events that merely replace one ruling class with another, as was the case in Eastern Europe), I have this to say:

"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
- Thomas Jefferson

Aux armes citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!

P.S. I actually voted for the Russian Revolution, because it was arguably the single most positive event of the 20th century. Not because of its direct results, but like the French Revolution, because of its indirect results. The direct result of the Russian Revolution was the creation of the Soviet Union, which wasn't all that wonderful. Indirectly, however, the Russian Revolution was the event that made socialism and communism relevant political forces throughout the world, led to the numerous successes of progressive movements over the past century, scared capitalists into accepting the welfare state, defeated fascism and led to the liberation of most of Africa and Asia from colonial rule.

Ironically, the present American hegemony of the world is also one of the indirect effects of the Russian Revolution - because without that revolution, Russia would have descended into years of civil war and chaos, allowing Hitler to easily win World War II. Without the Russian Revolution, the world today would be dominated by Nazi Germany and/or the British Empire instead of the United States.

When it comes to revolutions, stick to the original (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution).

Not really, at least in the Baltic republics. Crony capitalism seems to be endemic to Russia and the Asian SSRs...I think a lot of it has to do with differences between the rest of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
Well at least in the case of Poland Solidarity was the primary reason for the state collapsing because of the popular support it wielded, it wanted grassroots styled socialist democracy instead of bureaucratic soviet commandism. Of course this never happened because the reactionary counter-revolutionaries saw their opportunity for wealth and seized it with an iron fist. In Russia the collapse of statism was the opportunity the five per cent of Tsarists, bourgeois, speculators, kulaks, pimps, maffiosi and Vlasovites were waiting for. Poland and Russia have been engulfed by fascist and ultranationalist tendencies in it's wake.

"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
- Thomas Jefferson


"I say to you today that I still stand by nonviolence. And I am still convinced that it is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for justice in this country. And the other thing is that I am concerned about a better world. I'm concerned about justice. I'm concerned about brotherhood. I'm concerned about truth. And when one is concerned about these, he can never advocate violence. For through violence you may murder a murderer but you can't murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar but you can't establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that."
- Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here? (1967), http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King%2C_Jr.#Where_Do_We_Go_From_Here.3F_.281967.29

"Violence, contrary to popular belief, is not part of the anarchist philosophy. It has repeatedly been pointed out by anarchist thinkers that the revolution can neither be won, nor the anarchist society established and maintained, by armed violence. Recourse to violence then is an indication of weakness, not of strength, and the revolution with the greatest possibilities of a successful outcome will undoubtedly be the one in which there is no violence, or in which violence is reduced to a minimum, for such a revolution would indicate the near unanimity of the population in the objectives of the revolution. ... Violence as a means breeds violence; the cult of personalities as a means breeds dictators--big and small--and servile masses; government--even with the collaboration of socialists and anarchists--breeds more government. Surely then, freedom as a means breeds more freedom, possibly even the Free Society! To Those who say this condemns one to political sterility and the Ivory Tower our reply is that 'realism' and their 'circumstantialism' invariably lead to disaster. We believe there is something more real, more positive and more revolutionary to resisting war than in participation in it; that it is more civilized and more revolutionary to defend the right of a fascist to live than to support the Tribunals which have the legal power to shoot him; that it is more realistic to talk to the people from the gutter than from government benches; that in the long run it is more rewarding to influence minds by discussion than to mould them by coercion."
- Vernon Richards, "Anarchism and violence", What Is Anarchism?: An Introduction by Donald Rooum, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Vernon_Richards

Don't forget that Martin Luther King ended up being assassinated. As did Ghandi.

And, in any case, nonviolent resistance always fails miserably in the face of any government determined to preserve established authority. Look at Myanmar for the most recent example.

The Civil Rights movement in the United States succeeded only because the federal government did not send in the army to shoot everyone (which it easily could have done).

Don't forget that Martin Luther King ended up being assassinated. As did Ghandi.


Yet further proof of the evil of political violence.

Yet further proof of the evil of political violence.
The point is that political violence is inevitable - as is war. Yes, good people get killed. The solution is not to lament the injustice of it all and imagine that there could ever be a world without violence, but to kill evil people first before they get around to killing good people.

We should not negotiate with tyrants and exploiters. They deserve death, not peace.

When it comes to revolutions, stick to the original (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution).

worst revolution ever

I think all revolutions are kind of revolting :( ... :p

i'm much fonder of relatively less confrontational successions from empire, such as canada, new zealand, austrailia. or even india and pakistan's, not entirely bloodless by any means, yet not exactly a revolution in the sense of all out military war either.

ye see the thing is, freedom, as i see it, isn't isn't an economic theory, idiology, form of government, nor something that can be created by ANY idiology, ANY form of government, nor any amount of killing and dieing for any of them, nor for anything else either, but only by people having the thoughtfullness and consideration not to rob each other of it.

=^^=
.../\...

I would like to mention Singing Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution).

for Me tis the Glorious revolution

The German National Socialist Revolution.

English Revolution? Do you mean the Glorious Revolution, or some other one?
The American Revolution doesn't count, as it wasn't a revolution.

Ironically, the present American hegemony of the world is also one of the indirect effects of the Russian Revolution - because without that revolution, Russia would have descended into years of civil war and chaos, allowing Hitler to easily win World War II. Without the Russian Revolution, the world today would be dominated by Nazi Germany and/or the British Empire instead of the United States.That's debatable. If the Russians hadn't revolted, it's unlikely they would've agitated for communism in Germany. If the communists in Germany hadn't been so strong, perhaps there wouldn't have been such a strong anti-communist reaction.

