Which type of revolution has the greatest chance of success, regardless of its duration?

[Anonymous]

In a peaceful revolution, there is no death, no suffering, and the government and state leaders resign peacefully without destabilizing actions.
In a violent revolution, there is death, destruction, and victims.

Peaceful Revolution (example Czechoslovakia 1989) cz.usembassy.gov/.../...tRevolutionWP-1024x512.jpg

Violent revolution ( Romania 1989, Russia 1917, Ukraine 2014, Belarus 2021 etc.) i0.1616.ro/.../...920326-2227812296783036416-o.jpg

[Syntosi]

Peaceful revolutions. Violent revolutions almost always fail historically speaking. The success rate difference between them is not even close.

[Asker]

French Revolution (violent, relatively successful)
Bolshevik Revolution (successful)
Revolutions of 1848 in Western Europe (successful)
American Revolution (successful)
Romanian Revolution (relatively successful)
Great upheavals of systems that seemed impossible to change, radically affecting world history

[Syntosi]

I am not saying they can't work, but rather that the results you go into a violent revolution with rarely materialize. There is obviously the classic example of the revolution just failing, like the military coup in Turkey trying to overthrow Erdogan. However, why violent revolutions generally fail is because there is usually a 3rd party that comes in and wins. It can be a wide variety of factions such as perhaps a warlord coming in or in ideologue who hijacks the movement. The end result however means that its very likely that both the original factions AKA the revolutionaries and the government ends up losing to this new 3rd (or even 4th or 5th) faction.

[Asker]

I believe that when the government does not want to cooperate with the wishes of the protesting people and decides to disperse the crowds, it is the moment to start a violent revolution.
In the context where the government is composed of a few hundred people compared to millions of citizens, the latter must and would have the right to impose their will, because they are the people.
I believe that after violent revolutions, previous governments completely and totally give up any influence on the old leadership structure.

[Asker]

In my opinion, for a peaceful revolution to be successful, there needs to be a much larger crowd than in violent ones, and this crowd needs to be much more persistent when it comes to staying in the streets and making itself heard. Something that I haven't seen in my country since 2018, and yet I thought that there wasn't enough perseverance on the part of the peaceful protesters.

[Syntosi]

Yes, peaceful revolutions are generally much slower but you also generally get what you want by the end of it. If we take USA and Russia as examples then neither got what they technically wanted from their revolutions. USA originally just wanted a change in taxes or legal representation in the UK but instead ended up in a war for independence which is the 3rd faction. Russia had their little communist uprising where Stalin came in as a 3rd party and took over the revolution and turned it into the run-of-the-mill dictatorship while the original leaders of the revolution like Karl Marx got screwed over.

You can for example say you prefer the outcome of the American war for independence compared to them just winning more representation in the UK government but that is not what the people wanted at the start. It also very nearly turned into America becoming its own monarchy with one of the founding fathers becoming the new king.

Point is that violent revolutions are very unpredictable which is not really what you want when you are pushing for a specific change in your country.

[Asker]

i will follow you

[Asker]

Please accept my request

[DrPepper12]

Truly case by case. Violence can achieve positive outcomes at times.