The only exception was started by rich landowners because they didn’t want to pay taxes to the king. (American)
You really think the US is the only American colony that seceded from its colonial authority by means of violence? And are you implying that the current US government isn’t tyrannical?
or succeeds only for the winners to establish a new tyrannical system
You’re just making that up. You’re tautologically defining any successful violent revolution as failed because it didn’t eliminate every single hierarchy overnight. Even if I’m a Marxist-Leninist I can conceive why you’d make that argument about the USSR (though I’d disagree with you), but if you make that argument about Cuba too you’re just wrong. Cuba is a state much more democratic and much less oppressive by every metric than its predecessor. You’re just falling into that mentality that “the only acceptable revolutions are those which failed”.
Additionally, you’re failing to acknowledge that non-violent revolutions, such as Allende’s Chile and the Spanish Second Republic, can end up in bloodshed and a more authoritarian and repressive form of government not as a consequence of violent revolution, but as a consequence of the lack of it. As a Spanish myself, I’d have much rather seen a version of my country where there was an armed socialist repression against fascism (for example by the CNT or some Bolshevik party), than the history we lived, where a democratically elected, non-violent leftist government was nevertheless couped, plunged into civil war, and eventually turned into fascism. An armed revolution could have actually possibly prevented that. (Funny historical note: the only country that really supported the struggle against fascism in Spain was the USSR, despite the Italian and German fascists helping their Spanish counterpart.)
You really think the US is the only American colony that seceded from its colonial authority by means of violence? And are you implying that the current US government isn’t tyrannical?
You’re just making that up. You’re tautologically defining any successful violent revolution as failed because it didn’t eliminate every single hierarchy overnight. Even if I’m a Marxist-Leninist I can conceive why you’d make that argument about the USSR (though I’d disagree with you), but if you make that argument about Cuba too you’re just wrong. Cuba is a state much more democratic and much less oppressive by every metric than its predecessor. You’re just falling into that mentality that “the only acceptable revolutions are those which failed”.
Additionally, you’re failing to acknowledge that non-violent revolutions, such as Allende’s Chile and the Spanish Second Republic, can end up in bloodshed and a more authoritarian and repressive form of government not as a consequence of violent revolution, but as a consequence of the lack of it. As a Spanish myself, I’d have much rather seen a version of my country where there was an armed socialist repression against fascism (for example by the CNT or some Bolshevik party), than the history we lived, where a democratically elected, non-violent leftist government was nevertheless couped, plunged into civil war, and eventually turned into fascism. An armed revolution could have actually possibly prevented that. (Funny historical note: the only country that really supported the struggle against fascism in Spain was the USSR, despite the Italian and German fascists helping their Spanish counterpart.)