High regime capacity and democracy suppress revolutionary situations by raising organizing costs.

Evidence

The crucial causal regularities connect revolutionary situations and outcomes to regimes and repertoires. The greater a regime’s capacity and democracy, the more difficult it is for revolutionary contenders to form, for substantial segments of the citizenry to commit themselves on behalf of those contenders, and for those who do organize and commit themselves to escape suppression. Hence revolutionary situations occur much more frequently in low-capacity, nondemocratic regimes than in other types, especially high-capacity, democratic regimes. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 979

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Directly relevant to the reader’s stated test: capacity/democracy here channel and suppress subordinate-group politicization — the mechanism central to the hypothesis about institutional absorption defusing contention.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s regime-capacity/democracy matrix hunt and the asymmetry test about rights regimes defusing subordinate politicization while legitimating dominant politicization. — connects to: High capacity and democracy suppress revolutionary situations while medium-capacity regimes favor outcomes — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 979; Higher regime capacity with some democratic freedoms produces intermediate contention — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 503; High-capacity regimes route contention through government, making mobilization affect regime structure. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 664 (+9 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 979

Broader Connections

• High capacity and democracy suppress revolutionary situations while medium-capacity regimes favor outcomes #expands (0.95) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 979
• Regime capacity and democracy jointly shape prevailing contentious repertoires. #corroborates (0.88) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 533
• Higher regime capacity with some democratic freedoms produces intermediate contention #qualifies (0.85) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 503
• Rising state capacity raises revolution’s stakes and social impact while lowering its odds. #corroborates (0.85) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1067
• High-capacity authoritarian regimes defeat uncoordinated protest with diffuse aims. #exemplifies (0.82) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 374
• High-capacity regimes route contention through government, making mobilization affect regime structure. #expands (0.80) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 664
• Rising governmental capacity raises revolution’s stakes and impact while reducing fragmentation #expands (0.80) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1067
• Governments have long capped assembly sizes to suppress collective action #exemplifies (0.80) — Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, 4870
• Spontaneous mass uprising without organized revolutionary leadership invites state suppression #exemplifies (0.80) — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 77
• Regime capacity, not just state consolidation, shapes revolutionary coalition frequency and type. #expands (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1043
• Restricting freedom provokes the rebellion it aims to prevent #complicates (0.78)
• High-capacity mobilization hits the regime directly while low-capacity contention rarely does #expands (0.75)