Tails is only partly correct. The state is open about it’s monopoly on violence , and it’s a key argument in the philosophy of government. The state will use that violence against anyone who threatens it.
The state exists to protect the power that enables the state. Protestors object to some organization of the state, and so they’re de facto threats.
Minorities are disproportionately targeted because they inevitably don’t have the power that enables the state.It’s not the state being pro peace and making exceptions, it’s the state being pro-state, and being structured around that principle. The violence is inherent and exceptions are made if you provide value or benefit from value being defined to include you.
All societies use some form of violence to control people.
Even the Amish ‘shun’ the malefactors.
I’ve seen evidence that Amish parents hit their children with wooden spoons.
But not all societies monopolize violence in an institutional superstructure.
What does that even mean?
The Vikings let people go out and raid other villages but drew the line at murdering your neighbor. It that what you’re going on about? You think any one who wants should be able to have their own army?
What exactly do you mean? Monopolization? Superstructure? Violence? Where do I need to start? At the definition of a state?
My critique is as follows: Violence is currently monopolized by a hierarchical system of command & control - the state. I (and I’m presuming: OP as well) question the legitimacy of the state and its’ monopoly of violence.
I would prefer it if the necessary amount of violence would be controlled by horizontal power structures.
And in a democracy, the state ought to be synonymous with “The People” but under capitalism and privately funded election campaigns, the state is controlled by the corporations and the rich who can afford to run candidates that represent their interests instead of the majority of the common people.
A recent Factually! Podcast with Adam Conover interviewed a Political Science professor about why US politicians are so old and it came down to wealth. The boomer generation has more wealth and you need a shit load of wealth to jumpstart a political career so the US is stuck with older politicians because we are far closer to being an oligarchy or plutocracy than an actual democracy
100%
I want the police abolished and I don’t care what happens next.
I’m so embarrassed for that other person who replied to you
I think that was a cat napping on a keyboard. rare coincidence that the keystrokes looked like english words.
Sometimes I feel the need to quote from the greatest thinkers. And other times I fee like I should quote comedians.
Richard Pryor once filmed a movie in a prison. Afterwards he talked about his experience of listening to the prisoners and hearing their stories.
His conclusion was that he was really happy there were prisons.
When Stir Crazy was filmed in 1980, the U.S. prison population was about 329,800 people, representing approximately 140 individuals per 100,000 residents, or roughly 0.14% of the population. By 2022, the prison population had risen to around 2 million , incarcerated in state and federal prisons and jails, making up 541 per 100,000 residents, or about 0.54% of the population.
Richard Pryor only saw the beginning of the crisis which is why he was able to joke about it.
It’s so cute that you think that Richard Pryor’s experience with criminals was confined to one movie.
I know he was locked up but again you’re missing the point. knock it off. the point is the prison crisis is much greater today than it was in 1980.
The Police hold violent power over all of society, not just prisoners.
Worrying about the police is putting the cart before the horse.
We need to vote and change the laws.
Tails my beloved
Thanks Tails! I’ll share that with my pals!
Me looking at the number of times nonviolence worked: Okay so MLK, Gandhi, and… uhh
Me looking at times violence worked: Opens “History of the World” to page 1, 10,000 BCE Oh this is going to take a while isn’t it.
You could argue that MLK didn’t really work. And Gandhi’s contemporaries weren’t that peaceful, but quite influential. That narrative just isn’t that great for the people in power.
Could certainly put forth that folks had a choice between Malcolm X (or others, he’s just the first to spring to mind.) or MLK and decided on discretion, but really, I’m just meme’ing so lets not think on it too hard.
Yeah MLK is cherry picked as hell. We learn about “civil disobedience,” but gloss over the White Moderate and his perspectives on Capitalism as a terminal strategy.
the fact that people on grad and ml would ban this is kinda amusing
