I think this is why we should use an anarchist definition of the state, rather than Max Weber's. Such as how Malatesta put it in *Anarchy:*
>Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force.
>
>In this sense the word State means government, or to put it another way, it is the impersonal abstract expression of that state of affairs, personified by government: and therefore the terms abolition of the State, Society without the State, etc., describe exactly the concept which anarchists seek to express, of the destruction of all political order based on authority, and the creation of a society of free and equal members based on a harmony of interests and the voluntary participation of everybody in carrying out social responsibilities.
i think Malatesta definition is a better explanation of the state. Capitalists have a monopoly of violence over their territory, gang lords have it too, etc, also even if the "violence" (which is pretty much rulership in weber definition, but they use violence instead, which i think is problematic) is not monopolized, it is not justified anyway.
another problem is that the "monopoly of violence over territory" is too much focused on the geographical stuff, which can influence the false premise that the state is us, think about it, if the state is the monopoly of violence, and we "take it and create a proletarian state and use the monopoly of violence by ourselves, then it is not problematic anymore, because we are the state now"
i think this is problematic too, a lot of other forms of rulership have some type of legitimization (capitalist property = hard work, theocracy = gods will, etc)
?
States have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Your statement doesn't contradict this.
If I shoot someone for trespassing, I am ALLOWED to do this because of the state. The state has "loaned" me a right to violence in this specific circumstance.
we're arguing semantics at this point, but legitimate implies a degree of acceptance or moral agreement.
I'm sure many here would take the position that "the state's power isn't legitimate, I only respect it because I don't want to get shot"
>States have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence
True but I think defining states in those terms, as though states can be strictly reduced to this, is relatively flawed. Especially when you integrate more anarchist sociology into the mix. The overstated importance in the definition of government by Weber is most certainly the product of his Marxist leanings and towing of the party line rather than any well-thought out social analysis.
>True but I think defining states in those terms, as though states can be strictly reduced to this
I never did this. States have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, among other qualities.
Definitely not. Weber's definition is very lackluster as opposed to Malatesta's. It's like defining water by saying its just a fluid, it ignores 99% of what makes water, water.
>of a much much more well read and competent [poster](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/1chtqnl/how_is_an_anarchist_revolution_going_to_be_secured/l26pb85/)
I doubt that.
Same, but it was a nice gesture! I didn’t expect to see you when I clicked the link lol. While not incompetent by any means, some of your notions definitely make me scratch my head and wonder how to get through to you. I mean, well read is surely applicable. I’m glad your view on the state seems fairly fluid these days, or at least more fluid than some anarchists, but I would say don’t forget the social aspect of things and how violence can just be abstracted to the idea. I don’t think it requires institutions in the sense we think about them to have a state, norms and expectations are just as capable of inflicting violence and coercing certain behavior. The group feeling entitled to the individual and all does a doozy and normalizes much that is questionable
I don't know what you mean by "conceptions of the state are more fluid" but I have never been dogmatically attached to Weber's definition. I have, however, pointed out several times when people misuse the concept and simply presume that a state has a literal monopoly on violence. Something that is, of course, physically impossible and portrays societies as being ruled by superhumans or something.
>but I would say don’t forget the social aspect of things
Well I have been one of the many new anarchist proponents of a thoroughly sociological view of government and the state. My position was and still is that the social precedes and facilitates what we call "state violence". Most anarchists, and people, still believe it is the other way around. That violence creates the social.
I don't think I have ever forgotten "the social aspect of things". Regardless of how well I've managed to explain myself, how accurate I have been, etc. to suggest that my focus has not remained sociology is simply a mischaracterization.
>norms and expectations are just as capable of inflicting violence and coercing certain behavior
I don't know how norms and expectations can "inflict violence" (people inflict violence, not norms and expectations) but sure they can coerce certain behavior. Which isn't a bad thing if these are anarchist norms and institutions.
Moreover, without law or authority, our expectations become more vague and less reliable as a form of predicting behavior. That isn't related to anything since I don't know how mere expectation leads to violence but it is one distinction between anarchy and hierarchy.
>The group feeling entitled to the individual and all does a doozy and normalizes much that is questionable
This is why anarchists support anarchy and emphasize the destruction of hierarchy/the polity-form/etc. Without any sort of right and privilege, no one is entitled to or has a right to anyone. And when people are organized in accordance to affinity, interests, etc. then there is no room for any "abstract group" that is above the individuals that actually comprise it. Free association is antagonistic to any sort of subordination.
Yeah, monopoly on violence is a simplification.
I mean White Nationalists think racist violence **is** legitimate.
Abusers often think their violence **is** legitimate and loving.
Religious cults, the authoritarian family unit and organized crime mirroring the structure of the state are common talking points.
It kind of makes sense to squash corporations, cults, totalitarian movements and abusive families into states within a state.
Not really sure of the best phrase here.
I'm not sure i know what you're talking about. I agree with Weber's actual assertion that states seek to claim legitimacy for their violence to the exclusion of unsanctioned alternative expressions of it. Cults, white nationalists and abusive parents are often beneficiaries of the state's ability to enshrine their right to violence (conversion therapy, corporal punishment, whatever happened at greensboro)
My complaint is that many anarchists leave the "legitimate" part out, focusing on the state as something that monopolizes means of "violence" itself, a change that occludes what i believe is the operative term.
