High-capacity regimes are likelier to involve state violent specialists in whatever collective violence 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: Central to the reader’s hypothesis test: does a high-capacity regime legitimating dominant-group violence mean state specialists appear in that violence as ‘rights defense’? — connects to: High-capacity regimes’ monopoly on coercion means their own agents dominate the violence that occurs — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 737; Regime type determines the forms and intensity of collective violence — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 689; Democratic high-capacity regimes vary remarkably in domestic contention despite controlling violence — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 895 (+7 more)
• SEED: The ‘ironic consequence’ - state monopoly on violence means state forces are on the scene when violence happens - is a lever for an essay on how legal states are structurally implicated in violence they purport to police.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 737

Broader Connections

• High-capacity regimes’ monopoly on coercion means their own agents dominate the violence that occurs #corroborates (0.92) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 737
• Regime capacity and democracy jointly shape the violence level of domestic contention #expands (0.88) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 898
• Regime narrowing of tolerated nonviolent performances channels claimants toward violence and invites state force #expands (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 744
• Monopoly of violence within precise borders is distinctive to the modern state #expands (0.76) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 155
• Regime type determines the forms and intensity of collective violence #expands (0.75) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 689
• Dominants delegate punitive violence to members of the targeted group #complicates (0.75)
• High-capacity regimes route contention through government, making mobilization affect regime structure. #qualifies (0.74) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 664
• High-capacity mobilization hits the regime directly while low-capacity contention rarely does #expands (0.73)
• Democratic high-capacity regimes vary remarkably in domestic contention despite controlling violence #complicates (0.72) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 895
• Efficient use of violence requires centralized, hierarchical firm organization #expands (0.71) — Diego Gambetta, The Sicilian Mafia The Business of…, 182