Is propaganda a "natural monopoly" meaning there will always be some narcissist taking power?

Submitted by __algernon in Anarchism (edited )

In a political science course I heard the argument that "violence" is a natural monopoly, in the sense that in the absence of a state, some other gangster group will come in to fill the vacuum.

I then thought a similar argument could be made about propaganda. It seems to be true there will always be some variation in political ability/ability to persuade and propagandize others. Won't this mean that even if you created an anarchist society, it would eventually be taken over? Is there an instability argument to be made here?

5

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

VictorLincolnPine wrote

the idea that violence is a natural monopoly reeks of normalizing violence as a form of hierarchical rule.

I don't buy it

11

wokeupwithnocause wrote

I think is a twisted view on the definition of State by Weber, I also read it in a similar way in Leviathan by Hobbes so maybe is a standard definition inside political science?

5

__algernon OP wrote (edited )

Yeah Hobbes and weber were in the discussion, my memory is pretty vague, I have seen this "but what about the violence vacuum" argument leveled at anarchism before though.

There is even a vaguely related simpson's episode where they get rid of all the guns then sideshow bob (i think) takes over the whole town with a stick.

0

kano wrote

I can't say that I'm sure I understand what's really being asked here.

In a political science course I heard the argument that "violence" is a natural monopoly, in the sense that in the absence of a state, some other gangster group will come in to fill the vacuum.

I don't think this is true it just sounds like an authoritarian approach to me. The state can't even really claim to a hold a monopoly on violence -- only on legitimate violence and that's also questionable as well.. I think is beside the point anyway.

When it comes to violence, I've seen it argued that violence or war can also be useful for stateless societies as a way for autonomous groups to maintain their autonomy and difference from other (autonomous groups). Violence isn't only a means of authoritarian control but a way of breaking that control or preventing it in the first place.

I don't know if natural monopoly is a specific term with meaning or not but idk what it is, but that stuff just sounds like statist thinking to me.

AS to the second part of your post

I don't know what you mean by instability argument. I don't really get why variation in the ability to persuade people means that a hypothetical anarchist society would get taken over.

You can read about stateless societies and how they organise, that if someone wants to try to take power and make others do what they want, that they ignore the person or laugh at them or worse innit.

Stateless groups have been historically harder to take over or colonise then statist societies because there is no authoritarian structure that can be co opted. One has to be created.

As far as propaganda goes, I think when people are socialised in an authoritarian society then its easy to propagandise them to accept authority, but if people are socialised in anti-authoritarian society it would be much harder to do this.

I hope that helped you.

10

technologicka wrote (edited )

Won't this mean that even if you created an anarchist society, it would eventually be taken over? Is there an instability argument to be made here?

This would be a very eternalistic criterion to make anarchism valid. Humans, societies, and the universe as a whole is always in flux.

It could be the case that an anarchist society would be eventually be taken over. But non-anarchist societies would also eventually fall apart, as they have many times over.

Just like whether we achieve an anarchist society depends on the people fighting for one, the perpetuity of an anarchist society depends on the people living in one. That is not an argument against anarchism, rather, it shows that anarchism is rooted in the humbling recognition that persons, peoples, and societies are unique, and ever-changing. The upshot of this is empowering: we can control our own fates, rather than being controlled by the systems and narratives around us.

7

Crown_of_Ice wrote

This is assuming that whatever gangster group can collectively overcome everyone who spontaneously groups together to oppose them and that no one would be willing to oppose them. So there is no natural monopoly on violence at all because opposing groups can very quickly get in on the violence game.

4

__algernon OP wrote

yeah and then eventually one sort of wins and you get a state like in a chaotic revolution situation. The point is there is a 'violence vacuum' without a state.

0

Crown_of_Ice wrote

Why would the side that doesn't want a state winning automatically create a state? It would be like "well, we sent those upstarts home to their creator, let's go home" not "let's go play government now."

