• @ynthrepic
    link
    -1
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    It really isn’t though. It’s always two steps forward three steps back. Anything good that arises out of the destruction, always comes at an immense cost, and usually corrupts the revolutionary leaders who made it happen.

    Is there any violent revolution in history for which genuine peace followed in the immediate aftermath?

    I think violence is often necessary. But I wouldn’t say it’s ever the right answer.

    • @some_designer_dude
      link
      English
      75 days ago

      Maybe look into how we ended up with 8-hour workdays and weekends… Hint: it was not through peaceful, polite negotiations with the ruling class…

      • @ynthrepic
        link
        15 days ago

        Okay, but I’m talking about violent coups really. Not just not-so-peaceful protests.

        Even so, it seems violence didn’t help the Union movement all that much either. I’m no expert though of course.

    • @Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      86 days ago

      Is there any violent revolution in history for which genuine peace followed in the immediate aftermath?

      Most of them, depending on your definition of immediate.

      • @ynthrepic
        link
        25 days ago

        A few weeks to months following the rebellion. Maybe a year at most.

        It’s different if the rebellion does not itself topple the structures of government. I’m talking about violent coups specifically I suppose, not a bit of violent protesting that motivates an existing government to act.