Why do we call this a revolution again? Literally nothing changed, women had their rights taken away...

Why do we call this a revolution again? Literally nothing changed, women had their rights taken away, and the British offered black loyalists emancipation. Fuck the history books.

source pls

Because it created Burgerland. Slanting their bourgeois separatist war as a "revolution" is core aspect of Burger ideology. They need to pretend that their variant of corporate fascism is "revolutionary"

Nothing really changed because it's a burgeois revolution and not a proletarian one.

Was there nothing revolutionary about establishing a representative democracy in the age of feudalism? Wasnt it an important precedent for the French Revolution? The US of course is horrible but there was really potential there for a while. I think the Transcendentalists vision for the USA was pretty great.

READ HEGEL.

literally no fucking difference between living in independent america as a worker, or under monarchist britain. Commoners were fucking jailed post revolution if they couldn't pay their taxes thanks to all the war debts the revolution gave.

It was just a war of independence. They even kept slavery for years after it was abolished in the British empire.

Right, bc nothing changed during the French revolution

Look up the definition of revolution.

jesus you're fucking tedious.

::DDD

Britain was a representative democracy. Besides, you couldn't even vote in America post-independence unless you could pass a minimum wealth standard. America was never a democracy.

It was nominally a representative democracy. Parliment was essentially controlled by the landed gentry who were heavily influenced by the monarch. The monarchy and lords didn't lose their teeth until the Reform Act in 1832.

The fact the PM (with the Queen signing off on it) still gets to fill seats in the House of Lords makes a mockery of "representation".

And the U.S. was a "democracy" where you had to be a white landowning male to vote and the president was (is) elected by a professional electors in the electoral colleges rather than popular vote.

That's because it was a bourgeois revolution. Complaining about what it was never meant to be misses the point.

Tory-faggot spotted.

Send to guillotine immediately.

But seriously, the American Revolution was a revolution of the yeoman farmers, who represented the vast majority of the US population, against the mercantile elites and royalist bureaucrats. The planters were mostly neutral with the larger ones joining the loyalists and the smaller ones joining the patriots. (Also, the Americans offered blacks freedom in exchange for military service as well. Both sides wanted extra manpower.) In fact, the pro-British slave-holders simply ran off to the Carribean with their slaves after the Revolution. Additionally, the main revolts in the American Revolution happened in the North, not the South. (Hence, the BOSTON Tea Party or the initial battles in Massachusetts. The North paradoxically had the most loyalist and revolutionary elements living side to side, whilst the South was mostly "centrist" on the issue.)

The American Revolution was coopted by the Federalists, who like the Bolsheviks, decided to take power and neuter the revolution.

Shay's Rebellion was just America's Kronstadt.

Also, the American Revolution didn't take "women's rights" away. They didn't exist before and after, nigger.

At worst, universal suffrage managed to take away the voting rights of widows who managed to keep their property by accident.

But yes, working-class Americans actually benefited from the revolution, but it was mostly due to the Bill of Rights, Jefferson's election to the presidency, and Vermont becoming independent.

Additionally, Vermont and Philadelphia had based constitutions and the former actually abolished slavery in 1777. The North also abolished slavery earlier than the British Empire did. (early 1800s for the North and 1820s for Britain.)

But of course, liberals are too busy worshiping Alexander Hamilton and hating on the glorious eagle to care about details like that.

Its called nation building. Its a primarily a tool to establish some point in history where "WE" banded together and became "US" as a certain character. Its no different from the Hungarian or Australian Nationalism (pics related)

illuminati plot :DDD

I don't think that is a fair comparison or a reasonable description of the circumstances. Unlike the American war of independence, the socialist revolution in Russia occurred during world war one which was an imperialist predatory plunderous war against Germany based upon the principle of encirclement of Germany on two fronts and the conquest of its colonies. A key aspect of the revolution led by Lenin, Sverdlov, and Stalin was making peace with Germany and withdrawing from this imperialist predatory plunderous war.

Initially the socialist revolution was led by a coalition including the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs. However, the left SRs were anti-German chauvinists so they denounced the Bolsheviks as "Germano Bolsheviks" for pursuing the policy of peace with Germany. In order to foment war, the anti-German Left SRs, who were previously a coalition partner with the Bolsheviks led an uprising. The Left SR terrorist Yakov Blumkin assassinated the German ambassador to Russia Wilheim von Mirbach in order to foment war between Russia and Germany. The anti-German chauvinsts in the Left SR party were the ones that betrayed the revolution forcing the Bolsheviks to take power as the principle anti-imperialist power.

...

then Holla Forums turns around and panders to feminism and niggers

...

Please kill yourself.

American Revolution was proto-leftist as fuck.

…and nothing changed.

for someone who reads as much as you, you sure are dumb ;^)