Violence, Rupture, and the Illusion of Seizing Power
Core Thesis:
Overthrowing an old system is easier than sustaining a new one.
Revolutions succeed at rupture — and fail at continuity.
Revolutionary moments feel decisive because they concentrate time, emotion, and force into visible events.
But governance is not an event.
It is a long-duration process of coordination, trust, and error correction.
What revolutions do best is precisely what they cannot sustain.
Seizing power is episodic.
Maintaining legitimacy is continuous.
Revolutions excel at:
Disrupting existing authority
Mobilizing collective anger
Simplifying political narratives into enemy/friend binaries
These mechanisms are effective for collapse.
They are structurally unsuited for long-term governance.
The skills required to dismantle a system are not the skills required to replace it.
Historically, the most “successful” revolutionary phase is often:
The moment of decisive confrontation
The clearing of old elites
The collapse of visible authority
This phase relies on:
Emergency logic
Centralized command
Exceptional measures
Moral absolutism
These conditions generate short-term effectiveness.
They also create long-term path dependency.
Once emergency becomes the organizing principle,
it resists demobilization.
Revolutions rarely inherit a blank slate.
They inherit:
Administrative pipelines
Coercive instruments
Resource distribution systems
Crisis-response logics
Even when personnel change, structures persist.
Power does not disappear when seized.
It reconstitutes itself through familiar forms:
Centralization
Exceptional authority
Security justification
Loyalty tests
This is not primarily betrayal.
It is structural inertia.
The new system adopts the operating system of the old one —
because that system already exists.
Rupture feels like liberation.
Structurally, it creates a vacuum.
Questions immediately arise:
Who allocates resources?
Who resolves disputes?
Who coordinates large-scale action?
Who absorbs failure?
Vacuum does not remain empty.
It is most quickly filled by actors with:
Coercive capacity
Organizational discipline
Willingness to act decisively
These actors are rarely the most democratic.
They are the most prepared for force.
This is why revolutionary breakdowns so often consolidate into:
Militarized governance
Technocratic administration
Centralized emergency rule
Not because alternatives were impossible,
but because continuity was not yet built.
Acknowledging the right to self-defense is not the same as embracing militarization.
Self-defense is a boundary condition.
It is not a civilizational objective.
The right to self-defense does not imply an obligation to conquer.
The illusion begins when defensive necessity is mistaken for a blueprint for governance.
Armed struggle may protect a community from immediate annihilation.
It does not generate:
Trust networks
Deliberative legitimacy
Error-correcting institutions
When defensive logic becomes organizing logic,
military hierarchy tends to override civic structure.
Defense without institutional replacement merely postpones domination.
Rupture removes constraints.
It does not automatically create capacity.
Without parallel systems already capable of:
Coordination
Mutual aid
Decision-making
Conflict resolution
freedom remains abstract.
And abstraction favors those with force, speed, and decisiveness.
Revolutionary rupture opens doors.
It does not decide who walks through them.
Revolutions fail not because people lack courage,
nor because injustice was insufficiently severe.
They fail because:
They prioritize seizure over substitution.
They aim to control existing power structures
instead of rendering them unnecessary.
The result is a tragic repetition:
New rulers
Old architectures
Familiar patterns of insulation and domination
If power persists through structure,
then sustainable change must transform structure first.
This does not require passivity.
It requires patience and parallel construction.
The most resilient transformations do not announce themselves as revolutions.
They occur when:
Old systems lose indispensability
New systems absorb dependency
Authority migrates quietly
This is not the absence of conflict.
It is the refusal to let conflict define the system.
The next question is therefore not how to overthrow power.
It is:
How can power be deprived of its only real foundation —
the belief that it is necessary?
That question leads to Part III-2: The Ship of Theseus — Functional Replacement Without Confrontation.
Violence, Rupture, and the Illusion of Seizing Power
Core Thesis:
Overthrowing an old system is easier than sustaining a new one.
Revolutions succeed at rupture — and fail at continuity.
Revolutionary moments feel decisive because they concentrate time, emotion, and force into visible events.
But governance is not an event.
It is a long-duration process of coordination, trust, and error correction.
What revolutions do best is precisely what they cannot sustain.
Seizing power is episodic.
Maintaining legitimacy is continuous.
Revolutions excel at:
Disrupting existing authority
Mobilizing collective anger
Simplifying political narratives into enemy/friend binaries
These mechanisms are effective for collapse.
They are structurally unsuited for long-term governance.
The skills required to dismantle a system are not the skills required to replace it.
Historically, the most “successful” revolutionary phase is often:
The moment of decisive confrontation
The clearing of old elites
The collapse of visible authority
This phase relies on:
Emergency logic
Centralized command
Exceptional measures
Moral absolutism
These conditions generate short-term effectiveness.
They also create long-term path dependency.
Once emergency becomes the organizing principle,
it resists demobilization.
Revolutions rarely inherit a blank slate.
They inherit:
Administrative pipelines
Coercive instruments
Resource distribution systems
Crisis-response logics
Even when personnel change, structures persist.
Power does not disappear when seized.
It reconstitutes itself through familiar forms:
Centralization
Exceptional authority
Security justification
Loyalty tests
This is not primarily betrayal.
It is structural inertia.
The new system adopts the operating system of the old one —
because that system already exists.
Rupture feels like liberation.