The American Revolution doesn't count, as it wasn't a revolution.


I agree, coups or wars which just replace one ruler with another just the same are not revolutions, revolutions change the country 100%(or close to) from what the country once was, that is a massive cultural and political shift to a totally different radical outlook on the world - can the American revolution truly claim that? Of course not, it was merely a war between the monopolistic tax oligarchs of Britain and the new aspirational land-owning capitalists of America.

One of the failed Irish ones.

When it comes to revolutions, stick to the original (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution).

That is my least favorite revolution.

From the list I'd say American Revolution.

The American Revolution doesn't count, as it wasn't a revolution.
Someone's been listening in on my HST118 lectures.:p

I am partial to the revolution of 1989 in the GDR. One of the things in German history, a democracy-minded person does like looking back to. Maybe you remember the fall of the Berlin wall, "Wir sind das Volk", Monday demonstrations, Soldiers refusing to shoot at the peaceful protesters... and in the end reunification :)

Glorious Revolution!

Personally I have always been fascinated by the Russian revolutions myself. I like to include the subsequent Russian Civil War within the scope of the Russian Revolutionary period

When you delve into the utterly and completely chaotic political and military circumstances of the Russian Revolutionary period, you will find that it wasn't simply a matter of Pro-Tsarists vs Bolscheviks, nor did the entire revolution centre around that bleak day in October, as Leninists would have you believe.

There were an extraordinary number of various political groups trying to sieze power at the time, and the soldiers and peasantry were never truly united under any one of thier banners other than simply bitter discontentment at the conditions they were forced to endure.

And the astounding end to the story is that not only did the least likeliest party (the Bolscheviks) rise to power, but the chief architect of that improbable victory dies soon after, as do his allies. And at the end the only man left standing is a bureaucrat from Georgia. And in the end, after all the blood spilled and minds ravaged, the enduring pains...

It's business as usual in Mother Russia. And to be honest, it still is.

Sexual revolution.

And my 2nd favourite is clearly the Fall of the Berlin Wall. Best revolution ever. :)

The effects of the American Revolution were not felt outside North America until a long time after the event, when the US became a major player in world affairs. The French Revolution, on the other hand, changed the world overnight and dealt the first serious blow to feudalism and the divine right of kings.

And not, say, the English Civil War? Or the Glorious Revolution? Together, in the seventeenth century, they established that an English monarch couldn't rule without the consent of Parliament, and was, perhaps, the first real blow in Europe against absolutism.

Sexual revolution.

Ah, i like that one too.

aye aye :) :) nudge nudge, say no more...

One of the failed Irish ones.

Why not the successful one? :p

And, in any case, nonviolent resistance always fails miserably in the face of any government determined to preserve established authority. Look at Myanmar for the most recent example.

You're only looking at a short period of time, in the long run it will probably have had a large impact. King and Ghandi also gained what they wanted (to an extent) in the long run.
A lot of violent revolution on the other hand failed miserably too, because they were all killed by the government or because they became even worse than the people they tried to replace.


Personally I like the sexual revolution but i also like:

For me, its the anarchosyndicalist Spanish Revolution of 1936.
Or, as a weird outside choice, the Makhno and company in the Ukraine, 1919. Just because it's cool.

I voted "other", thinking of the Spanish anarchist one, but I've changed my mind.

My favorite is the American Revolution, because of the possibility it embodied: that the democratic forces it unleashed would actually bring about its ideals.

The hope was dashed, the struggle lost... but the possibility was there.

other: guess

The Beatles.

Why not the successful one? :p

I find it amusing that we had to keep trying every few hundred years to drive out the hated English.

American revolution, because of its ideals, and because of the changes in tactics and strategy that were implemented during the war.

Although, why aren't the democratic revolutions of 1989 listed?

Although, why aren't the democratic revolutions of 1989 listed?

Because they have been cancelled.

The Indian Independence movement, which I would argue was a revolution. We kicked the British out, and did so without massive violence against British soldiers.

The Indian Independence movement, which I would argue was a revolution. We kicked the British out, and did so without massive violence against British soldiers.Wars of independence aren't revolutions, though I agree that that one was awesome.

Well, in terms of interesting, I'd probably go for the Russian revolution. However, if by "best" you mean most useful, probably the French and British revolutions.

Even though I am an American, I will not say the American Revolution because it was completely bastardized in the aftermath by opportunists. (Though this is more a fault of the events afterwards than the event itself.)

But my favorite revolution is one I read about in de Jouvenel's On Power. What happened was this Norse king ignored the rights of a peasant by entering his house without the peasant's permission, and the entire country rose up against this king because he had failed to render each what is his due. If only people took their rights as seriously now as they did then.

Although, why aren't the democratic revolutions of 1989 listed?
Because most of them were not really revolutions. The only country that might qualify as having had a revolution in 1989 is Romania. In Poland it was more a matter of the government giving up the fight against an opposition movement it had tried to suppress for 10 years. In East Germany and Czechoslovakia the government quickly surrendered after relatively mild and brief protests. In the other East Block countries, particularly the Soviet Union, it was more of a coup than a revolution - capitalist politicians seized power from quasi-communist politicians with little or no involvement from the people.

I find it amusing that we had to keep trying every few hundred years to drive out the hated English.
Let all revolutionaries learn a valuable lesson from the Irish: If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. :)

And not, say, the English Civil War? Or the Glorious Revolution? Together, in the seventeenth century, they established that an English monarch couldn't rule without the consent of Parliament, and was, perhaps, the first real blow in Europe against absolutism.

The only thing that the English Civil War really changed was the height of Charles, it just replaced a monarch with a military dictator quasi-monarch.

Russian, American, French, and Cuban.