High-capacity regimes’ monopoly on coercion means their own agents dominate the violence that occurs

Evidence

Regimes affect salience directly by authorities’ control over possession and use of violent means, including control of violent specialists such as soldiers, police, militias, and gangs. High-capacity regimes take command of the principal concentrated means of coercion within their territories, employ or license the bulk of violent specialists, and set obstacles in the way of anyone’s accumulation of substantial autonomous coercive means or personnel. As an ironic consequence, when collective violence does occur in high-capacity regimes, government-controlled violent specialists much more often take part in it than is the case for low-capacity regimes. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 737

Categorization

• XREF: This is the state-monopoly-of-coercion mechanism the reader needs: when a regime absorbs the means of violence, government actors become the only legitimate violent specialists — feeding the reader’s thesis that dominant-group ‘rights defense’ gets legitimated. — connects to: Democratic regimes deploy civilian police rather than military against protesters; Violence capacity being dichotomous makes the protection market monopolistic; Governmental coercion increases rather than suppresses political conflict — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4330 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Violence capacity being dichotomous makes the protection market monopolistic #expands (0.82)
• Centralized coercion concentrates and magnifies its destructive capacity #expands (0.78) — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 286
• Governmental coercion increases rather than suppresses political conflict #contradicts (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4330