Why revolutions succeed

While the ancien regime of pre-revolutionary France certainly dabbled in a degree of modernisation, a causal link between these massive popular uprisings which characterised and drove many parts of the revolution. Furthermore revolutions occur at different stages of modernisation it would be difficult to compare Tunisia in and Mexico a century ago in terms of governmental attempts at modernisation.

It may further be that it is the attempts of new regimes to modernise which are more influential in governing the success new regimes. Overall while these influences accelerated the revolutionary process but changing mindsets and weakening institutions they have not been instrumental in success of revolutions. This helps to explain revolution in area such as Sub-Saharan Africa, where revolutions are sometimes carried out by competing ethnic groups from similar economic backgrounds.

Goldstone takes the economic and demographic explanation of revolutions to its extreme, arguing that Malthusian pressures lead to revolution. This suffers from temporal difficulties as the relationship between population and growth by Malthus no longer effects significant portions of the world.

Economic pressures may help to shape collective action, and unionisation and corporatism definitely provide vehicles through which revolutionary action can be accelerated. In this area Pincus is correct in arguing that it is not the creation of new social classes which shape revolutions but rather their actions economic reliance on the bourgeoisie often produces autocratic regimes for instance.

Overall it is clear that new economic and social groups can play some role in shaping the success of revolutions but are not often decisive factors in doing so. A stronger argument in governing the potential success of regime change is found by studying the strength of its outgoing institutions, and those which replace them. If we take a Weberian view of state power, as holding a monopoly on violence, as well as being able to successfully suppress and eliminate antistate actors, those with the greatest coercive power are least likely to succumb to revolution and later on, counterrevolution.

The longevity of the USSR can also perhaps be put down the ability of the regime to put down those who opposed it. This argument has received some criticism Theda Skocpol points out that France, Russia and China all had strong coercive mechanisms prior to revolution. This survives only weak historical probing all three of these revolutions involved a degree of mutiny from the national military, or were preoccupied in foreign wars.

It is important to note that while institutional strength can impact the potential success of a revolution it acts as a passive factor rather than a driver of revolution. This moment of near-unanimity did not last. In the first weeks of enthusiasm, even the rich and the nobility-- who had just lost their monopoly of power-- made subscriptions for the poor and wounded; the conservative provinces rejoiced in the deeds of Paris.

The honeymoon began to dissipate within three weeks. Conservative and radical factions struggled among the volunteer national guard, and began to lay up their own supplies of arms.

Conservatives in the countryside and financiers in the city mobilized against the welfare-state policies of Paris. Elections to a constitutional assembly, two months in, returned an array of conservatives and moderates; the socialists and liberals who led the revolution were reduced to a small minority, upheld only by radical crowds who invaded the assembly hall and shouted down opponents. In May, the national guard dispersed the mob and arrested radical leaders.

By June there was a second revolt, this time confined to the working-class part of the city. The Assembly was united against the revolution; in fact they had provoked it by abolishing the public workshops set up for unemployed workers. This time the army kept its discipline. The emotional mood had switched directions.

The provinces of France now had their own collective consciousness, an outpouring of volunteers rushing to Paris by train to battle the revolutionaries. It is asked in Syria and in Yemen where the dead and displaced mount by the day. But are revolutions ever "clean"? Does any revolution yield an immediately satisfying result in which the previous regime is vanquished and economy, stability and freedom are restored overnight? Are there any revolutions that within a year, have justified the lives lost on the way?

Political revolutions happen because there is an injustice that needs to be righted. They are spontaneous, righteous explosions of demand for political betterment, not carefully calculated cost-benefit analyses. We need to address that, and the incredible bias and ethical lapses of the media. But America is not a racist country. With the exception of a deranged few, no white cop wants to harm a Black person.

He just wants to go home after his shift and see his kids. America is a great country, and American values are admired around the world. We are not going away. Those who seek the defeat of our society should be careful what they wish for. Revolutions kill their own revolutionaries in the terror that follows. I agree that revolutions fail because they are more destructive in nature than constructive. It is easier to tear down a barn than to build one up, as the saying goes. I concur that revolutions have many causes, both foreign and domestic, and we must protect against both.

I agree with your calls for civility and tranquility, and I too condemn incivility and violence on the Left, amongst Antifa and other anarchist organizations, that result in riots, looting, and lawlessness.

Now, to our disagreements: Your article focuses solely on revolutionaries on the Left. I do not believe this claim is based in fact. Right-wing revolutionaries and terrorists are all too prevalent from the Charlottesville car attack that killed one and injured 19 , to the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue shooting that killed 11 and injured 7 , or the Charleston Church shooting that killed 9 and injured one.

In the past months, we have seen stabbings by the Proud Boys in Washington, DC and the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor by the Wolverine Watchman , part of the Right-wing boogaloo movement. These are only a few examples.

Look at the data. Right-wing terrorism has constituted the majority of terrorism in the United State for most of the last decade. These people are not merely counterrevolutionaries; they are thugs, rioters, murderers, and terrorists. They are not patriots. They undermine everything that our country stands for. They deserve our unabashed condemnation. On this day, January 6, , thousands of Right-wing rioters stormed the U.

Capitol in order to prevent the certification of the duly elected President Joe Biden. This was nothing less than a coup attempt, inspired and incited by President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Congress and in the media who have sown doubt in a free and fair election without any basis in fact.

Today we witnessed domestic terrorists using violence and intimidation to overturn the results of a democratic election. What could be more revolutionary than a literal insurrection? This Right-wing mob damaged property, trespassed, and harassed police.

They do not believe in law in order. Denying these truths do not change the facts. I urge you to condemn these actions and all such revolutionaries on the Right as you have done on the Left.