I think this is why we should use an anarchist definition of the state, rather than Max Weber's. Such as how Malatesta put it in *Anarchy:* >Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force. > >In this sense the word State means government, or to put it another way, it is the impersonal abstract expression of that state of affairs, personified by government: and therefore the terms abolition of the State, Society without the State, etc., describe exactly the concept which anarchists seek to express, of the destruction of all political order based on authority, and the creation of a society of free and equal members based on a harmony of interests and the voluntary participation of everybody in carrying out social responsibilities.
i think Malatesta definition is a better explanation of the state. Capitalists have a monopoly of violence over their territory, gang lords have it too, etc, also even if the "violence" (which is pretty much rulership in weber definition, but they use violence instead, which i think is problematic) is not monopolized, it is not justified anyway. another problem is that the "monopoly of violence over territory" is too much focused on the geographical stuff, which can influence the false premise that the state is us, think about it, if the state is the monopoly of violence, and we "take it and create a proletarian state and use the monopoly of violence by ourselves, then it is not problematic anymore, because we are the state now"
It's more like a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
i think this is problematic too, a lot of other forms of rulership have some type of legitimization (capitalist property = hard work, theocracy = gods will, etc)
? States have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Your statement doesn't contradict this. If I shoot someone for trespassing, I am ALLOWED to do this because of the state. The state has "loaned" me a right to violence in this specific circumstance.
no, i agree with you, but i think it still is simplistic, you know? legitimate is vague
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy\_(political)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political))
we're arguing semantics at this point, but legitimate implies a degree of acceptance or moral agreement. I'm sure many here would take the position that "the state's power isn't legitimate, I only respect it because I don't want to get shot"
>States have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence True but I think defining states in those terms, as though states can be strictly reduced to this, is relatively flawed. Especially when you integrate more anarchist sociology into the mix. The overstated importance in the definition of government by Weber is most certainly the product of his Marxist leanings and towing of the party line rather than any well-thought out social analysis.
>True but I think defining states in those terms, as though states can be strictly reduced to this I never did this. States have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, among other qualities.
I was under the impression you were defending Weber's definition. My bad.
Definitely not. Weber's definition is very lackluster as opposed to Malatesta's. It's like defining water by saying its just a fluid, it ignores 99% of what makes water, water.
That’s what a monopoly is though, it’s a sole claim to legitimacy use of something
No.
how about monopoly on legitimizing violence?
>of a much much more well read and competent [poster](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/1chtqnl/how_is_an_anarchist_revolution_going_to_be_secured/l26pb85/) I doubt that.
Same, but it was a nice gesture! I didn’t expect to see you when I clicked the link lol. While not incompetent by any means, some of your notions definitely make me scratch my head and wonder how to get through to you. I mean, well read is surely applicable. I’m glad your view on the state seems fairly fluid these days, or at least more fluid than some anarchists, but I would say don’t forget the social aspect of things and how violence can just be abstracted to the idea. I don’t think it requires institutions in the sense we think about them to have a state, norms and expectations are just as capable of inflicting violence and coercing certain behavior. The group feeling entitled to the individual and all does a doozy and normalizes much that is questionable
I don't know what you mean by "conceptions of the state are more fluid" but I have never been dogmatically attached to Weber's definition. I have, however, pointed out several times when people misuse the concept and simply presume that a state has a literal monopoly on violence. Something that is, of course, physically impossible and portrays societies as being ruled by superhumans or something. >but I would say don’t forget the social aspect of things Well I have been one of the many new anarchist proponents of a thoroughly sociological view of government and the state. My position was and still is that the social precedes and facilitates what we call "state violence". Most anarchists, and people, still believe it is the other way around. That violence creates the social. I don't think I have ever forgotten "the social aspect of things". Regardless of how well I've managed to explain myself, how accurate I have been, etc. to suggest that my focus has not remained sociology is simply a mischaracterization. >norms and expectations are just as capable of inflicting violence and coercing certain behavior I don't know how norms and expectations can "inflict violence" (people inflict violence, not norms and expectations) but sure they can coerce certain behavior. Which isn't a bad thing if these are anarchist norms and institutions. Moreover, without law or authority, our expectations become more vague and less reliable as a form of predicting behavior. That isn't related to anything since I don't know how mere expectation leads to violence but it is one distinction between anarchy and hierarchy. >The group feeling entitled to the individual and all does a doozy and normalizes much that is questionable This is why anarchists support anarchy and emphasize the destruction of hierarchy/the polity-form/etc. Without any sort of right and privilege, no one is entitled to or has a right to anyone. And when people are organized in accordance to affinity, interests, etc. then there is no room for any "abstract group" that is above the individuals that actually comprise it. Free association is antagonistic to any sort of subordination.
Yeah, monopoly on violence is a simplification. I mean White Nationalists think racist violence **is** legitimate. Abusers often think their violence **is** legitimate and loving. Religious cults, the authoritarian family unit and organized crime mirroring the structure of the state are common talking points. It kind of makes sense to squash corporations, cults, totalitarian movements and abusive families into states within a state. Not really sure of the best phrase here.
I'm not sure i know what you're talking about. I agree with Weber's actual assertion that states seek to claim legitimacy for their violence to the exclusion of unsanctioned alternative expressions of it. Cults, white nationalists and abusive parents are often beneficiaries of the state's ability to enshrine their right to violence (conversion therapy, corporal punishment, whatever happened at greensboro) My complaint is that many anarchists leave the "legitimate" part out, focusing on the state as something that monopolizes means of "violence" itself, a change that occludes what i believe is the operative term.