I’m thinking the American revolution turned out pretty well. The French, not so much. Several of the ‘Arab Spring’ movements seem to have made things worse. Can we decide which were on balance improvements and what the percentages are, so I can decide whether to get on board with future revolutionary movements or be busy washing my hair that day?
Improve things for whom? I’d say nigh on 100% of revolutions improve things for the revolutionaries, who become the new ruling class. For the other classes (apart from the former ruling ones), things probably range the gamut from “somewhat worse off” to “no net change” to “somewhat better off”.
For the majority, I guess? Or society on balance.
If you’re interested in specific examples, I could lead with one that I’m somewhat familiar with. The Russian Revolution was arguably a net benefit; the Bolsheviks succeeded in immediately getting Russia out of a terrible world war, and more importantly achieved their aim in replacing the last vestiges of feudalism with the vastly more efficient economic system of capitalism. This resulted in unprecedented social, economic, and technological developments—the country basically went in just four decades from an impoverished agrarian backwater with a largely illiterate population to the space age, with nearly 100% literacy and almost 0% employment and homelessness. Of course, this all has to be balanced against the violence and repressions, so for some the cost may not have been worth it. But polls show that most of those who experienced the Brezhnev era (and even a good number who lived under Stalin) looked back nostalgically on it, and it’s pretty safe to say they would have preferred it in any case to being a peasant under the Tsar.
The French Revolution did, it is true, start out badly. But it eventually smoothed out. I’d say they are better off today without royalty that they were with.
Well, that’s a Revolutionary Utopia right there!
Whoops! The 0% employment bit was supposed to come later, after the establishment of communism. 
Wait, you’re saying the communist revolution replaced feudalism with capitalism…?
It’s even debatable whether the American revolution really made things better:
It turned out okay if you’re a white property-owning English-speaking person who is okay with slavery and Jim Crow. Neutral at best for everybody else. Never forget that the Constitution was an exercise in figuring out exactly how much slavery we needed to have a country. Jim Crow is an extension of that, and we’ve never really stopped litigating it in one form or another.
I’m saying that the stated immediate aim of the Bolsheviks was to institute capitalism in Russia. Communism was a long-term goal of theirs which, by their own admission, they never achieved.
They actually achieved communism. It was right in the party name. What they failed to achieve was socialism. They had a 5 year plan, though. So close.
By that logic, the North Koreans (i.e., the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) achieved democracy.
This depends on how you define “socialism”. The Bolsheviks certainly did achieve socialism as they defined it, and made a big deal about this. The fact that they (eventually) defined “socialism” as “capitalism with heavy regulation/control by the state” is something many people overlook.
They declared “State Capitalism” and in the next breath they declared “War Communism”. Which became the permanent state of affairs through the end of the cold war.
I don’t know. I mean Taiwan grew faster than China because China was run by inept communists (they reformed in the late 70s though).
I’m guessing/assuming Russia would be further along if the Bolsheviks had never taken power. If the provisional government of 1917 had been allowed to stand and the Russians had engaged in market economics I’m guessing they’d be wealthier than they are now.
Plus Stalinism was a nightmare for endless reasons.
I would guess/assume whether a revolution turns out good or not depends on a variety of factors.
How wealthy is nation X.
How educated is nation X.
How much stress is the nation under (war, famine, etc) and how desperate are the people.
How radicalized are the revolutionaries.
Is the revolution driven by a handful of violent extremists, or the general public engaging in non-violent resistance?
Stuff like that probably plays a major role in how well a revolution turns out. but I don’t have any real info beyond those assumptions.
If you want to look at the American Revolution you should compare it with Canada as the alternative path. Thus you have Britain banning slavery in 1833/1834 including most British colonies, such as Canada. This would have been better for the U.S. than the U.S. Civil War.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 turned out well.
It changed the system of government in Britain from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, subordinate to Parliament. (Okay, it didn’t turn out well for the Irish.)
In England it was really more of a bloodless coup. In Scotland it resulted in a series of unsuccessful Royalist and Catholic uprisings by a minority, to try to restore the old system. In Ireland there was a blood-soaked war, followed by the Protestant Supremacy for couple more centuries.
It’s a complex period to understand, with various religious, political, cultural, and international issues all mixed up.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is considered by some as being one of the most important events in the long evolution of the respective powers of Parliament and the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights, it stamped out once and for all any possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards absolute monarchy in the British kingdoms by circumscribing the monarch’s powers.
These powers were greatly restricted; he or she could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament’s permission…
Since 1689, government under a system of constitutional monarchy in England, and later the United Kingdom, has been uninterrupted. Since then, Parliament’s power has steadily increased while the Crown’s has steadily declined.
Why do you say that? The Revolution was so much more than the Terror.
Finland was a part of the Russian Empire and was itself an “impoverished agrarian backwater.” It became independent just after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Yet it also saw “unprecedented social, economic, and technological developments.” Indeed, its standard of living between 1917 and 1992 developed far beyond that of the Soviet Union. Economically speaking, few if any Finns would have traded places with a Soviet citizen. And importantly, in Finland there was no gulag, no state terror, nothing like the totalitarianism of the USSR.
So it’s quite possible that the Russian Revolution retarded the country’s modernization rather than accelerating it. And “violence and repressions” are easy to shrug at and relativize for those of us who have never had to live through them.