You're arguing against a strawman. My article doesn't say violent revolution is necessary for social progress. All I said is that some chaos and trial and error should have been expected in such a drastic overhaul of a universal type of social institution. No prophetic foresight should have been needed to predict that such a revolution might slide into a dictatorship before reaching a stable advancement.

And I said, Burke didn't have the moral high ground in condemning the violence of the French Revolution, because of all the violence needed to stabilize the woefully unjust and fraudulent dominance hierarchies the conservative implicitly prefers.

Due to their much smaller numbers, if the ancients had modern weaponry, we would have driven ourselves to extinction thousands of years ago. It's only because the same technological advances that gave us more deadly weapons increased our populations too (because of medical advances and so forth), that we've kept up our population growth in spite of that greater power over life.

And as I say in the article, it's easy to say progress should be slow since that makes for greater stability, but tell that to the masses that are oppressed by such stable arrangements. No, they wouldn't want to be guillotined by the revolutionaries, but they'd also prefer not to be slaves or peasants. That's why folks take a chance with revolutions in the modern period, when secular progress became imaginable, thanks especially to the Scientific Revolution.

Burke was hardly in a position to speak for the lower classes, although his elitism made him presume he knew what's best for everyone. Alas, the intellectual superiority of the upper class must be balanced against its greater corruption, owing to its concentration of power. That gives the well-off a conflict of interest, to say the least.