Letting the masses run wild usually adds some hard to control element to the whole equation.

Is it a 'revolution', if it fails?

>inb4 "the american revolution succeeded"
It wasn't really a revolution, more like an organized uprising.

Because revolutions always breed more revolutions. Remember, it is never the idea but the circumstances. The circumstances that allowed one revolution to thrive allow others as well. Thus, counter revolutions.

>>1425022
Look at Syria.

On the one side, you have the government and it's supporters. They make up more or less half of the population. They also have the defense apparatus, control of metropolitan areas, and most importantly, ideological unity. All they want to do is restore other.

Now let's look at the opposition. They might have some cities, some infrastructure, and some military equipment under their control, but what they don't have us ideological unity. And they might put their differences aside for a time, but eventually there will be infighting.

So instead of Government v. Opposition, you have Government v. Religious Extremists (FSA) v. The real Hardcore Extremists (Al Qaeda, ISIS) v. Secessionists (Turkmen, kurds) v. Off brand religious Extremists (Shia militias and the like) v. Liberal secularists ([ERROR: Not Found]).

And that's just dealing with religious and ethnic differences. Imagine how it's going to go when you throw fascists and commies and anarchists into the mix. They all have to agree all the time, but the government just has to pick them off one by one.

>>1425022
Organization money and power, the established government has these things and has likely had them for decades

Any challenger must gather these things very quickly and then fight the established power

It doesn't work out that often

If you are lucky you can catch the establishment with their pants down like the french

Regardless of your thoughts on it, basically the entire world at the very least pays lip service to the ideals of the French Revolution, so I really don't think it's fair to call it failed.

>>1425022

It's easier to maintain the statu quo.

They don't, if they fail they're called a revolt, not a revolution.