The State-Collapse Question: Institutional Deterioration and the Mechanics of Revolutionary Success

Full report

On this page

Introduction: The Orthogonality of State Capacity and Insurgent Strength

The historical study of armed revolutions is frequently clouded by voluntarist narratives that romanticize the agency, ideological fervor, and tactical brilliance of insurgent movements. According to this prevailing popular framework, revolutions are "won" by revolutionaries who, through superior mobilization, mass appeal, and guerrilla warfare, systematically overpower the incumbent regime. However, rigorous comparative historical sociology suggests a fundamentally different causal sequence: revolutions are not primarily won by insurgents, but rather lost by governments. This report tests the proposition that major armed revolutions succeed primarily because the incumbent state ceases functioning coherently, rather than because insurgents achieve conventional military superiority over the state. To accurately measure this, it is necessary to treat insurgent strength and government weakness as entirely separate and independent variables, rather than opposite ends of a single continuum1. A robust, coherent state endowed with fiscal solvency, bureaucratic competence, and elite cohesion can withstand, isolate, and defeat highly capable and heavily armed insurgent movements. Conversely, when a state experiences severe institutional deterioration—manifesting as fiscal insolvency, administrative paralysis, internal succession disputes, military demoralization, and the withdrawal of foreign support—it creates a structural vacuum. This vacuum allows even numerically and materially inferior insurgent groups to seize power. The core hypothesis under examination is the historical proposition that the government must become unable or unwilling to govern before an insurgency can replace it. This concept was famously articulated by revolutionary architect Vladimir Lenin, who posited the fundamental law of revolution: a revolution occurs only when the "lower classes" do not want to live in the old way, and the "upper classes" cannot carry on in the old way2. This implies that a crisis of the ruling class—a systemic inability to govern affecting the exploiters as much as the exploited—is a mandatory precondition for revolutionary triumph3. To rigorously evaluate this proposition, this report examines the condition of the incumbent government across successful revolutionary cases, including Russia in 1917, China during the revolutionary period, Cuba under Fulgencio Batista, Nicaragua under the Somoza dynasty, and Afghanistan during the 2021 regime collapse. It also evaluates Iran in 1979 as a partially non-insurgent comparator to isolate the variable of state collapse from armed insurgency. Crucially, it contrasts these with counterexamples where governments survived seemingly worse violence, such as El Salvador and Colombia. Through this comparative analysis, the mechanisms of state deterioration are isolated to determine whether revolutionary victory generally occurs after a measurable sequence of institutional breakdown.

Theoretical Foundations: Structural Vulnerability and State Breakdown

Understanding why states collapse requires moving beyond grievance-based models of rebellion. Grievances, inequality, and oppression are ubiquitous in human societies, but successful social revolutions are exceedingly rare. The "third" and "fourth" generations of comparative revolutionary theory address this discrepancy by centering the state itself as the primary variable of interest.

Structural Autonomy and Anti-Voluntarism

Theda Skocpol's seminal structuralist theory establishes that revolutions are not simply "made" by intentional actors, but rather emerge from structural crises that paralyze the state's coercive and administrative machinery6. Skocpol’s approach is explicitly anti-voluntarist: revolutionary ideology and leadership are viewed as the effects of structural openings, not their absolute causes6. She identifies a specific conjunction of events that lead to state breakdown: international military pressure that strains state finances interacting with an agrarian class structure that prevents the state from modernizing its extractive capabilities6. When the monarchy or autocracy faces external military threats but is blocked by domestic elites from raising taxes, the centralized administrative and military machinery disintegrates, leaving class relations vulnerable to assaults from below7.

Demographic Strain and Ecological Crises

Jack Goldstone expanded upon this framework by introducing demographic and ecological pressures into the calculus of state breakdown. Goldstone argues that revolutions arise when inflexible political and economic institutions are overwhelmed by the cumulative pressure of population growth on limited available resources8. Over time, this shifts a society from stable equilibrium to unstable equilibrium9. Goldstone identifies a sequence of elements that create this instability: national economic or fiscal strains, alienation and opposition among the elites, and a high potential for popular mobilization around shared grievances6. Furthermore, Goldstone differentiates between patterns of state breakdown. The "central collapse" model, typical of Western revolutions like Russia, sees revolutionaries seize power in the capital first as the state implodes, subsequently expanding into the periphery. In contrast, the "peripheral advance" model, typical of Eastern revolutions like China, involves revolutionaries establishing remote base areas and slowly expanding their authority as the central state hollows out over time9.

