4 ms·

by studying history, i learnt that violence is the fundamental polical tool of the ruling class https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_and_Ideological_State_

• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > violence is the fundamental polical tool of the ruling class A Weberian state is defined by its monopoly on violence [1]. So yes, the state--and by extension, almost by definition, its rulers--will use violence to further their state's political aims. (Mandatory Clausewitz: war is the continuation of politics by other means.) That's very different from people within a state using violence to further political aims. Politics as a civic activity collapses when the population and its rulers fail to appreciate the difference between the two, which is why perhaps the singular question in designing governments throughout the ages has been how to enable rulers to deploy violence to further the state's collective aims while disabling them from doing so further their personal aims. (Althusser's simplification of the ruling class into a monolith is analytically enabling, but the political scientific equivalent of a spherical cow. You see a similar mistake made by foreigners describing others' political systems; no man rules alone, and no man rules unopposed.) Also, when the political systems break down, i.e. personal political aims begin being openly pursued through violence, the order of impact starts with the poor. Even in the French Revolution, most of the rich escaped. In modern violent revolutions, the rulers have tended to leave with their wealth intact and egos bruised; the poor lose their lives and the middle class become the new poor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
  • suraci 2y ago
    I think you have misunderstood the term "ruling class". There is only one ruling class in a country, and the ruling class is not a monolithic entity. It is composed of different interest groups. But ultimately, these interest groups belong to the same class. In a rough analogy, there're many companies, sometimes they unit, sometimes they fight against each other, but they all speak for the board, who rules the company, just an analogy and, there're no "personal aims" in politics, personal aims can never play a decisive role in politics Even in the most centralized empires, the emperor could only rely on a specific political group of the ruling class and could not achieve his political goals alone I found many HN users thinking like this, "what if Xi want to ..." "Putin decided to do ...", in fact, before they do everything, they has to unite at least 100 others, and should be on behalf of majority of the ruling class > a state using violence to further political aims all states using violence to further political aims, otherwise there'll not be polices, prisons and army, even the state itself > Also, when the political systems break down, i.e. personal political aims begin being openly pursued through violence, the order of impact starts with the poor. personal rebellion is not revolution, because it's not organized, let alone class revolution, black panther movement is more like a class revolution speak of "violent revolutions", althusser talked abt this: > When the bourgeoisie is politically in a position to use violence, when it uses it, then the masses can only respond by revolutionary violence. But if, at the end of a long class struggle and heavy sacrifices, the balance of forces is found, in some particular place, to be both highly favourable to the proletariat and united workers, and highly unfavourable to world imperialism and the national bourgeoisie, then a peaceful and even democratic transition becomes possible and necessary. although i don't agree all of this
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > ultimately, these interest groups belong to the same class This is the spherical cow. Different members of a ruling class have different motivations in respect of how the ruling class interfaces with the society it's in. MLK Jr., JFK and Hoover each belonged to our elite in the 60s. They had vastly different interests, to the point that they were sometimes in open conflict with each other. > there're no "personal aims" in politics, personal aims can never play a decisive role in politics This is obvious nonsense. Individuals have pet policy aims. When they're particularly powerful, the system indulges these quirks. Individual elites also have different levels of respect for constitutional order, drive, risk tolerance, et cetera. Most importantly, individuals typically (though not always) want to maximise their own power; the collecive, on the other hand, typically (though not always) wants to constrain them. > When the bourgeoisie is politically in a position to use violence, when it uses it, then the masses can only respond by revolutionary violence The prediction is when the bourgeoisie has the opportunity to stage violent rebellion, it always does? Or always should? Again, this is Althusser playing with sociological lego blocks in a vacuum when empirical reality paints a messier picture. Predicting civic strife isn't as simple as predicting whether it's possible. Humans aren't automotons; they also need to be motivated to engage the severe (and constantly changing) risk-reward calculus that is violent revolution. Particularly in the modern era, when it basically means the elite can leave unscathed while the revolutionaries must pick up the pieces.