Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
As some have commented, this is a basic fact of states. On its own, this is like “water is wet”.
Where it gets interesting is the question of “what counts as violence?” Is property destruction violence? Denial of health care? Uneven law enforcement? Censorship?
A similar problem is currently evident in the US: organized crime on an unprecedented scale is being portrayed as legitimate action by a state and legitimized as such by a legal system that is obviously complicit.
In addition to the massive consequences for citizens, this is evident in the absurd extent to which those responsible are enriching themselves - led by the president with his stay-out-of-prison carte blanche issued by the Supreme Court, but the entire government is benefiting just as massively as the regime's billionaire partners.
This is usually called oligarchy or kleptocracy, but in essence it is simply organized crime taking place at the highest level of a country and thus giving itself a veneer of legitimacy. After all, it is only a crime if the corresponding court rulings are issued, which is fundamentally impossible in an unjust state. So....
In his book Drug Cartels Do Not Exist, Oswaldo Zavala argues that it’s not the state monopoly on violence that is the issue, but the state monopoly on exception. The cop who decides that this teenager he caught with a joint, or speeding, or fighting someone else, shouldn’t be arrested, but that teenager doing the same things should be arrested, is an example of the monopoly on exception.
“State monopoly on violence” is literally one of the main definitions of what a state is - the entity with the monopoly on violence in a certain territory.
If you reject the notion of a state monopoly on violence you reject the existence of the state itself. Which is philosophically a coherent position that places you in the long and storied tradition of anarchism.
It also instantly marks you as an enemy of the state. Any state.
The state holding a monopoly on violence is a foundational aspect of the existence of a liberal society. It is not only correct, it is essential.
there's a country called russia and they literally do just that. can't take over a moon landscape that once was a burgeoning village without disposing 50k personnel but sure can spam ballistic missiles on civilians for shits and giggles.
I disagree. State violence is there to enforce rules, conquer territory or achieve political goals. Terrorism is there to create fear.
There is a difference between the US invading Iraq and Daesh shooting up a mall.
There is no accepted definition of terrorism or terrorist organization. That’s why all the literature talks about “non state actors”.
State violence is there to enforce rules, conquer territory or achieve political goals. Terrorism is there to create fear.
Many terrorist attacks were and are part of a campaign with explicit political goals, often including taking territory.
We just don't call these behaviors terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by a state.
I'm not advocating for violence by anyone, but your argument buys wholesale into every state's argument for why they should get to have a monopoly on it.
When a non-state actor does it, we call it "terrorism". When a state does it, we call it "state violence".
But the killing is the same. The desire to strike fear into opponents is the same. The goals are the same: to get power and control, or to keep it.
"Terrorism" is a word used and abused by state actors against smaller non-state actors, so that they can destroy it without having to negotiate (and possibly give concessions).
Trump is trying this now with Venezuela. If it's a corrupt government, you still have to engage in diplomacy. If it's a cartel, you have carte blanche to air strike Venezuelan ships.
The Taliban succeeded and now control the state of Afghanistan. Now that they're a state actor, violence against civilians has not stopped, we just stopped calling it terrorism and seeing it in the news.
Terrorism is a bad word for describing it, but it sounds scary, and fear drives news ratings, so it stuck.
Terrorism isn't just inciting fear. It's using extreme violence to obtain a platform as a means distribute a message. Importantly, that message must be contrary to the state's interests for it to be considered terrorism. Otherwise it's just a crazy guy with a gun/bomb/jet.
Also importantly, terrorism can be committed by nation-states just the same as it can be individuals (like Ted Kaczynski) or militias (Hamas, American Revolutionaries/Minutemen).
