just like when you demolish an old building it makes two new even older buildings pop up, and trying to treat a disease just makes you sicker
it's a known fact that nothing bad can ever be removed without actually making it worse
In the midst of trying to roll your eyes I think you missed the point being made.
When it comes to ruling classes the problem is the moment you dismantle one there is a power vacuum that others will inevitably fill, maybe even with good intention, but seldom do people who get a hold of power ever want to give it up. The problem with violent revolution is that you wind up replacing one regime with another that is more than willing to openly assert itself through bloodshed meanwhile whatever systems of law and justice there might have been gets destabilized in the process. The populace at large winds up paying for it in blood (we've seen this play out many times throughout history in many places).
That is the point I think you are missing, I was specifically talking about the
violent removal of a ruling class, not the removal of a ruling class
in general (for example, through nonviolent means).
Also:
The startling results are depicted in the attached Figure. As you can see, nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time.
And Chenoweth had more good news: When a government is overthrown nonviolently, the new government is more likely to be democratic, and less likely to itself be overthrown, as compared to those that won using guns and bombs.
Player
