TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

A question about revolutions.

Go To

Lunacorva Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#1: Oct 24th 2015 at 9:17:49 AM

Does anyone know of a single violent revolution in history (as in, one that succeeded through war, rather than peaceful protest) where:

A) The revolutionaries DIDN'T turn out to be far worse than their oppressors

or

B) the revolution wasn't started by a defecting oppresser (Like the American Civil War, which was started by a white man, rather than one of the black slaves)

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#2: Oct 24th 2015 at 10:47:07 AM

I don't know how to answer that. I mean I could argue the American Revolution or the Glorious Revolution in England (although that was mostly peaceful), although you could make a decent argument that they failed both the criteria.

Depending on how you are setting the criteria probably no revolution would qualify.

edited 24th Oct '15 10:47:38 AM by Hodor2

RabidTanker God-Mayor of Sim-Kind Since: May, 2014 Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
God-Mayor of Sim-Kind
#3: Oct 24th 2015 at 12:37:10 PM

I find your criteria to be rather inane. Well the Russian Revolution is disqualified because of what Stalin did to his critics. The America was technically founded through tax evasion, civil disobediance and terrorism...by the very people who hailed from whom they were rebelliing against. The Third Reich? Did you ever hear about the Holocaust? But I don't have an lot of info about the Spanish Inquistion, North Korea's prison camps, and modern China.

Answer no master, never the slave Carry your dreams down into the grave Every heart, like every soul, equal to break
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#4: Oct 24th 2015 at 1:03:32 PM

It is still a heated debate today as to whether the French Revolution was better or worse than what came before. Plus, there were four different regimes in 25 years or so, all with their ups and downs, so a truckload of YMMV comes into play to decide what you mean by "better" or "worse". Robespierre or Napoleon have supporters that see them as good guys overall.

edited 24th Oct '15 1:03:39 PM by Julep

RabidTanker God-Mayor of Sim-Kind Since: May, 2014 Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
God-Mayor of Sim-Kind
#5: Oct 24th 2015 at 1:14:20 PM

Unclear topic still remains unclear: Too many conflicting opinions about the first criteria and I find the second criteria to be the antithesis of an political revolution (unless the OP is talking about the Industrial Revolution <trollface.jpg>).

R.I.P. thread.

Answer no master, never the slave Carry your dreams down into the grave Every heart, like every soul, equal to break
Gaon Smoking Snake from Grim Up North Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#6: Oct 24th 2015 at 1:22:46 PM

The first criteria is reasonable, the second one is more convoluted because of what exactly clarifies as an "oppressor". Most revolutions were made by (or at least had the participation of) the middle-class in some way, which from some perspectives, is a class that oppresses the lower classes.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#7: Oct 24th 2015 at 1:28:45 PM

Define "far worse".

Several of the goverment that came about from territories of the French, Spanish and British empires could be argued to have been better. The French revolutionary governments could be argued to be better then what came before, as could the Communist Russian governments, the Glorious Revolution for England might count, the Libyan revolution against Gadaffi, maybe Egypt before the revolution was rolled back. But there are others, the hole in the flag revolutions, the coloured revolutions (maybe), probably some others that it depends on if you count them as revolutions.

But the easy answer is yes, Tunisia during the Arab Spring. But there will be others.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#8: Oct 24th 2015 at 1:44:04 PM

(as in, one that succeeded through war, rather than peaceful protest)

Are you deliberately leaving out the Carnation Revolution (which was neither overly violent nor fully peaceful/pacifist)?

Although the regime's political police, PIDE, killed four people before surrendering, the revolution was unusual in that the revolutionaries did not use direct violence to achieve their goals.

The revolutionaries being the Armed Forces Movement (MFA - Movimento das Forças Armadas).

edited 24th Oct '15 1:45:50 PM by Quag15

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#9: Oct 24th 2015 at 2:03:20 PM

The American Revolution turned out fairly well.

