WHY STUDY VIOLENCE IN A POLITICS CLASS? How is violence different than other forms of politics? Does it even make sense to call it politics? Isn’t it undertaken bc politics has failed? Violence is: Physical dominance and coercion. What are the other options of persuasion that are more consensual? (on either processes or outcomes): hegemony, cooption of elites, clientelism (including entitlements), propaganda, and democratic system rigging/manipulation Three ways to think about violence (from Ginsberg): (1) It sometimes has to be used when all else fails; (2) it happens when miscalculation happens; (3) it is the predominant way politics is done and always in the background…but will diminish over time. And (4, Ginsberg’s way): Violence is not subordinate in any way What are some of the main forms of violent politics? Internal: Political repression (civil liberties, voting, labor organization, opposition targeting), revolution, civil wars, coups, terrorism, genocide, torture insurgency; crime & punishment, and abuse as social policy External: War, state-building and counter-insurgency, coercive diplomacy, “off-shore balancing,” deterrence strategies and mutually assured destruction, proxy conflicts, demonstration effects, humanitarian intervention, robust peacekeeping, and even economic sanctions

WHY IS THERE POLITICAL VIOLENCE? What’s the case that politics will be less violent over time? Steven Pinker, other “social constructivists,” and liberals: It is a biological, psychological, and historical construction Why is violence still is a primary form of politics? Mao and Ginsberg: Violence is and will remain the primary agent of macro political change because of its uniquely transformative capacities… We tend to forget and downplay how critical violence has been in our own history. It instantly drives the agenda It frequently is the only means of mobilization and political voice available to the weak… Everything else is literally rigged. State and nation building: Other politics only can take place after force has destroyed or decisively reshaped things (Indigenous Americans, Civil War, WW2, Mexican territory, & the Civil Rights Movement as examples) Interstate rivalry and systemic power (the theory of “realism”): Intl politics is zero sum and an anarchy Violence is the historical norm because its alternatives are difficult (violence is appealing argues Ginsberg b/c states & elites can control it more cheaply). To use it well requires a strong bureaucracy, which favors states. The security dilemma: even states and individuals that reject violence as a legitimate mode of politics retain the capacity to use it… and use it preemptively

What is a revolution? Why is revolution so glamorized? Because they are mass movements from the bottom up that usually promise a better life for all and violent retribution against oppression. However, they almost never end up delivering. How are they different than coups or other types of social unrest? Revolutions result in a complete change in: 1) leadership, 2) world-view, and 3) key economic, social, and political institutions The American “War of Independence” (not a revolution) vs. the French Revolution (yes a revolution) Despite, what Magstadt says, the American Founders weren’t revolutionary… Most were carry over elites from the previous regime. In fact, one of the main reasons they met to write the Constitution was that they wanted to stop the support for ongoing revolution by instead changing the American system so that it would have federalism, liberties, & a strong central government

When do revolutions succeed? What do are their results? The poor typically don’t revolt (sorry Marx), but emergent classes revolt usually only when raised expectations are not being met & the old elite is split and unprotected by outside forces Organization matters: Lenin’s theory of vanguard parties Totalitarian ideologies to mobilize the people Cult figures, propaganda, mass mobilization, and non-state-violence – They force people to choose The empirical record of revolution (forget about pop songs and Locke): They almost never are helpful to the masses, at least in the short term; the institutionalization of rev. parties almost always leads to violent purges , a dominant party, and some type of authoritarianism or even totalitarianism unless a democratic state imposes it from the outside and institutionalizes democracy

WHY DOES NON-Violent RESISTANCE WORK BEST? Violence vs. Non-violence: the track-record Non-violent movements have succeeded in bringing down tyrants at 6 times the rate of violent movements that met with armed state resistance When key defections take place among regime supporters, the odds of bringing down a tyrant is four times as high. If a sig. portion of the security forces defect, a tyrant is nearly 50 times as likely to be pushed out. Non-violence is also much more likely to lead to a stable transition and a long-term democratic settlement Why does violence not work very well? Violent opposition leads to increased cohesion among regime elites who fear that a “revolutionary” outcome will be very harmful for them. Violence decreases support among key swing groups who support for the regime Decreases external (i.e. foreign) support for opposition and fear that a system will destabilize What is the “strategy? of non-violence? Knowing when it will work, organizing first, and targeting it to split the regime: Lots of successful opposition begins outside but it must move inside Choosing action with great care: Creativity is crucial, highlighting paradoxes, splitting the opposition (esp. with economic boycotts), & laying out a post-struggle scenario clearly that lets regime defectors know that they will survive…especially if they abandon the regime early