Remix.run Logo
inglor_cz 7 hours ago

Unpopularity won't overthrow a government that is willing to drown every protest in blood.

nixon_why69 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You think the French monarchy was overthrown because they didn't try hard enough?

It's blood against blood, but it's quite rare for people to rise up while there's an external enemy. Russia 1917 is the only example I can think of?

jltsiren 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Russia had two revolutions in 1917. In the first one, pretty much everyone who mattered was unhappy with the regime. After some clashes between protesters and internal security forces, the emperor abdicated. A provisional government formed by established politicians took control, but it had to share power with workers' councils. The country became fragmented.

The provisional government was center-left, the army was mostly controlled by the right, and the workers' councils leaned towards revolutionary left. The right wanted to use the army to arrest Bolshevik leaders. The government declined, fearing a military coup. The right saw the government siding with the left and made an actual coup attempt. The government had to rely on the workers' councils to stop it. Which then emboldened the Bolsheviks to stage a revolution of their own a bit later.

But because the right was definitely not on board this time, the second revolution was only partially successful. Instead of a controlled regime change, the Bolsheviks got a civil war that lasted five years and killed millions.

epicureanideal 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And to steel man your position, when the Russian revolution happened the bolsheviks promised peace, an end to the war.

inglor_cz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"You think the French monarchy was overthrown because they didn't try hard enough?"

Yes, actually I do. Are you aware how long the process of transformation was and how little actual violence did the royal troops mete out? Most of the blood during the French Revolution was shed among the revolutionaries themselves, later. Not by the old regime which barely resisted what was happening, being confused more than anything else.

The French monarchy was remarkably limp-wristed in its reaction to the post-1789 developments, probably because, in the beginning, not even the revolutionaries themselves expected to actually dismantle the monarchy. There was no civil war similar to Cromwell's England, nor massacres in the streets similar to modern Iran. In the largest event of that early period which could be called "a battle" (Storming of the Bastille), a grand total of 114 royalist soldiers made their last stand. Which is tiny for a country the size of France.

It took about a year for the situation to progress from the first session of the Estates General to the royal family attempted flight from Versailles, and 2,5 more years for the King to be executed. A classical case of the frog being boiled very slowly. The royal regime was indecisive and offered close to zero violent resistence.

(If you want to learn about an actual abortive French revolution which was suppressed with actual brutal violence by the royalists, look up Fronda of 1648-1653.)

In contrast, current rulers of Iran have 0 doubts about what is going to happen to them - and within minutes - if they get caught by the street crowd that hates them.