Leviticus 19:34
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#10: Oct 24th 2015 at 2:41:37 PM

The criteria are hopelessly subjective, so no clear answer is possible. Violent revolutions are likely to turn out badly, because if a movement takes over by violence, then it's likely to try to solve other problems by relying on violence as well. That's the skill set the revolutionaries will have, and their organizational structure will be set up to facilitate that. That said, the Vietnam War is the clearest example I can think of of a violent revolution that turned out fairly well for the people living there.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
editerguy from Australia Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: You cannot grasp the true form
#11: Oct 27th 2015 at 11:47:55 PM

The Haitian Revolution could be an example. It was started by a slave mass uprising. Because the French authorities ultimately tried to commit genocide against the black population, it was essentially impossible for the slave rebels to be worse than their oppressors. And they did end legal slavery in Haiti, if with extreme violence.

edited 28th Oct '15 1:35:48 AM by editerguy

NotSoBadassLongcoat The Showrunner of Dzwiedz 24 from People's Democratic Republic of Badassia (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Puppy love
The Showrunner of Dzwiedz 24
#12: Oct 28th 2015 at 11:36:49 AM

Also, for the record, Third Reich didn't start with a revolution. The Nazis actually won the elections, and then talked the senile old fart in charge into giving Hitler far-reaching executive powers.

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#13: Oct 28th 2015 at 1:34:00 PM

The Nazis didn't even win outright, they lacked a majority and had to form a coalition.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#14: Oct 28th 2015 at 2:01:38 PM

And they went stabby stabby to consolidate everything.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#15: Oct 28th 2015 at 3:30:07 PM

Countries that achieved independence violently:

USA - better civil liberties
Mexico - same or worse
Panama - same or better
Haiti - better, only by virtue of ending slavery
Dominican Republic - slightly better
Peru - same or worse
Bolivia - same or worse
Chile - better
Argentina - better for a good while
Paraguay - same or worse
Brazil - slightly worse
Ireland - worse, but not substantially, achieved parity in time
Switzerland - better
Slovenia - better
Croatia - better
Bosnia - better-ish
Macedonia - better
Albania - same or better
Greece - better
Bulgaria - same
Romania - same
Algeria - worse overall, although it resolved land inequity
Guinea-Bissau - sadly worse
Angola - worse, 30 years of war
Mozambique - worse
Cyprus - worse, unresolved civil war
Afghanistan - worse
Cambodia - worse
Laos - worse
Indonesia - worse
Timor-Leste - same

Now this is distinct from in-country revolutions, which would be a longer list, and the question is one of the strength of your civil society, or the priorities of the rebels. Communists may be bad governors, but they do tend to invest in education, health, and industry, compared to, say, a kleptocratic dictator that they overthrew.

Also, many of the countries that ended up worse did so because the colonial masters had degraded their institutions, so that they were rather unable to govern themselves effectively after Europe quit. The success stories were the ones where the locals had not been badly impoverished by the rulers, although there were some structural changes in the post-colonial world that achieved some justice, but the inability for the government to enforce law lead to terrible things. Inability for a government to rule is the biggest thing keeping crappy countries crappy.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#16: Oct 28th 2015 at 3:37:02 PM

why have you got East Timor as worse? Wouldn't the fact that the people got to chose their future be an indicator for better? I'm talking about independence from Indonesia though. Also you haven't got Kosovo on there, any reason for that? The other one that I'd say is missing is Eritrea. And what's the logic for the US being better? If anything it might be worse, considering how being the US was on ending slavery. In the short term though nothing changed, it was the exact same privileged, white, male, slave owners running thing.

Though honestly I'd say that wars of independence are so different from revolutions that they're in many ways different topics entirely.

edited 28th Oct '15 3:43:16 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#17: Oct 28th 2015 at 3:48:34 PM

Weeeeeelll....most Central American countries who gained their independence did fight but a couple of them did not fight like, at all. Costa Rica was basically chilling, mostly ignored by everyone until Mexico kicked Spain off.

It is in spanish but it basically refers to the "Acta de los Nublados", or "Act of the Mists", because it says "Ok so we were chilling here and suddenly we are told we are free from Spain but you know. Spain is a fucking gigantic empire so hereby I bravely decree that we will govern until someone tells us what the fuck is going on and if Spain is going to come back for bloody revenge"

It is called "Act of the Mists" because it literally says "And we will hold and govern until the Mists of the Day have been cleared" making a reference to the uncertainty of the situation.

Spoiler: Spain did not come back.

This act was signed in Guatemala and basically affected everyone but Belize and Panama (part of Britain and Colombia respectively back then) and Mexico, who decided to try their hand at this "Empire" thing immediately after doing most of the fighting.

