[quote=briansd1]But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.
[/quote]

Brian: Boy, you don’t simply throw out one red herring, you deploy an entire school of them.

Okay, we weren’t discussing whether or not anyone had a swell time fighting in the French or American Revolutions, we were discussing the efficacy of the revolutions themselves. Two very, very different things and I don’t think the individual revolutionary’s “feelings” are germane to the discussion.

As far as advancement being evolutionary, instead of revolutionary, there are too many examples that refute this, including the massive Civil Rights protest marches, the anti-war movement during Vietnam, and the Watts and Detroit riots. That’s just in the 1960s.

And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.