Does revolutions that want to destroy tradition always end up fucked?

Obviously not but that won't stop edgelords on the internet from unironically defending long-extinct feudal aristocracies.

Revolution is for political changes, evolution is for social changes.

This is why the burgers republic lasted so much longer than the frogs.

File: edmund-burkes-quotes-1.jpg (77KB, 564x304px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 564x304px

>>1206491
>Obviously not
It hasn't been the case in the past century. Revolutions based on abstractions,always ended up alienating a huge chunk of the population,and causing bloodbaths,and deriving in some sort of Tyranny after the revolution happened. Change can be gradual btw,this way it creats a tradition,which had a more stable foundation.

>>1206481
The American revolution?

>>1206497
The American revolution was more about autonomy and representation than anything else. It didnt try to destroy tradition as the French and Bolsheviks did. There is quite a big difference there. Abstractions alone makes revolutions alienating,and tensions just scalate inside the society.

>>1206516
>>1206522
The american revolution was more about autonomy and secession than anything else. It dodnt try to destroy tradition and create a new society based on abdstractions (they were abstractions,but those abstractions didnt conflict with tradition directly. On the other hand the french revolution tried to kill tradition and create a society based on abstractions,and it ended up with things like the Vendee or the terror period. Burke makes a clear distintion between gradual changes,and overthrowing Tyranny and revolutions like the french one,which are based on bashing tradition

File: 1460223185036.png (29KB, 400x66px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x66px

>>1206491