Exclusionary Authoritarianism and "No Other Way Out"

Jeff Goodwin’s state-centered perspective emphasizes that certain types of states inherently breed revolutionary movements. Goodwin argues that the formation of revolutionary movements is primarily caused by "exclusionary authoritarian states that are also organizationally incoherent and militarily weak"10. When a state protects unpopular economic arrangements and violently represses mobilized groups without the actual capacity to comprehensively crush them, it unwittingly channels popular resistance into radical, armed directions10. The state’s indiscriminate violence combined with administrative incompetence leaves the populace with "no other way out" but to destroy the state apparatus11.

Multiple Sovereignty and Dual Power

Charles Tilly refined the mechanics of state collapse by introducing the concept of "multiple sovereignty" or "dual power"12. A revolutionary situation occurs when two or more blocs make effective, incompatible claims to control the state12. For an insurgency to achieve multiple sovereignty, the incumbent state must first experience a contraction of its administrative reach, a collapse of policing, and a declining judicial authority. Only when the state can no longer enforce its rules or provide a monopoly on violence can an insurgent bloc construct a parallel state architecture14.

The Sequence of Institutional Deterioration: Case Studies in State Collapse

The collapse of incumbent governments generally follows a measurable sequence of institutional deterioration. While the specific exogenous catalysts vary—ranging from foreign wars to natural disasters—the pathology of state death exhibits remarkable consistency. By examining the condition of the incumbent government across historical cases, the variables of state weakness become clear.

Fiscal Insolvency: The Catalyst of Paralysis

The most reliable leading indicator of state breakdown is fiscal insolvency. A state's primary function is the extraction of resources to fund its administrative and coercive apparatuses. When a state can no longer pay its soldiers, bureaucrats, or police, confidence among ordinary officials evaporates, and authority dissolves.

The Chinese Nationalist Collapse (1945–1949)

The collapse of the Kuomintang (KMT) government in China perfectly illustrates how fiscal disintegration inevitably precedes military defeat. Following the War of Resistance against Japan, the Republic of China was economically devastated15. To finance the resumed civil war against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the KMT resorted to aggressive currency manipulation and the over-issuance of fiat money16. The resulting hyperinflation destroyed the savings of the urban middle class, alienating the regime's core demographic base and prompting massive student protests in major cities demanding "food, peace, and freedom"17. In a desperate attempt to stabilize the economy and address the deficit, the Nationalist government introduced the Gold Yuan in August 1948, forcing citizens to surrender their gold and foreign currency for unbacked paper15. The policy was a catastrophic failure. Initially intending to issue 2 billion Gold Yuan, the government flooded the market with 130.3 trillion yuan by June 194917. By April 1949, the exchange rate in Shanghai had plummeted to 95,000,000 Gold Yuan to one US Dollar17. This fiscal collapse had an immediate, devastating impact on the state's military and administrative reach. KMT soldiers, mostly conscripted peasants, saw their wages rendered entirely worthless17. Unable to feed themselves or support their families, and suffering from war fatigue, KMT troops began defecting en masse to the CCP, taking their American-supplied weaponry with them17. The CCP did not defeat the KMT solely through superior tactical maneuvers; the KMT state ceased to function as a coherent economic entity, starving its own coercive apparatus of the resources needed to fight15.