So I dunno if "Someone else fought a war and they ended up independent" counts for the purpose of what was asked in the first place.

edited 28th Oct '15 3:49:35 PM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Reymma RJ Savoy from Edinburgh Since: Feb, 2015 Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
RJ Savoy
#18: Oct 28th 2015 at 3:50:29 PM

A better question might be to ask why revolutions often end up no better. As has been said, those that come to power by violence are likely to continue that way, while those that negotiated their way in have an understanding of compromise and are restrained by the institutions they take over. Another point is that all anti-government factions learn from the government in question, and while they will always have a set of ideological differences, everything not covered by that will be copied. And when a government is repressive, its opponents will have to be either underhanded or have mass support to organise. On that point, a government brought in by mass protests and not a dedicated, tight-knit force will likely fare better.

On the matter of independence movements, you have to remember that the usual ideology they champion is to change who is ruling more than how they are ruling. That gives a lot of scope to claim success without improving conditions much.

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
Gaon Smoking Snake from Grim Up North Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#19: Oct 28th 2015 at 4:01:19 PM

I'm a bit curious as well how Brazil got worse when it acquired Independance. I mean, not to say 19th century Brazil was paradise, but the Portuguese rule was not any better (matter of fact the main causus belli for the war was Brazil wanting to keep economic Independence and benefits while Portugal wished to cut them away) and after 10 years of some internal turmoil and corruption, the reign of Dom Pedro II began, which was very prosperous and definitely superior to the Portuguese rule.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#20: Oct 28th 2015 at 6:52:59 PM

I wouldn't put most of the American (north and south) colonial independence revolutions in the same category as truly political revolutions (Russia, France, China, etc). The former mostly just severed the country from its colonial master, while leaving society, the political system and most of the power brokers (who were smart enough to back the winning side) intact. The latter are the ones seeking to reform entire societies rather than simply break off a portion of the country, and have a bigger tendency to go on ideologically charged purges as a result.

Of course there is a significant overlap in a lot of cases.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#21: Oct 29th 2015 at 1:51:11 AM

Biggest WTF, kitchen-sink all-kinds-of-screwed independence/ revolutionary/ coup d'état/ you-name-it movements/ waves/ binges: the Congo(s) and Sudan(s).

Um. Do we split those up into individual sections, or lump them under "ongoing, post-clononial screw-up"? And, how do we define the knock-on effects in other areas of the continent?

Heatth (X-Troper) Relationship Status: In Spades with myself
#22: Oct 29th 2015 at 9:25:09 AM

[up][up][up]Brazil is a weird case because it stopped being a colony pacifically with the formation of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves. Although it wasn't "independent", it was the dominant part of the United Kingdom, as it was there the court resided. In that sense, our independence wasn't a "revolution", as it sought to keep the status quo (not being a colony). We kept the monarchy and everything.

Anyway, Ogodei list seems weirdly arbitrary to what it consider worse or better.

edited 29th Oct '15 9:26:30 AM by Heatth

Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#23: Oct 29th 2015 at 10:07:35 AM

I was trying to cast it in terms of civil liberties and quality of governance. I figured Brazil's absolute monarchy, compared to Portugal's slowly evolving slate of civil liberties in the 19th century, put Brazil in the "worse" category. Also the continuation of slavery longer than Portugal (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter)

In the US case, the UK had slavery at the time, it was rights for free men that improved under the US. Black Americans would have been better off if the US had stayed past the 1830s, but working class Brits (average white guys) didn't catch up to the enfranchisement levels of the US until after World War I.

NotSoBadassLongcoat The Showrunner of Dzwiedz 24 from People's Democratic Republic of Badassia (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Puppy love
The Showrunner of Dzwiedz 24
#24: Nov 4th 2015 at 12:57:40 PM

How fucked Afghanistan is had nothing to do with the country gaining independence. They were more or less independent since the Twenties, but all went to shit when the Communists started a revolution in 1978. Then people got pissed off, fought back, the Russkies barged in, then they were thrown out, then warlords started duking it out between themselves in a Saudi-Iranian proxy war, then the Pakistan propped up the Taliban, then the Taliban blew up Ahmad Shah Massoud, then two days later WTC fell and Dubya got the undoubtedly bright idea to barge in and level the fucking Hindu Kush, and so we have what we have.

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis
Add Post

Total posts: 24
Top