Structurally, it creates a vacuum.
Questions immediately arise:
Who allocates resources?
Who resolves disputes?
Who coordinates large-scale action?
Who absorbs failure?
Vacuum does not remain empty.
It is most quickly filled by actors with:
Coercive capacity
Organizational discipline
Willingness to act decisively
These actors are rarely the most democratic.
They are the most prepared for force.
This is why revolutionary breakdowns so often consolidate into:
Militarized governance
Technocratic administration
Centralized emergency rule
Not because alternatives were impossible,
but because continuity was not yet built.
Acknowledging the right to self-defense is not the same as embracing militarization.
Self-defense is a boundary condition.
It is not a civilizational objective.
The right to self-defense does not imply an obligation to conquer.
The illusion begins when defensive necessity is mistaken for a blueprint for governance.
Armed struggle may protect a community from immediate annihilation.
It does not generate:
Trust networks
Deliberative legitimacy
Error-correcting institutions
When defensive logic becomes organizing logic,
military hierarchy tends to override civic structure.
Defense without institutional replacement merely postpones domination.
Rupture removes constraints.
It does not automatically create capacity.
Without parallel systems already capable of:
Coordination
Mutual aid
Decision-making
Conflict resolution
freedom remains abstract.
And abstraction favors those with force, speed, and decisiveness.
Revolutionary rupture opens doors.
It does not decide who walks through them.
Revolutions fail not because people lack courage,
nor because injustice was insufficiently severe.
They fail because:
They prioritize seizure over substitution.
They aim to control existing power structures
instead of rendering them unnecessary.
The result is a tragic repetition:
New rulers
Old architectures
Familiar patterns of insulation and domination
If power persists through structure,
then sustainable change must transform structure first.
This does not require passivity.
It requires patience and parallel construction.
The most resilient transformations do not announce themselves as revolutions.
They occur when:
Old systems lose indispensability
New systems absorb dependency
Authority migrates quietly
This is not the absence of conflict.
It is the refusal to let conflict define the system.
The next question is therefore not how to overthrow power.
It is:
How can power be deprived of its only real foundation —
the belief that it is necessary?
That question leads to Part III-2: The Ship of Theseus — Functional Replacement Without Confrontation.
Subscribe to Lynne Heartwing
Subscribe to Lynne Heartwing
Lynne HeartwingPower Changes Responsibility: Different Advice for the Socialist International and the Fourth Intern…
Introduction: The Left’s Crisis Is Not Ideological, but RelationalThe contemporary Left does not suffer from a lack of ideals. It suffers from a refusal to differentiate responsibility according to power. For more than a century, internal debates have treated left-wing organisations as if they occupied comparable positions in the world system. They do not. Some hold state power, legislative leverage, regulatory capacity, and international access. Others hold little more than critique, memory,...
Lynne HeartwingCognitive Constructivism: Narrative Sovereignty and the Architecture of Social Reality-CC0
An archival essay for independent readingIntroduction: From “What the World Is” to “How the World Is Told”Most analyses of power begin inside an already-given reality. They ask who controls resources, institutions, or bodies, and how domination operates within these parameters. Such approaches, while necessary, leave a deeper question largely untouched:How does a particular version of reality come to be accepted as reality in the first place?This essay proposes a shift in analytical focus—fro...
Lynne HeartwingLoaded Magazines and the Collapse of Political Legitimacy:A Risk-Ethical and Political-Economic Anal…
Political legitimacy does not collapse at the moment a weapon is fired. It collapses earlier—at the moment a governing authority accepts the presence of live ammunition in domestic crowd control as a legitimate option. The decision to deploy armed personnel carrying loaded magazines is not a neutral security measure. It is a risk-ethical commitment. By definition, live ammunition introduces a non-zero probability of accidental discharge, misjudgment, panic escalation, or chain reactions leadi...
Lynne HeartwingPower Changes Responsibility: Different Advice for the Socialist International and the Fourth Intern…
Introduction: The Left’s Crisis Is Not Ideological, but RelationalThe contemporary Left does not suffer from a lack of ideals. It suffers from a refusal to differentiate responsibility according to power. For more than a century, internal debates have treated left-wing organisations as if they occupied comparable positions in the world system. They do not. Some hold state power, legislative leverage, regulatory capacity, and international access. Others hold little more than critique, memory,...
Lynne HeartwingCognitive Constructivism: Narrative Sovereignty and the Architecture of Social Reality-CC0
An archival essay for independent readingIntroduction: From “What the World Is” to “How the World Is Told”Most analyses of power begin inside an already-given reality. They ask who controls resources, institutions, or bodies, and how domination operates within these parameters. Such approaches, while necessary, leave a deeper question largely untouched:How does a particular version of reality come to be accepted as reality in the first place?This essay proposes a shift in analytical focus—fro...
Lynne HeartwingLoaded Magazines and the Collapse of Political Legitimacy:A Risk-Ethical and Political-Economic Anal…
Political legitimacy does not collapse at the moment a weapon is fired. It collapses earlier—at the moment a governing authority accepts the presence of live ammunition in domestic crowd control as a legitimate option. The decision to deploy armed personnel carrying loaded magazines is not a neutral security measure. It is a risk-ethical commitment. By definition, live ammunition introduces a non-zero probability of accidental discharge, misjudgment, panic escalation, or chain reactions leadi...
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
No comments yet