What do you think of revolutions? Are they a good or a bad thing?

If we talk about the revolution, we must first understand the meaning of the meaning of the word revolution.

According to the wikipedia article, "Revolution is a social and cultural change that takes place quickly and concerns the basis or points of life of society"[source: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolusi]

If asked whether or not they are doing a revolution good or bad. it depends on the model and planning of the revolution carried out.

Revolution can occur with or without planning, and can also be carried out with or without violence.

As an example of the history of the Indonesian revolution?

In history, Japan has been bombed with atoms by the Allies at August 6, 1945, the city of Hiroshima was immediately paralyzed by the atomic bomb. As many as 90,000-146,000 people died at that time. Lapse of three days later, the atomic bomb fell again in the city of Nagasaki, Japan, and killed 39,000-80,000 people. As a result of the attacks carried out by the Allies, Japan finally surrendered unconditionally.

At August 15, 1945, Indonesia experienced a power vacuum after the Allies who succeeded in defeating Japan, there is no conquer Indonesia. Seeing this, Indonesian youth groups do not want to waste the opportunity. They then kidnapped Soekarno and Moh. Hatta and took him to Rengasdengklok, West Java. Soekarno-Hatta was urged to immediately declare Indonesia's independence.

Lapse a day after the kidnapping, on August 17, 1945, Soekarno read the text of the proclamation which he had designed with several figures, in Soekarno's house. After the proclamation was read, a red and white flag was sewn by Fatmawati's mother, the wife of Soekarno. The people cheered happily.

However, happiness does not last long. The Netherlands returns. They try to re-establish power in Indonesia. The Indonesian people did not accept it and began to fight. That's when the Indonesian revolutionary struggle began.

Allies (including the Dutch in them) formed a military command body in Indonesia called Allied Forces for Netherland Indies (AFNEI). AFNEI soldiers landed in several strategic areas of Indonesia, such as Surabaya and Jakarta in September, October and November 1945.

Knowing the existence of this threat, the Indonesian people did not remain silent. Communities in various regions began to move and there was resistance. Please note that the Indonesian revolutionary struggle is divided into 2 characteristics. First, it's resistance using physical means. Second, resistance uses diplomatic channels.

Surabaya, became the first location of resistance of the Indonesian people after the Allies set foot in Indonesia again. Arek-arek Suroboyo with one of his characters, Bung Tomo, heroically fought against the Allies. Bung Tomo is known for his passionate speech, so that he can arouse the spirit of the fighters.

The Battle of Surabaya reached its peak on November 10, 1945. For the enthusiasm, courage and patriotic spirit of the Suroboyo clerics, santri and arek, on November 10, it was later made a Heroes' Day. After Surabaya, various regions also took up arms against Allied troops.

While the revolution through its diplomatic paths also has many kinds, one of which is the Round Table Conference. The Dutch only recognized Indonesian sovereignty after the Round Table Conference was held on November 2, 1949. Previously, in several agreements such as Renville, Roem Royen, and Linggarjati, the Netherlands and the Allies continued to betray.

If it is observed and examined more closely, it turns out that the process of resistance of the Indonesian people to the efforts of re-occupation carried out by the Allies, for approximately 5 years. Pretty short. But it is like that, why is it said to be a revolution? because the change process is quite short. The Indonesian Revolution began from 1945, when Sukarno read the text of the proclamation, until the Dutch and the Allies recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the end of 1949.

So the Indonesian revolution had a huge impact on the history of the Indonesian people going forward. I am a loving student to my homeland, of course I have to understand the history of my own nation. Therefore, it is very important for me to learn and understand history.

In the case of the revolution that occurred in Indonesia, I was very good because we as Indonesian people wanted to escape from colonialism. Any nation does not like to live under colonial rule. So, therefore, carrying out a revolution planned for the purpose of fighting colonialism was classified as a good revolution.

This is all I can say. Thank you...


Revolutions are pretty much always a bad thing. 

Elections, parliaments and constitutionally limited governments provide a better mechanism for promoting change.

The classical view is that society slowly develops through time. When one looks at history: peace tends to bring prosperity.

The only time revolution works is if the revolution throws off an entrenched dictatorial class and creates and elected government.

Most revolutions, however, end up installing a strong man dictator who makes things worse for the people at large.

1 Comment

@Ohmygoodness, In my opinion this is totally depended upon the "Subjective Terms" means, when something can bring good to masses then for sure the Revolution should exist and born. And in my opinion in a way Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology are modern day Revolution. Stay blessed. 🙂



“Good/bad” is a subjective judgement.

There IS no absolute answer to that question. Some may be “good” to some people for certain reasons, and “bad” to others for either the same or other reasons.

And then you have the (tarot) Wheel Of Fortune perspective... it may always be too soon to judge, as what might SEEM to be good fortune turns around to be bad, and so forth, and so forth. (Like the parable of the Chinese farmer whose horse runs away: http://www.rainbowbody.com/newarticles/farmerson.htm)


I am suspicious of revolutions.

First, for there to be a revolution, it is necessary to reach a breaking point, a point where enough people are willing to embark on a collective adventure in the dark because the current situation is untenable.

So already, the present situation must be untenable, and I do not wish it either for myself or for my kind.

Then, a revolution does not solve disagreements between political factions. Let me say that I want to make the revolution: who tells me that the faction I support will prevail against the other revolutionary factions in the presence? A revolution remains, to a good extent, a rat race between opposing factions. Who says to me that I will not be the first cart at the time of the great purges, or, what is not better, that I will not be in the crowd that hoes the victims of the first cart?

We can add the risk of revolutionary outbidding. In "normal regime", there are always people who take more or less excessive positions, it's part of the order of things, but it usually does not lead to broad coalitions that take everything in their path. In the revolutionary period, many people are ready for excesses for fear of going for slugs and being in the next cart. Where a call for moderation would make you excluded from the Party in "normal rule," the same call for moderation can easily be turned into "sold to the enemy" in a revolutionary period. We know what fate is reserved for traitors.

In total, the revolutions are like the hospital, we know when it starts ...

That said, I am not absolutely hostile to revolutions. To say that it tends to provoke troubles is one thing, but it is not a sufficient reason to oppose any revolution.

Let's make the assumption that people are not totally idiots. Most of them will prefer a cushy life to a troubled time. For a revolution to start, a "sectoral" revolt is not enough: it is necessary that several otherwise distinct movements support the revolution in its principle. The railwaymen will not make the revolution on their own; the nurses will not make the revolutions by themselves; the precarious ones acting will not make the revolution on their own; and above all, an enlightened vanguard will not make the revolution by itself: it must be followed, and it is not enough for it to give itself the title of "guide of the revolution" (l recent history is filled with guides of the revolution who have not revolutionized anything other than their dining room). There is revolution because a large part of the population has reached a breaking point and is ready to support a revolutionary movement rather than maintain the present situation.

If a revolutionary movement were to start, it is likely that all participants would (at least from their own point of view) have good reason to invest in it; and if so many different people each have good reasons to participate in a revolution, it is probably justified (at least in their eyes), or rather to choose between the status quo and the revolution. is the last who wins.

For now, as far as I'm concerned, the reasons for preserving our institutions and reforming them prevail over the reasons for abolishing them and building something else instead. However, I can not guarantee that this will always be the case.


It depends on who's organizing them and why, and obviously the outcome counts the most!

I've been part of one and it's not fun at all, believe me. There's always violence, people get hurt and some die in the process. On the other hand in some cases it is necessary, history proves it. In some cases this is the only possible way to achieve what you want and human lives are sacrificed.