Russia's Economic Paralysis and Dual Power (1917)

Similarly, the Russian Revolution of 1917 was precipitated by the severe fiscal and logistical strain of World War I. The Tsarist regime, and subsequently the Provisional Government, proved entirely incapable of managing the economic demands of total war. The printing of unbacked paper money (the "kerenki" and "sovznaki") led to spiraling hyperinflation21. The transportation network collapsed, leading to catastrophic food shortages in major urban centers like Petrograd, which directly triggered the bread riots of the February Revolution2. The Provisional Government, burdened by its insistence on continuing the war to appease foreign allies, assumed responsibility without the backing of real institutional power, leading to a terminal crisis of legitimacy24. This created a textbook case of Tilly's multiple sovereignty: the Provisional Government nominally held state power in military and international affairs, while the network of Soviets held domestic power and control over local militias25. As Lenin observed, the Russian soldiers, unpaid, unfed, and demoralized by mass casualties at Tannenberg and Galicia, "voted for peace with their legs"2. The state's inability to supply its personnel directly caused the military to evaporate.

Bureaucratic Rot and Elite Defection

A state can survive popular unrest if its elites remain cohesive. However, when the ruling coalition fractures, and competent administrators are replaced by loyalist sycophants, the state loses its ability to respond dynamically to crises. Competing centers of authority emerge, and the judiciary and police forces cease to operate with authority.

The "Ministerial Leapfrog" in Russia (1915-1917)

The decay of the Romanov dynasty's bureaucratic competence is epitomized by the phenomenon known as "ministerial leapfrog." Between September 1915 and February 1917, while Tsar Nicholas II was at the military front, domestic governance was effectively left to Tsarina Alexandra and the mystic Grigori Rasputin27. During this brief 17-month period, Russia cycled through four Prime Ministers, five Ministers of the Interior, three Foreign Ministers, three War Ministers, three Ministers of Transport, and four Ministers of Agriculture27. This rapid turnover removed competent administrators from power and replaced them with individuals chosen solely for their loyalty to the Tsarina and Rasputin rather than their ability28. The constant reshuffling completely disorganized the work of the government, preventing any long-term strategic planning to address the compounding military and economic crises23. Bureaucratic anarchy developed with competing chains of authority28. Elite confidence in the monarchy plummeted, culminating in the assassination of Rasputin by aristocrats in December 1916—a clear signal of extreme elite defection26. When the February Revolution began, the traditional pillars of the autocracy—the nobility, the Duma, and the military high command—defected, advising the Tsar to abdicate rather than deploying force to save him30.

Nicaragua and the Alienation of the Oligarchy (1979)

In Nicaragua, the Somoza dynasty maintained control for over four decades through a combination of brutal repression via the National Guard and a tight alliance with the country's economic oligarchy and the United States33. However, following the 1972 Managua earthquake, Anastasio Somoza Debayle brazenly embezzled international relief funds, moving to monopolize sectors of the economy traditionally controlled by the broader business elite33. Somoza personally owned 25 percent of the nation's land, while National Guard officers owned another 10 percent34. By transforming the state from an exclusionary authoritarian regime into a purely personalist kleptocracy, Somoza shattered elite cohesion33. Pervasive corruption transformed the National Guard into a gangland mob, enforcing power through bribery and kickbacks33. The middle class and the business elites, alienated by the regime's greed and the indiscriminate violence of the Guard, began to tacitly and explicitly support the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN)34. The political legitimacy of the state vanished entirely. When a state's traditional elite power brokers view an armed insurgency as a preferable alternative to the incumbent regime, the state is in terminal decline.

The Collapse of the Coercive Apparatus

The proximate cause of state collapse is almost always the failure of the military and police to defend the regime. This failure is rarely due to a lack of weaponry; rather, it stems from a collapse of morale, internal corruption, an inability to supply personnel, and a total loss of political legitimacy.

Cuba: The Hollow Army of Batista (1958)

