Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TarthenalToblakai t1_j3klv3f wrote

Reply to comment by nomorebuttsplz in Revolutionary Violence and Counterrevolution ["revolutions involving more violence are less at risk of counterrevolution and that this relationship exists primarily because violence lowers the likelihood of counterrevolutionary success—but not counterrevolutionary emergence"] by i_have_thick_loads

It's not a matter of violence "solving the root problem", it's a matter of violence being the most reliable means to overthrow established power structures.

You can't vote yourself out of a well entrenched status quo.

7

nomorebuttsplz t1_j3kwrr0 wrote

>t's a matter of violence being the most reliable means to overthrow established power structures.

Actually the study, if you peruse it, says that nonviolent movements are more effective at toppling existing power structures.

What the above quote says is that what violence is able to do is protect newly established power structures by crushing grassroots "counterrevolutionary" opposition.

9

[deleted] t1_j3ll8n1 wrote

Counter revolutions are rarely grassroots and almost always cia backed these days

2

TarthenalToblakai t1_j3ky9c4 wrote

Seems like somewhat contradictory conclusions to me. Successfully protecting new power structures against reactionary forces is an essential key aspect in toppling existing power structures.

1

nomorebuttsplz t1_j3m945c wrote

If you separate the toppling stage from the power consolidation phase of revolution there is no contradiction necessary. According to the statistical analysis, violence is good for power consolidation but nonviolence is better for toppling.
The terms "counterrevolutionary" or "reactionary" are politically loaded.
From an anarchist perspective, power consolidation might be seen as intrinsically counterrevolutionary - in which case this analysis shows violence tends to be counterrevolutionary as well.

2