Why are western revolutions usually viewed positively in hindsight, yet are unacceptable in the future?

Question

And why are eastern nations' political/social revolutions viewed negatively in hindsight, yet future revolutions are optimistically anticipated, at least by western powers?

Answer 1

I think the human aversion to change has a lot to do with it. On the cusp of a revolution there is a lot of uncertainty about what the future holds.

Those who look at a revolution in the past are generally those who grew-up in a post-revolutionary society. Their opinions are biased by the world they grew-up in.

I'm not sure I agree with your point about the eastern revolutions. For instance, change in India was hailed as a great thing. I don't think Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution are regarded on the same level as the Bolshevik Revolution.

Answer 2

Yeah, that's one of the ironies of modern politics. Many of the most powerful governments in the world were put in place by revolutions, yet they naturally don't want any revolutions, now.

Political power is something that changes hands over time. From one generation to the next, for instance, or, by violent revolution or conquest. In some modern nations, though, we are supposed to have democratic processes that allow for the orderly and peaceful transition of power. As long as those processes remain intact, there should be no need for revolution.

Answer 3

Because in the past, the western revolutions removed an oppressive government for a free one and any future ones will remove free ones for authoritarian ones. The opposite is true in eastern revolutions. Recent revolutions in the east replaced at least somewhat moderate leaders with fundamentalist/nationalists that are a detriment to their countries.

Can anyone seriously say that your everyday Iranian is better off today than 25 years ago?

Answer 4

Because the victor writes the history.

Answer 5

wow, give me a while to try to sort this out.