The Cuban Revolution provides a stark example of an incumbent state ceasing to function despite holding overwhelming conventional military superiority. By late 1958, Fulgencio Batista's armed forces numbered roughly 20,000 to 30,000 personnel, equipped with modern American weaponry, M4 Sherman tanks, and aircraft35. In contrast, Fidel Castro's rebel forces in the Sierra Maestra were vastly outnumbered, with early 1958 estimates placing Castro's core force at roughly 280 to 300 men35. If insurgent strength relative to the state were the primary determinant of success, the Cuban Revolution would have been impossible. However, Batista's army was profoundly hollow. The regime lacked fundamental political legitimacy, having seized power in a bloodless 1952 coup that aborted the democratic process35. The officer corps was deeply politicized and corrupt, structured by Batista to prevent internal coups rather than to fight counterinsurgencies39. When Batista launched his summer offensive in 1958, the army units, unfamiliar with guerrilla terrain and suffering from abysmal morale, became isolated and were easily defeated by small bands of rebels36. As the rebels advanced, the Cuban army simply stopped fighting. The policing and judicial authority in the eastern provinces of Oriente, Camaguey, and Las Villas collapsed entirely, with land transportation severed and the economy paralyzed36. Facing inevitable defeat and plummeting morale, Batista fled the country on January 1, 1959, leaving behind a military apparatus that surrendered almost immediately despite possessing massive stockpiles of weapons36. The state collapsed from within, unwilling to fight for a regime that had lost all moral authority36.

Afghanistan: The Evaporation of the ANDSF (2021)

The collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) in August 2021 is a modern testament to the primacy of institutional coherence over paper strength. On paper, the ANDSF was a formidable force with an authorized end-strength of 352,000 personnel, funded by nearly $90 billion in U.S. investments and equipped with modern aviation and armor41. The Taliban, by contrast, fielded an estimated 60,000 lightly armed fighters42. Yet, the ANDSF dissolved in a matter of weeks. Reports from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and the Afghanistan War Commission (AWC) reveal that the Afghan state was fundamentally unviable and institutionally deteriorated long before the final offensive43. The troop numbers were vastly inflated by "ghost soldiers"—fictitious personnel created by corrupt commanders to siphon salaries from the central government, starving the actual fighting forces of pay and supplies43. The state's coercive apparatus suffered from a fatal design flaw: the United States designed the ANDSF as a mirror image of U.S. forces, requiring a high degree of professional military sophistication, air support, and complex logistics46. Consequently, the logistical framework of the Afghan military was entirely dependent on U.S. contractors41. When the U.S. announced its unconditional withdrawal, removing both the psychological backing and the physical logistical network, the Afghan government's administrative reach vanished instantly43. Soldiers who had not been paid in months, lacking food and ammunition, negotiated surrenders with the Taliban rather than fight for a central government in Kabul that they viewed as systemically corrupt and illegitimate46. The Afghan state did not fall because the Taliban developed superior conventional military tactics; it fell because the state was an artificial construct that ceased to function the moment external scaffolding was removed44.

Foreign Policy Disasters and the Loss of Patronage

In an interconnected global system, authoritarian regimes often rely on foreign patrons for fiscal solvency and military supply. The sudden withdrawal of this support acts as an exogenous shock, or foreign policy disaster, that rapidly accelerates state breakdown. In Nicaragua, Somoza attempted to play a diplomatic game with the Carter administration's human rights policy34. However, U.S. military aid was definitively terminated in 1978, and international arms shipments were blocked33. Deprived of US backing, the National Guard ran out of ammunition, spare parts, fuel, and medical supplies33. This culminated in a fatal internal succession dispute. The U.S. Ambassador brokered a plan for Somoza to resign and hand power to an interim successor, Francisco Urcuyo, who would negotiate a cease-fire47. However, Urcuyo reneged on the deal, intending to remain in power until 1981, collapsing the peace plan. The U.S. withdrew, the National Guard evaporated, and the Sandinistas marched into Managua virtually unopposed47. In Cuba, the U.S. suspension of combat arms shipments in March 1958 signaled to both the Cuban elite and the military that Batista was an international liability, devastating military morale38. In Afghanistan, the signing of the 2020 Doha Agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban—which excluded the Afghan government—was a massive foreign policy disaster for Kabul. It stripped the government of its political legitimacy, emboldened the Taliban, and precipitated the withdrawal of the critical U.S. air support that kept the ANDSF functional43. In each case, the loss of foreign support exposed and accelerated the deep, pre-existing internal rot of the incumbent state.

