Historically, almost all social progress has come from stopping before you kill your oppressor and making him reorganize the system in a way that works better. Just killing the oppressor usually only gives you another one a short while later.
Also historically, a small minority of oppressors ever accepted a truce where they reorganize the system. And killing the ones that didn’t let people run the dice again with a new one.
Historically, almost all social progress has come from stopping before you kill your oppressor
The Soviets murdered the Romanov family, and afterwards rose life expectancy from 28 to 65, had the fastest industrialization in human history, defeated Nazism, gained universal healthcare and free education to the highest level, eliminated homelessness and abolished unemployment. Europe mostly half-ass copied some of those policies because the capitalists were afraid of a revolution and have to give many concessions to the organized workers of Europe, hence why this progress did not happen simultaneously in the USA, far from Soviet influence.
This is because killing your oppressor while creating worker councils who decide democratically how society should progress is a valid strategy for emancipation. No power vacuum if people take that power.
Not that Haiti was necessarily at fault for that, though. It was either brace for further conquest, or submit to incredibly harsh terms of peace that would still see the country stripped of all its wealth.
They could not have a series of civil wars, though. And the people on that revolt specifically using a more complex system to judge the civilians than “what is your skin color?” would have contributed a lot to help the country improve some decades after the revolt.
Of course, it’s not really something they could just stop and choose to change.
What historical events ended the way you say? None seem to come to mind. Unless the corruption is systemic, like the Romans and Spartans, removing the problem typically solves the problem for a few generations.
Historically, almost all social progress has come from stopping before you kill your oppressor and making him reorganize the system in a way that works better. Just killing the oppressor usually only gives you another one a short while later.
Also historically, a small minority of oppressors ever accepted a truce where they reorganize the system. And killing the ones that didn’t let people run the dice again with a new one.
The Soviets murdered the Romanov family, and afterwards rose life expectancy from 28 to 65, had the fastest industrialization in human history, defeated Nazism, gained universal healthcare and free education to the highest level, eliminated homelessness and abolished unemployment. Europe mostly half-ass copied some of those policies because the capitalists were afraid of a revolution and have to give many concessions to the organized workers of Europe, hence why this progress did not happen simultaneously in the USA, far from Soviet influence.
This is because killing your oppressor while creating worker councils who decide democratically how society should progress is a valid strategy for emancipation. No power vacuum if people take that power.
Historically, Europeans aren’t very interested in reorganizing their slave colonies until you start beheading them
Just to note, but that one didn’t end in a great society.
Not that Haiti was necessarily at fault for that, though. It was either brace for further conquest, or submit to incredibly harsh terms of peace that would still see the country stripped of all its wealth.
They could not have a series of civil wars, though. And the people on that revolt specifically using a more complex system to judge the civilians than “what is your skin color?” would have contributed a lot to help the country improve some decades after the revolt.
Of course, it’s not really something they could just stop and choose to change.
What historical events ended the way you say? None seem to come to mind. Unless the corruption is systemic, like the Romans and Spartans, removing the problem typically solves the problem for a few generations.
Which way are you asking about?
Anyway, the corruption is always systemic. I’m not sure punctual corruption is even a thing that exists.
I’m not the previous poster, but the French Revolution > Reign of Terror > Napoleonic Era > etc. comes to mind. A cycle of despots one after another.