The English Civil War, which was a form of revolution was arguably a positive thing. Without it Britain would have remained a tyrannical monarchy for long afterwards. This event led to a democratic parliament actually being useful.

The French revolution was bloody but ended immense corruption and repression on the part of the aristocracy. Again, this led to France being declared a constitutional Republic.

Even the Bolshevik revolution. It was corrupted later but it began positively.

Nobody is saying revolutions are clean or even desirable. I'm definitely saying that they seem inevitable at a point though. People can only take so much shit before they snap.

You should've led with the American Revolution, which was more of an insurrection than a true revolution. It's usually the poster child for a "good" revolution, though.

But all of the ones you cited support my argument: the process of revolution is brutally destructive and rapidly promotes psychopaths into positions of murderous authority.

Reform is often possible without them, which is why (fortunately) true revolution is relatively rare.

> But all of the ones you cited support my argument: the process of revolution is brutally destructive and rapidly promotes psychopaths into positions of murderous authority.

I don't think they do. Both the English and French revolutions led to better societies for the average citizen in spite of the bloodshed and chaos that was present initially.

I would go so far as to say it was necessary. What group of powerful elites will relinquish total control willingly?

Very few elites start with total control. Most of the reforms that have led to modern liberal democracy were taken voluntarily, even if begrudgingly.