The Non-Insurgent Comparator: Iran 1979

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 serves as a vital comparator because it succeeded with virtually no organized, conventional insurgent military wing. The overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty demonstrates that if a state becomes utterly paralyzed and unable to govern, it can be dismantled purely through mass civilian mobilization, demonstrating that insurgent strength is not the primary driver of revolution. The Shah's regime possessed the largest, best-equipped military in the Middle East, backed by massive oil revenues and U.S. support. However, rapid, uneven modernization alienated the traditional bazaar merchants and the religious establishment, while severe political repression alienated the urban middle class. When mass protests erupted, the Shah vacillated between violent repression and tentative concessions, projecting weakness and institutional incoherence. Crucially, massive strikes in the oil sector crippled the state's fiscal engine, choking off revenue2. As millions flooded the streets, the military's rank-and-file—overwhelmed, lacking clear directives, and unwilling to continuously slaughter unarmed civilians—began to defect or declare neutrality. The Iranian state ceased to function coherently, and the regime collapsed without ever fighting a pitched military battle against an organized guerrilla army. This confirms that the primary requirement for revolutionary victory is the total collapse of the state's will and capacity to govern.

Counterexamples: State Survival Amidst Severe Violence

To rigorously test the proposition that state breakdown is a necessary precondition for revolutionary success, one must examine cases where insurgents were objectively powerful, yet the state survived. If insurgent strength were the primary driver of revolution, highly capable groups like the FMLN in El Salvador or the FARC in Colombia should have seized power. They did not, because the incumbent governments, despite profound crises, maintained institutional coherence, elite unity, and fiscal solvency.

El Salvador (1980–1992): Elite Cohesion and Fiscal Lifelines

During the Salvadoran Civil War, the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) was one of the most capable insurgent armies in Latin American history, backed by Cuba and the Soviet Union50. The FMLN launched massive nationwide offensives, controlled significant territory, and possessed a high degree of tactical sophistication50. The violence was extreme, with state-sponsored death squads resulting in tens of thousands of casualties in events like La Matanza and the subsequent civil war massacres50. Why did the Salvadoran state survive? First, the economic elite maintained high levels of political cohesion. Recognizing the existential threat posed by the FMLN, ultra-conservative business leaders, landowners, and military figures united to form the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA)51. Unlike in Nicaragua, where Somoza alienated the elite through personal greed, the Salvadoran oligarchy bound its fate tightly to the state apparatus, ensuring political unity51. Second, the state never suffered fiscal insolvency. The United States viewed El Salvador as a critical Cold War battleground and provided over $1 billion in military and economic assistance—averaging $1.5 million per day50. This massive influx of capital ensured that the state could continuously pay its soldiers, expand its military forces, and maintain a functioning logistical network despite the FMLN's sabotage of the domestic economy50. When the FMLN launched a major offensive in 1989, they discovered that an urban mass insurrection was not forthcoming52. Because the Salvadoran state never collapsed internally, it fought the FMLN to a strategic stalemate, eventually resulting in the 1992 Chapultepec Peace Accords where the FMLN demobilized50.

Colombia: The Democratic Security Tax and Institutional Adaptation

Colombia faced a similar dynamic. By the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) had grown into a massive insurgent force, funded by the illicit narcotics trade, and was threatening major cities. However, the Colombian state did not fracture. Instead, under President Álvaro Uribe, the state achieved remarkable elite cohesion. Through "Plan Colombia," the state received substantial US military and financial aid55. More importantly, the domestic elite demonstrated a willingness to fund their own survival. Uribe successfully implemented a "Democratic Security Tax," a wealth tax on the country's richest citizens and corporations, enacted via emergency decree57. Because the business elite trusted the government's counterinsurgency agenda and maintained robust linkages with the state, they paid the tax56. This provided the state with the independent fiscal resources required to expand the military, professionalize the police, and push the FARC back into the deep jungle56. The state's administrative reach expanded, and its monopoly on violence was progressively restored.

