Why do good revolutions always fail and bad revolutions always suceed?

[Politics_Guy25]

I was just wondering why good revolutions fighting for democracy like Beijing 1989 and Tehran 2009 always fail while brutal revolutions like say that of the Taliban in 1996 and Tehran 1979 always suceed. I believe there were some pre-world war II fascist revolutions in Europe that worked as well. Also, is the current Iranian leadership tremendously more millitarily powerful than the Shah? How come the Shah wasn't able to crush his revolution but this one is being crushed rather easily? Sorry for my naivete. LOL.

Watching MSNBC now, I am very discouraged. The regime is establishing it's control.

Truly, democracy is the weakest form of government it seems. It's easy for totalitarian thugs to rule but incredibly hard for democracy to win.

[BeGoodDoGood]

1. Not Always, Surely

I know one that started in 1776 that at least got off to a promising start.

Walt

[Billy Burnett]

2. Cuba is an exception.

Learn from Cuba.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/185.html

[kegler14]

8. Cuba may have done well in education and health, BUT

it sure as hell isn't a place I'd want to live. I kind of like little things like freedom of the press and the ability to travel at will.

[goclark]

3. Did it end?

[BlooInBloo]

4. Fail.

[Politics_Guy25]

5. huh? fail what?

And also I should ammend myself. Revolutions like the American/British/French/other European democratic revolutions have worked but there seems to be tremendous trouble for democracy in the near east with notable exceptions like India and Pakistan but India/Pakistan grew from the pro-democratic British tradition as well.

[SteelPenguin]

6. Uh

Do you mean recently? Would you not count our own Revolution against England in that mix? Democratic revolution against a totalitarian one that fought to suppress us? Do you want more recent examples?

How about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 and the overthrow of Ceausescu?

The People Power Revolution against Marcos in the Philippines in 1986?

The Bulldozer Revolution in Serbia in 2000?

The Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003?

The Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan in 2005?

I know there's more, but those are the ones that jump out at me of people using both force, and peaceful protests recently to overthrow authoritarian and/or corrupt regimes that rigged elections, which were effective in removing the offenders from power, and having new elections.

[pretzel4gore]

7. better question: why does the 'Free' press wear manacles?

the type of handcuffs that are welded on? And whycome NOONE NOTICES THE CHAINS? As far as the 'revolution' question, how many western secret agents are in Iran, stirring up sheet, and do the cellphone videos come from same lab as cooks up the Osama Bin Laden 'look ma, lotsa bombs!' cassettes?
Fact: humanity is being defrauded, not by maniac poor people, but by goofy stooges in suits and ties, and wearing ten thousand dollar unyforms

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anonymous171]

10. Bad revolutions (counter-revolutions) generally have better funding.

The amount of funding depends on the location of the revolution.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. Well, I can think of one revolution that succeeded

and without it, I wouldn't be typing in the United States now...

I think you may have to pull back a bit to get a truer picture.

[Terry in Austin]

12. Classic revolution is pretty dicey business

"Revolution" is a much-bandied term, but if we're talking the textbook kind -- armed, popular uprisings that completely replace the incumbent rulership of a nation with a new one -- the track record isn't so hot, especially if the purpose is to produce democracy.

French, 1789: The classic. Produced the Reign of Terror, Napoleon and five attempts at a republic.

American, 1776: Arguably, not a revolution by the classic definition, but a colonial war for independence.

Bolshevik, 1917: Produced Stalin, gulags, massive death and displacement, and the model for twentieth-century dictatorships.

Cuban, 1959: Mixed results. Genuine egalitarian improvement in material well-being of a dirt-poor nation, but short on civil liberties.

Iranian, 1979: New regime about as authoritarian as the old one, but with different hats. To the extent that the Shah was a colonial creature, this one was as much about colonial independence as it was about national revolution.

Beijing, 1989. More of a popular reform movement than an attempt at revolution.


So the trend here might suggest that the "good" revolutions aren't exactly revolutions, while true revolutions tend to turn out not so well. YMMV.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Echo In Light]

13. People are lazy, don't want responsibility, and prefer to be controlled

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. All revolutions fail because people surrender their freedom for security.

Unfortunately, most people want "leaders" to take the place of daddy and mommy to protect them from the bogeymen that the leaders erect to retain power. It's as old as God protecting the "chosen people" from the unChosen People.

[KittyWampus]

17. LOL! Post #6 lists revolutions that didn't fail. But you sure got your talking points in.

[ItNerd4life]

15. Guns. It's very simple. The people with the guns win.

It's why our 2nd ammendment is so important.