Violent social change [Revolution] is bound to fail.This is the lesson from history.Do you agree??

Question

People are too much complicated in their nature to be led in a simple fashion,with a few slogans.Insides ourselves we are full
of greed,love,fear and hatred.We will carry our own history and
past.So when we make a revolution we bring with ourselves
all these factors in different proportions.Revolutions have
always disregarded all these individual differences.
V.S.Naipul

Answer 1

Revolutions are ways of getting instant change, vs. gradual change. The great revolution of 1917 changed the Russian monarch government into a Communist government. Revolutions all over Europe changed kings (usually through death). And finally the American revolution molded our country into what it is today, I think they have great impact on societies. So when the slow moving political way no longer works for us.... Revolution... and off with their heads.

Answer 2

Revolutions bring about the expected changes in the society only when mass participation takes place. Some thing should be denied and majority of the society shall feel affected by this denial. This denial aspect may be basically food, shelter and clotlhing. If we go through the stories of revolutions which have taken place earlier, apart from the above needs, freedom and recognition were the main requirements of the fighting class irrespective of their other differences. Hence one or two major factors affecting the entire mass then revolution sinks other unique features. So we have to trace the unique thread that binds all the segments in a revolution. After attaining or reaching the expected goal, during a course of time, the indiv idual likes and dislikes again grouping into different segements , may show their faces. This h appens in almost all the civilisatlions , countries, as a natural phenomena. Revolutions not supported by the mass/majority as explained above, however violent it may be, fails.

Answer 3

Absolutely not. The French Revolution, the American Civil War, the Russian Revolution followed by the same in Eastern Europe and the Chinese Revolution didn't fail. There are other instances too. A second revolution in USSR and Eastern Europe brought down the curtains on Communism there. Closer home Bangladesh's independence came from an armed social struggle. Vietnam's war with the USA is memorable. And there are more.

Answer 4

In a sense, you are right. Most of the revolutions we know of did fail over time. When they did fail it was because of corruption on the part of those who led the revolution. The Russian Revolution is an example of this. They all do succeed for a time and in the process they usually inculcate some permanent change, sometimes good and sometimes bad. The one violent revolution that has endured formed a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," my beloved United States of America.

Answer 5

Violent revolution is the political move most likely to effect lasting change. Beyond the moral issue of slaughtering people, the greatest drawbacks of such revolution are that the final form of government achieved is often not what was sought by the revolutionaries, and the revolutionary leaders are often swept up by their own movements and destroyed (look to the French Revolution's Robespierre, Danton and others, or to the Russian Revolution's Trotsky and uncounted others.)

Answer 6

Violence begets violence, but violent is a term for upset.
A revolution need not have violence in which lives are taken, and property is destroyed.
A revolution could be nothing more than a mass of people placing votes for one person to run a company or Country.
The only time a revolution is for naught is when the outcome and final score is worse than before it began.
Revolutions tend to fuel the ideas and behaviors of change, and the history shows that growth, if even in humility, happens.

Answer 7

love is the only tool sucessfull in bringing about an acceptable change, to all, by understanding all section of the society existing in the area,and providing more than what they were getting by innovating viable schemes, singur ,nandigram blood shed could have been copletely avoided, had the govt and the inustrialists provided for a training of all displaced in advance and absorbing them ,as permanent employees,with value of the land as share in the company.

Answer 8

How can I agree when History records successful Revolutions?

Answer 9

Oh, I don't know. It worked in 1776 in the USA pretty well and has lasted quite a long time. I am sure many others from other countries can quote you their history also.

Climb down off your soap box before you fall down.

Answer 10

That goes against the very creation of the United States.