Syria: Coup-Proofing and Factional Loyalty

While distinct from Latin American examples, Bashar al-Assad's survival in the Syrian Civil War underscores the role of structural state design in surviving uprisings. Despite losing control over vast swathes of territory, suffering severe economic sanctions, and facing a highly motivated, heavily armed constellation of rebel forces, the core of the Syrian state did not disintegrate. This survival is largely attributed to decades of "coup-proofing" and the embedding of the Alawite minority elite within the upper echelons of the military and intelligence services58. Because the fate of the Alawite elite and the military high command was inextricably tied to the survival of the Assad regime, there were no significant elite defections at the highest levels58. Furthermore, when domestic resources were exhausted, external lifelines from Russia and Iran provided the fiscal and military support necessary to maintain the state's coercive core and administrative reach.

Analytical Synthesis: The Matrix of State Deterioration

By treating insurgent strength and government weakness as separate variables, and comparing successful revolutions with counterexamples of state survival, a clear matrix of institutional deterioration emerges1. The data confirms that revolutionary victory generally occurs after a measurable sequence of state decay affecting specific pillars of governance.

The Mechanism of Institutional Suicide

When the aforementioned state conditions decay—specifically fiscal solvency and elite cohesion—the state can no longer project authority into the periphery, enforce the law, or provide basic public goods. In this vacuum, an insurgency ceases to be merely an armed rebellion and transforms into a parallel state, exploiting the condition of multiple sovereignty12. In China, as the KMT's currency became worthless, the CCP provided alternative administrative structures in the countryside, executing land reform and establishing a functioning micro-economy18. The populace defected to the insurgents not necessarily out of deep ideological conversion, but because the incumbent state was failing to provide minimal physical and economic security. In Afghanistan, the Taliban simply walked into districts where the local police and military had not been paid and lacked the ammunition to resist, rendering combat unnecessary44.

The Irrelevance of Insurgent Strength against a Coherent State

The evidence strongly refutes the notion that insurgents can simply out-fight a functioning state. The FMLN in El Salvador was vastly more heavily armed and tactically proficient than Castro's 26th of July Movement in Cuba. Yet, Castro succeeded where the FMLN failed. The differentiating variable was not the insurgents, but the condition of the target state. Batista's state was an organizationally incoherent, personalist dictatorship that hollowed out its own military and lost international backing36. The Salvadoran state was an internationally bankrolled, elite-unified apparatus that maintained its coercive capacity51. Therefore, insurgent strategy should be understood not as an effort to militarily defeat the state's army in open combat, but as an effort to accelerate the state's internal deterioration. Guerrilla warfare is designed to strain the state's fiscal resources, provoke indiscriminate repression that alienates the population and elites, and demonstrate to foreign patrons that the regime is a lost cause11.

Conclusion

This comparative analysis confirms the proposition that major armed revolutions succeed primarily because the incumbent state ceases functioning coherently. The historical record demonstrates unequivocally that "the government must become unable or unwilling to govern before the insurgency can replace it." When treating insurgent strength and state capacity as separate variables, the data reveals that high insurgent strength is inherently insufficient to topple a state that retains fiscal solvency, bureaucratic competence, and elite cohesion. However, when a state suffers a sequence of institutional deterioration—typified by the hyperinflation of KMT China, the "ministerial leapfrog" of Tsarist Russia, the elite alienation of Somoza's Nicaragua, or the artificial hollowness of the Afghan Republic—it becomes fatally vulnerable. In these environments of deterioration, the state loses its monopoly on violence, its coercive apparatus evaporates due to demoralization and lack of pay, judicial authority declines, and a condition of multiple sovereignty emerges. Revolutions are not won on the battlefield by conventionally stronger insurgencies; they are won in the treasuries, bureaucratic corridors, and elite drawing rooms of crumbling regimes. An insurgency rarely acts as the sole assassin of a state; rather, it serves as the executor to a regime that has already committed institutional suicide.