2

__algernon OP wrote

I suppose the assumption is that if they have that capacity they are a "state" in the sense that they have enough unification of political views and enough collaboration to use violence to exert their will in a dominant way eg they have the monopoly on legitimate violence therefore they are a form of state.

Even in fascist states they aren't continuously beating people up, but there are forces that can do it legitimately as needed.

I agree it's a bit oversimplified. I agree with your point.

1

Possum_Bride wrote

I guess you could argue religion is a natural monopoly. There is a high startup cost to creating a new religion.

1

SnowyKnave wrote (edited )

Literally throughout history you have massacres by nonstate actors, some elements of the public view as legitimate. I just read about this one in particular - by chance - a few minutes ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

Anarchists and antifascists, who are clearly not the state, commit violence somewhat often against things. The state does not, and never has had, a claim on a monopoly on violence. Furthermore, it does not have a monopoly on legitimate violence - security guards often commit violence and are not part of the state. Rather, the state has a monopoly on declaring something legitimate or not - and the vioence and authority to back it up.

1

kano wrote (edited )

I think your last point about security guards is arguable, they are violent but commit their violence at least in theory within the bounds of the law, making them legitimate in the eyes of the state..

With private military contractors working on behalf of the state it's the same. I don't reall see meaningful difference between cops and security guards if you view it from this lens or soldiers in a national army Vs soldiers working for a private company which sells its services often to a state

3

__algernon OP wrote

I think the point is they are part of a company, not the state, and the state has the monopoly on making things legitimate, but not violence because there are at least two entities doing violence - private contracting companies and state actors.

1

kano wrote

Its not really relevant, statist violence is statist violence regardless of which legal structure is doing it. I said before there is no meaningful difference cops and security guards or soliders in national army and soldiers working for private companies, and you haveen't shown that there is one. If you are now arguing that the state has a monopoly on legitimacy and not violence, its contradicting your original question as far as I could understand it as well btw.

The state would like to be the sole arbiter of what is legitimate and what is not, but it generally speaking actually isn't. Which is why people resist the state.

2

SnowyKnave wrote (edited )

Sure, there are more examples of “legitimate violence” I could give. These notably are all violence within the bounds of the law which is what Im trying to demonstrate. The legitimacy of these notably varies between different countries.

  • Self Defence

  • Violence within sports e.g. cage fighting

  • Consenting BDSM

  • Security guards (again just keeping it here)

  • PMCs

  • Often but not always, violence from the far right which the state sorta ignores/uses

Maybe a better definition of the state would be “ An arbiter of legitimacy with the violence and authority to defend it”. I dont think the state really has a monopoly on violence, or legitimacy, at all - corporations and individuals also decide what is legitimate to do/not do all the time, not to mention other states.

1

kano wrote

As first point, I don't really think martial sports as a sport or BDSM are really violence.

This whole thing of the state being the entity which has a 'monopoly of violence' is as far as I'm aware a statist analysis of what the state really is and anarchists have given their own very clear definitions of what the state actually is. In Worshipping Power Peter Gelderloos gives these definitions of the state:

Anarchists define the State as a centralized, hierarchical system of political organization based on coercion and alienation, the primordial alienation being the theft of each person’s ability to decide over their own lives, the suppression of self-organization so that power could be centralized, delegated, and institutionalized.

For the purposes of his arguments in that book about state formation he gives these characteristics of the state which are quite helpful I would say:

a minimum of three levels of hierarchical organization (e.g. the capital, provincial capitals, and towns or local administrations) which allow for delegation and chains of command; [13]

unitary decision-making and an explicit chain of command, which ideally do not permit contradictions, even if contradictions are regularly produced in practice (i.e. the whole apparatus strives to avoid contradiction, and when different governing bodies arrive at different decisions, the conflict must be arbitrated to decide which body has jurisdiction or constitutes a superior authority);

the administration of a redistribution of resources, from the toilers to government functionaries, which can include symbolic rulers, bureaucrats, soldiers, priests, and others, or to government projects, such as the construction of infrastructure or monuments;

