nomorebuttsplz

nomorebuttsplz t1_j3m945c wrote

Reply to comment by TarthenalToblakai 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

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

nomorebuttsplz t1_j3kwrr0 wrote

Reply to comment by TarthenalToblakai 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

>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

nomorebuttsplz t1_j3jl972 wrote

Reply to 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

The study says violence helps keep autocrats out of power. But doesn't a violent revolution make it more likely that the new government will itself be autocratic? Does the author account for this? The abstract makes it sound as though violence solves the root problem of autocracy but looking at the example (from the study) of Cuba this doesn't seem to the case.

From the study: "these statistical models also revealed that violence diminishes the probability of counterrevolution primarily because it gives revolutionary governments the coercive tools to defeat bottom-up threats"

Bottom up threats like, say, a functional voting system?

5