Works cited

1. Determinants of State Strength and Capacity (Chapter 4\) \- As War Ends, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/as-war-ends/determinants-of-state-strength-and-capacity/EFC8C82DC22C0D4511150802E5D004D3

2. Will only downtrodden workers fight back? \- Socialist Worker, https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/will-only-downtrodden-workers-fight-back/

3. Quote by Vladimir Lenin: “The fundamental law of revolution, which has be...” \- Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10615493-the-fundamental-law-of-revolution-which-has-been-confirmed-by

4. Lenin 150: What he can teach us about this historic moment, https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2020/04/20/lenin-150-what-he-can-teach-us-about-this-historic-moment/

5. What do you think of this quote from Left Communism, An Infantile Disorder, IX, Left Communism in Great Britain? : r/socialism \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1l4e10v/what\_do\_you\_think\_of\_this\_quote\_from\_left/

6. Revolutions & Regime Change — Explain revolutions and... \- Varsity Tutors, https://www.varsitytutors.com/practice/subjects/college-political-science/lessons/revolutions-and-regime-change

7. States and Social Revolutions \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States\_and\_Social\_Revolutions

8. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World \- Goldstone, Jack A.: 9780520067585 \- AbeBooks, https://www.abebooks.com/9780520067585/Revolution-Rebellion-Early-Modern-World-0520067584/plp

9. From Brinton To Goldstone: A Scientific Civilizational Perspective On The Theory Of Revolution \- BYU ScholarsArchive, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1934\&context=ccr

10. No Other Way Out \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No\_Other\_Way\_Out

11. No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945–1991 \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346670700\_No\_Other\_Way\_Out\_States\_and\_Revolutionary\_Movements\_1945-1991

12. Charles Tilly's Revolutionary Process Theory – Revolutions: Theorists, Theory and Practice, https://colorado.pressbooks.pub/revolution/chapter/charles-tillys-revolutionary-process-theory/

13. Ukraine's Euromaidan: A 'Tillyan Revolution' that can lead to the, https://lefteast.org/ukraines-euromaidan-a-tillyan-revolution-that-can-lead-to-the-second-crimean-war/

14. Revolutions Against the State \- Colin J. Beck, https://colinjbeck.sites.pomona.edu/pdfs/Beck\_RevolutionsAgainsttheState.pdf

15. The KMT-CCP Reconciliation Failed and the Full-Scale Civil War: an Overview | Academy of Chinese Studies, https://chiculture.org.hk/en/photo-story/3514

16. Economic history of China (1912–1949) \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic\_history\_of\_China\_(1912%E2%80%931949)

17. (5) Hyperinflation and Economic Collapse | Academy of Chinese Studies, https://chiculture.org.hk/en/photo-story/3519

18. What was the Chinese Civil War (1927-1949)? \- Boot Camp & Military Fitness Institute, https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/2021/01/27/what-was-the-chinese-civil-war-1927-1949/

19. Notes From a Small Island \- Taiwan Today, https://taiwantoday.tw/AMP/8/12616

20. Chinese Civil War \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese\_Civil\_War

21. Archive ouverte UNIGE From the Lena Goldfields Case to the Yukos Shareholders Cases, https://access.archive-ouverte.unige.ch/access/metadata/c0f081e5-3e05-41d7-9464-4fc65ce9540f/download

22. The Ruble: A Political History 9780197663714, 0197663710 \- DOKUMEN.PUB, https://dokumen.pub/the-ruble-a-political-history-9780197663714-0197663710.html

23. Duma \- 1914-1918-Online International Encyclopedia of the First World War, https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/duma/

24. Russian Revolution | Definition, Causes, Summary, History, & Facts \- Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution

25. Russian Revolution \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_Revolution

26. What You Need to Know First to Understand the Russian Revolution, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-you-need-know-understand-russian-revolution-180961214/

27. Why Russia Changed in 1917: Tsarina, Rasputin, and No Food (History) \- Knowunity, https://knowunity.co.uk/knows/history-h-history-1917-february-russian-revolution-2be397d9-09c2-4ecc-b93d-967b2488b8c5

28. Rasputin \- JohnDClare.net, https://www.johndclare.net/Russ\_Rasputin\_Figes.htm

29. The Okhrana from Assassination to Revolution, 1881-1917 \- History with Jackson, https://historywithjackson.co.uk/blog/f/the-okhrana-from-assassination-to-revolution-1881-1917

30. State Duma (Russian Empire) \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State\_Duma\_(Russian\_Empire)

31. Russia \- Revolution, Tsarism, Autocracy | Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/War-and-the-fall-of-the-monarchy

