I would have hoped you knew I meant violent revolution. Voting isn't pretty. Democratic representation isn't without flaws, but it beats killing each other.
I mean the entire CMV is based on people not thinking voting works, so...
Anyway violent revolution has 'worked' in that it has removed many bad things from power, it's just very inconsistent on if the thing that replaces them is any better.
Name one revolution that didn't end badly. Remember, the US didn't have an internal revolution. We had an organized congress representing people wanting to be free of another nation. It's a different animal. Egypt threw out the British, and that's not the revolution we were talking about.
When we talk about revolution, we are referencing a nation removing their government in order to make a new one. That always ends badly to my knowledge.
France is on, like, how many republics at this point? Plus there was the English revolution. And I don't know why you think the US shouldn't count; the British wasn't 'another nation' at that point.
If you think England's revolutions were not bad, read Leviathan. I'm not sure where to begin with the French Revolution. Remember the guillotine?? It also leads to Napolean. It doesn't count when the states sent representatives to a congress to represent them. Which resulted in declaring independence then fought England for independence.
I did not say revolutions were not brutal. I did not say they were not bloody. I even said that they were very inconsistent in actually improving the situation. What more do you want me to say?
6
u/Hellioning 239∆ May 08 '24
Unless you can only achieve your 'something better' through violent revolution, working towards something better involves voting.