>>75
But you said
"The revolution I'm referring to encompasses all definitions."
, so I can hardly be blamed for misunderstanding.
For the record.
Revolutions consist of a political revolution and a social revolution, which are components of a revolution. I merely pointed out the distinction between the 2. Since they are perfectly valid distinctions as backed up by the dictionary I cannot in any way be attempting to use "semantics" to derail your argument.
A political revolution (overthrowing the rulers by the ruled) must occur before the social aspect of the revolution can begin.
A social revolution always occurs to some degree after a succesful political revolution, but not necessarily the social revolution most revolutionaries intended. It is likely a small elite at the head of the revolution intended things to turn out that way.
My argument is that while revolutions can succeed politically, they rarely achieve much socially. Also attacking my person is a logical fallacy called "ad hominem" and it's boring, /b/ can insult me in 9001 more colourful ways than you.
The French revolution resulted in the reign of terror, numerous purges (not just aristocrats) and later napoleon and his rampage across europe. It was only decades afterwards that French became anything resembling a democracy.
The American revolution became somewhat democratic quite quickly, but not anything resembling democracy for black people until 90-200 years later.
The Russian revolution not only failed in it's social revolution but also in it's social evolution.