Why revolutions succeed and fail

I agree with your calls for civility and tranquility, and I too condemn incivility and violence on the Left, amongst Antifa and other anarchist organizations, that result in riots, looting, and lawlessness.

Now, to our disagreements: Your article focuses solely on revolutionaries on the Left. I do not believe this claim is based in fact. Right-wing revolutionaries and terrorists are all too prevalent from the Charlottesville car attack that killed one and injured 19 , to the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue shooting that killed 11 and injured 7 , or the Charleston Church shooting that killed 9 and injured one.

In the past months, we have seen stabbings by the Proud Boys in Washington, DC and the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor by the Wolverine Watchman , part of the Right-wing boogaloo movement.

These are only a few examples. Look at the data. Right-wing terrorism has constituted the majority of terrorism in the United State for most of the last decade.

These people are not merely counterrevolutionaries; they are thugs, rioters, murderers, and terrorists. They are not patriots. They undermine everything that our country stands for. They deserve our unabashed condemnation. On this day, January 6, , thousands of Right-wing rioters stormed the U. Capitol in order to prevent the certification of the duly elected President Joe Biden.

This was nothing less than a coup attempt, inspired and incited by President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Congress and in the media who have sown doubt in a free and fair election without any basis in fact. Today we witnessed domestic terrorists using violence and intimidation to overturn the results of a democratic election. What could be more revolutionary than a literal insurrection?

This Right-wing mob damaged property, trespassed, and harassed police. They do not believe in law in order. Denying these truths do not change the facts. I urge you to condemn these actions and all such revolutionaries on the Right as you have done on the Left.

In closing, I would like to note that the only other time in United States history that the U. Capitol was invaded was during the War of Not even during the American Civil War was the U. Capitol under such an attack.

In fact, President Abraham Lincoln ensured that construction and renovation of the Capitol Dome continued during the Civil War , recognizing the important symbol that it represented.

Revolutionaries and terrorists on all sides should be condemned, and I implore you to do so. If you enjoyed this article, you can read more op-eds here. Robert flew combat missions in Vietnam as a Navy attack pilot. He spent ten years in engineering and marketing at Boeing, where his writing skills were called upon for technical papers, marketing assignments, and speeches for Boeing executives. As an activist in pro-Israel politics, he lobbied with AIPAC for 15 years where he met many congressmen and senators from both parties.

Robert loves history, enjoys the craft of writing, and has a passion for civil debate. He resides in Bellevue, Washington. He works to set the vision of the organization and to build the team to meet that mission. Joe works as a civilian for the Department of Defense promoting innovation and emerging technology. In his spare time he can be found reading non-fiction, playing piano, and running triathlons. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Primary Menu. Search for: Search. Home Op-eds Why Revolutions Fail. Positive Aspects Nevertheless, revolutions, even as failures, can and do bring positive change. The New American Revolutions Revolutions happen when certain conditions are in place. The New American Revolutionaries There is no shortage of groups with public websites we can all visit that seek to overthrow the US Government see itsgoingdown. There were minor scuffles, but most soldiers stood around uneasily, unsure what to do, many of them sympathetic to the crowd.

Next morning rumours swept through Paris that revolution was coming. Shops did not open, workers stayed home, servants became surly with their masters and mistresses. In the eerie atmosphere of near-deserted streets, trees were chopped down and cobble-stones dug up to make barricades.

Liberal members of the national legislature visited the king, demanding that the prime minister be replaced. This modest step was easy; he was dismissed; but who would take his place? No one wanted to be prime minister; a succession of candidates wavered and declined, no one feeling confident of taking control.

The accidental discharge of a gun by a nervous soldier set off a contagious volley, killing This panicky use of force did not deter the crowd, but emboldened it. During the night, the king offered to abdicate. But in favor of whom? Other royal relatives also declined.

The king panicked and fled the palace, along with assorted duchesses; crowds were encroaching on the palace grounds, and now they invaded the royal chambers and even sat on the royal throne.

In a holiday atmosphere, a Republic was announced, the provisional assembly set plans to reform itself through elections. In three days the revolution was accomplished. If we stop the clock here, the revolution was an easy success. A stronger argument in governing the potential success of regime change is found by studying the strength of its outgoing institutions, and those which replace them. If we take a Weberian view of state power, as holding a monopoly on violence, as well as being able to successfully suppress and eliminate antistate actors, those with the greatest coercive power are least likely to succumb to revolution and later on, counterrevolution.

The longevity of the USSR can also perhaps be put down the ability of the regime to put down those who opposed it. This argument has received some criticism Theda Skocpol points out that France, Russia and China all had strong coercive mechanisms prior to revolution. This survives only weak historical probing all three of these revolutions involved a degree of mutiny from the national military, or were preoccupied in foreign wars. It is important to note that while institutional strength can impact the potential success of a revolution it acts as a passive factor rather than a driver of revolution.

Institutions shape the environment and potential barriers to revolution extant in a polity. Crises, be they economic, geopolitical or environmental, can have a major and sudden bearing on institutional strength, as well as shaping perceptions of the polity in which they happen.

Numerous revolutions have happened in the wake of potentially state-shattering events, often in the international sphere. World War One had a major bearing on the Russian revolution, weakening the state financially and reducing its support amongst the populace as a result of conscri ption. The second World War similarly ravaged Chinese state apparatus enough that the revolution of was comparatively easy.

When states have recently suffered large setbacks, and rebuilding is necessary, a new regime perhaps has an advantage, and thus states which began from such a place can build more enduring structures.

Revolutions themselves can spark further revolutions, as the events of and the Arab Spring have shown, and thus are international crises in themselves. China has hence seen mass protest after the fall of the USSR, and have since looked tentatively to events in the Middle East.

Crises can thus feed into negative perceptions and lower the minimum criteria for revolutionary change by weakening institutions. Revolutions require a degree of popular support this means that the populace must know the reasons for revolutionary change and be sufficiently emotive to do something about it. In order for this to happen an intellectual transformation, as well as methods of disseminating this information fairly rapid, must be present.

This perhaps tie into the earlier idea of exogenous modernisation. Here the distinction between revolution and leadership change is crucial the former requires ideological transformation. These ideas allowed for a new ideological based for an incoming regime. What is crucial however is how these ideas were spread, and for a significant enough group within the populace to carry them forward to the new regime.