32. February Revolution \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February\_Revolution

33. National Guard (Nicaragua) \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Guard\_(Nicaragua)

34. Somoza Is Forced Out of Power in Nicaragua | History | Research Starters \- EBSCO, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/somoza-forced-out-power-nicaragua

35. Cuban Revolution \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban\_Revolution

36. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Cuba, Volume VI \- Historical Documents \- Office of the Historian, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d265

37. Cuba and the United States: From Good Neighbors to Strangers | Origins, https://origins.osu.edu/read/cuba-united-states-relationship

38. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Cuba, Volume VI \- Historical Documents \- Office of the Historian, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d189

39. Cuban Revolution | History | Research Starters \- EBSCO, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/cuban-revolution

40. Fulgencio Batista's Economic Policies, 1952 \- 1958 \- University of Miami, https://scholarship.miami.edu/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Fulgencio-Batistas-Economic-Policies-1952--/991031447484202976

41. Statement of Robert P. Storch, Inspector General, Department of Defense, for a Hearing on "The Biden Administration's D, https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271668/-1/-1/1/STORCH-HCOA-041923.PDF

42. Afghanistan's Security Forces Versus the Taliban: A Net Assessment \- Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, https://ctc.westpoint.edu/afghanistans-security-forces-versus-the-taliban-a-net-assessment/

43. Deutscher Bundestag, https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/936028/Stellungnahme-Sopko-und-Young.pdf

44. Durand Dispatch Infographics: Key Findings AWC & SIGAR Report (2025), https://duranddispatch.com/durand-dispatch-infographics-key-findings-awc-sigar-report-2025-e2e94ee82/

45. Broad Coalition Urges Congress to Preserve Robust Afghanistan, https://www.pogo.org/policy-letters/broad-coalition-urges-congress-to-preserve-robust-afghanistan-oversight

46. Why Afghanistan's security forces collapsed, according to a scathing new US government watchdog report \- Task & Purpose, https://taskandpurpose.com/news/afghanistan-security-forces-collapse-sigar-report/

47. Central America, 1977–1980 \- Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations \- Office of the Historian, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/central-america-carter

48. Exit Somoza, Enter the Sandinistas \- Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training, https://adst.org/2015/04/exit-somoza-enter-the-sandinistas/

49. Post-Revolution Cuba | American Experience | Official Site \- PBS, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/post-revolution-cuba/

50. Salvadoran Civil War \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran\_Civil\_War

51. Order Without Law \- The Reactionary International, https://reactionary.international/cases/order-without-law/en/

52. Liberal Social Reconstruction and the Resolution of Civil Wars in Central America, https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/10897964.pdf

53. The 1994 Elections in El \- Princeton University, http://www.princeton.edu/\~lwantche/Strategic\_Voting\_in\_Conditions\_of\_Political\_Instability\_Wantchekon

54. The U.S. Helped Destroy El Salvador—Now It's Supporting Its Authoritarianism | AULA Blog, https://aulablog.net/2025/05/17/the-u-s-helped-destroy-el-salvador-now-its-supporting-its-authoritarianism/

55. Neoliberal and Right-Wing Populism in Latin America (Chapter 3\) \- Democracy's Resilience to Populism's Threat \- Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/democracys-resilience-to-populisms-threat/neoliberal-and-rightwing-populism-in-latin-america/5778FC09E597D9B96877A6836143995D

56. From Peril to Partnership: US Security Assistance and the Bid to Stabilize Colombia and Mexico 9780197688106, 0197688101 \- DOKUMEN.PUB, https://dokumen.pub/from-peril-to-partnership-us-security-assistance-and-the-bid-to-stabilize-colombia-and-mexico-9780197688106-0197688101.html

57. Civil War, Institutional Change, and the Criminalization of the State in Central America By Rachel A. Schwartz A dissertation su \- University of Wisconsin–Madison, https://asset.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/VPRULEXI74D7J8N/R/file-75181.pdf

58. Chapter Two: The uprising and the regime, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19445571.2013.805606

59. Cuban Revolution | Summary, Facts, Causes, Effects, & Significance \- Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Cuban-Revolution