Class-based revolutions from below distort the wider record of forcible power shifts

Evidence

For all the revolutionary richness of the last few decades, concentrating heavily on the recent past risks masking how much the conditions, forms, and processes of revolution vary and change. Let us step back for a longer comparative-historical look. The history of European revolutions over the last half-millennium underscores three points of great importance for the study of regimes and repertoires: (1) that close concentration on classbased revolutions from below introduces deep distortion into our perception of forcible shifts in control over governments; (2) that prevailing forms of those shifts vary and change historically; and (3) that variation and change in the organization of regimes and the character of contentious repertoires shapes what kinds of shifts actually occur. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 995

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

• XREF: Relevant to the reader’s asymmetry test: class-anchored revolution-from-below models presume the subordinate-side repertoire; if that focus distorts, it may also blind analysts to dominant-class power seizures and their legitimation.
• QUESTION: Does this class-focus critique extend to labeling politics as ‘rights defense’ versus ‘revolution’ by reference to which class is mobilizing?

Related

• Regime structure determines revolutionary situation frequency and character (similarity 0.80)
• High capacity and democracy suppress revolutionary situations while medium-capacity regimes favor outcomes (similarity 0.79)
• Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes (similarity 0.78)
• Explanations of revolution must name processes, not prior conditions, and vary by regime. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Dominant classes survive crises by out-maneuvering subordinate groups #qualifies (0.72)