authority that can be delegated (i.e. it is institutional rather than pertaining exclusively to a charismatic individual) and that flows from a centralized point of legitimation, often abstract (the gods, the law, the people);

this centralized point of legitimation, though it may be operated upon by a variety of institutions and social groups, is collectively held to be singular, and in its ideal form harbors no inner contradictions, despite incessant struggles by elite factions to control it;

identity and authority are territorial rather than kinship-based (although new states are rarely powerful enough to fully suppress the kinship paradigm, and have to gradually undermine it while also making use of it, allowing territorial and kinship paradigms to coexist); the execution of war-making, punishment, conflict resolution, and normative authorities, and the intent to monopolize these authorities.

I would say also quite helpful while being far more inclusive in terms of what a state actually is is Pierre Clastres' view of the state as being division in society between the society as a whole and the terrain of politics I guess. or the division between the people who wield force and those who are subjected to that force on a systemic level.

I think for an anarchist these are better ways of understanding what the state really is.

I think stuff about legitimacy and the state's attempts to decide (for everyone) what is legitimate or not, or to gain legtimacy in the first place are far more relevant to the study of insurgency and counterinsurgency. As opposed to pinning down what the state actually is.

2

SnowyKnave wrote (edited )

This whole thing of the state being the entity which has a 'monopoly of violence' is as far as I'm aware a statist analysis of what the state really is

Anarchists define the State as a centralized, hierarchical system of political organization based on coercion and alienation, the primordial alienation being the theft of each person’s ability to decide over their own lives, the suppression of self-organization so that power could be centralized, delegated, and institutionalized.

Agreed. Ive added Worshipping power to my reading list. Ty.

Saying that, I still hold there is plenty of ‘legitimate’ violence done by none state actors. The Pinkertons and in general corporations assassinating union leaders is still seen as legitimate by the wider state apparatus despite not being done on behalf of the state.

2

kano wrote

I think me and you actually agree with each other, but I don't understand why/how you are drawing the line at what is on behalf of the state or not.

The state at this point exists to protect the interests of capital. The point is in this example of the Pinkerton's is that the violence is done in order to maintain the status quo (the capitalist system), which is also what the state wants to do. So the purpose of the violence is the same, which is why I have an issue with your portrayal of this violence not being on behalf of the state. Its not like national police or soldiers haven't been known to do exactly the same thing.

I never tried to argue that all state legitimised violence is actually done by the state itself, I only want to show that the state wants to maintain control of which violence is actually considered 'legitimate' or not.

3

SnowyKnave wrote (edited )

I never tried to argue that all state legitimised violence is actually done by the state itself, I only want to show that the state wants to maintain control of which violence is actually considered 'legitimate' or not.

Certainly.

I think that the state and corporations both commit violence in the name of the status quo and stability of their own power, rather than corporations inflicting violence on behalf of the state as an institution. Similarly, the state commits violence in its own interests, which also align with the capitalist systems interest. I dont think that reducing the state down to “maintaining capitalism” is useful or correct.

Of course, there is lots of overlap between both state and capital interests to the extent they are pretty much indistinguishable . Does that make sense?

1

kano wrote

I dont think that reducing the state down to “maintaining capitalism” is useful or correct.

Why is that? and don't you find your last statement to contradict this one?

2

SnowyKnave wrote

I dont think that Biden or Putin or whatever would see it as their job to “maintain capitalism” as much as it is to “protect the national interest”. Similarly, I dont think that a mega international corporation ceo would see it as their job to “protect the national interest” as much as it would be to “deliver profits to shareholders, protect the corporation and allow the corporation to grow”. Of course, both groups are generally aligned in interest, but there are plenty of cases where they arent - for instance a state might try to undermine corporations that operate outside of it e.g. bombing arms facilities of opposing countries.

1

__algernon OP wrote

Well yeah, I guess we have a lot of private military contractors now, even fighting in wars, so definitely no monopoly there.

1