Exclusionary and repressive weak states bred revolution while tolerant ones did not.

Evidence

[R]evolutionary movements became strong only where militarized yet infrastructurally weak states were consistently exclusionary, antireformist, and more or less indiscriminately repressive of their political opponents (moderates and reformists as well as revolutionaries) throughout the 1960s and 1970s. This formula applies to Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, but not to Honduras, where the military was more tolerant of politically moderate labor and peasant unions and even introduced a signifi- cant, if limited, agrarian reform “from above” during the early 1970s. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1086

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1086
• XREF: connects to: Consolidated states face far fewer revolutionary situations than founding regimes do — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1058; Indiscriminate repression by weak militarized states breeds revolutionary movements.; Colonial oppression itself generated the revolutionary resistance that opposed it — Cedric J. Robinson, Black Marxism_ The Making of the Black…, 827

Broader Connections

• Indiscriminate repression by weak militarized states breeds revolutionary movements. #corroborates (0.92)
• Colonial oppression itself generated the revolutionary resistance that opposed it #expands (0.72) — Cedric J. Robinson, Black Marxism_ The Making of the Black…, 827