Regime type determines the forms and intensity of collective violence

Evidence

Characteristic forms and intensities of collective violence differ dramatically from one type of regime to another. They also change significantly as regime change occurs. These variations mainly result from the fact that control of the means of collective violence varies greatly across different types of regimes, as do the alternatives to violent making of claims and counterclaims. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 689

One part of the answer to the salience-coordination question comes from our earlier explorations of regimes and repertoires. We have good reasons for expecting the salience and coordination of collective violence to vary significantly from one sort of regime to another. 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. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 737

Categorization

• XREF: Directly answers the reader: repertoires of contention vary with regime type via capacity and democratization axes - the framework the reader is testing. — connects to: Regime structure determines revolutionary situation frequency and character — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1045; Regime capacity and democracy jointly shape the violence level of domestic contention — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 898; Regime capacity to mobilize violence depends on patron-client networks and assets — Johan Brosché and Hanne Fjelde and Kristine Höglund, Electoral violence and the legacy of…, 83 (+9 more)
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 689; Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 737

Broader Connections

• Regime structure determines revolutionary situation frequency and character #expands (0.92) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1045
• Regime capacity and democracy jointly shape the violence level of domestic contention #qualifies (0.85) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 898
• High-capacity regimes’ monopoly on coercion means their own agents dominate the violence that occurs #exemplifies (0.80) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 737
• Regime capacity to mobilize violence depends on patron-client networks and assets #qualifies (0.78) — Johan Brosché and Hanne Fjelde and Kristine Höglund, Electoral violence and the legacy of…, 83
• Collective violence shifts with changing opportunity structures, not static conditions #complicates (0.74) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 817
• Adaptation capacity shapes whether socioeconomic change produces political violence #qualifies (0.74) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4345