PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 18, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Shock Absorption and Mass Violence in Extractive Political Orders

View Full Paper
РПРоман Петров

Key Points

  • To understand why extractive regimes may perpetrate mass violence against populations they rely on.
  • Developed a structural account within the predatory state framework.
  • Analyzed the mechanism of depleted buffers and acute shocks.
  • Used Soviet grain procurement (1928–1933) as a case study for plausibility.
  • Identified the configuration that leads to mass violence: depleted buffer, acute shock, and threshold-crossing.
  • Demonstrated that when the buffer is drained and critical conditions arise, mass violence becomes likely.
  • Highlighted that the form of violence depends on the internal structure of the extractive stratum.

Abstract

Why do extractive regimes sometimes organise mass violence against populations on which they depend? This article proposes a structural account within the predatory state framework. Extraction is limited by costs that rise with intensity. These limits leave resources in the hands of households and sustain assurance systems that prevent households from falling below subsistence thresholds. Together, private reserves and assurance systems constitute a buffer. When the buffer is depleted and an acute shock arrives, a critical mass of the population crosses compliance thresholds, becoming a structural threat to the extractive stratum. The article argues that this configuration — depleted buffer, acute shock, mass threshold-crossing — constitutes a structural pathway along which mass violence becomes overwhelmingly probable. Which form the violence takes depends on pre-existing conditions, particularly the internal structure of the stratum. The article develops the mechanism, engages adjacent literatures, and uses Soviet grain procurement in 1928–1933 as a plausibility probe. The contribution is conceptual: a bridge between the predatory state tradition and the literatures on genocide, civil war, and war.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Роман Петров (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e320cc40886becb653fdd5https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19616509
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Residue as Byproduct: Extraction Constraints and the Durability of Political Orders2026
  2. 2Violence when flush: commodity windfalls and the autocrat’s repertoire of repression2026
  3. 3Embodying the Cost of a Predatory State: Depletion via Social Reproduction in Venezuela’s Crisis (2013–2021)2025
  4. 4Mass Death, Population Decline, and Deprivation: A Capability Approach2024 · 1 citations
  5. 5State Capacity and Extraction Constraint: Why State Reach Does Not Imply Restraint2026