Re: [Marxism] Theory of Violence

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel,

Allow me to comment on your little syllogism from what I hope is a
conventionally Marxist viewpoint.

> I believe that there is an unfinished syllogism in the work of
> Clausewitz which if he had completed would have made him even more
> renowned today than he already is.
> 
> He made two statements about war, politics and violence when he
> perhaps should have made three.  He said: war is the continuation of
> politics by other means and war is violence.  As he was writing
> about war it is understandable that he did not think to make the
> concluding statement: violence is the continuation of politics by
> other means.
> 
> The implications are that all violence, every single example of it
> however seemingly insignificant, is an expression of or a
> continuation of an individual's, group's, organisation's or state's
> politics.  From wife-beating to rape to mugging to gang wars to
> battering protestors to terrorism to world war, all are explained by
> this theory.  Of course, it doesn't absolve the researcher from
> painstakingly getting to the roots of the perpetrators politics in
> each separate instance but it gives the framework from which to
> begin.

The syllogism of the second paragraph above seems to me valid enough
in a general sense. However, a Marxist quibble would seem to be that
"politics" can refer to action by either the "state" or by
"government", and the difference is significant. The state is
understood to be the superstructural institution made necessary by
class contradictions. Because there are class contradiction, the state
must ultimately use force to maintain order and otherwise ensure the
conditions of capitalism. The state, of course, uses a variety of
means to that end (such as propaganda), but arguably it ultimately
comes down to force (not "violence").

The "government", on the other hand, is an institution required to
ensure social order. It is often thought of as addressing emergent
needs that are specific to a social whole, but modern governments also
aim to protect or promote the conditions necessary for the viability
of the social whole, and that means addressing the needs of the
citizens themselves (this is a basic difference between the feudal and
the capitalist systems). For example, the use of safety and health
regulations (accompanied by forceful sanctions) for the workplace or
to ensure that the food we eat is not poisonous

So I'd prefer your conclusion to be: "In societies having social
contradictions, force is the ultimate form of state action". This,
I take it, is a pretty conventional Marxist view. As for governments
employing force, I'll come back to that below, but it is not a
specifically Marxist issue.

I don't know that I would agree with the inferences you draw from your
syllogism. One is that all violence is political or perhaps that all
politics is violent. However, this depends on just what we mean by
"violence" and "politics".

If my wife pops me on the side of the head, that is a violent act, but
is our marriage a political unit? Politics conventionally refers to
the institution associated with large social wholes. My wife's blow
may have been only a result of her frustration with me, and in fact it
could be destructive of domestic harmony. Why then do we associate
politics with large social units? I suspect it is for the reason I
mentioned above, which is that it applies to units of sufficient size
and complexity that there emerge needs of the whole and institutions
to address those needs. So a family, for example would not qualify,
for the needs of the whole (household order) generally reduce to the
needs of the individuals that make it up and there is no
harmony-preserving intitution. While one might extend the
word politics to cover any social relation (even, for example, in
archaic pre-state societies), that is so unconventional as to require
justification.

We must also be careful of the word violence. In my dictionary it has
two meanings. The first seems to refer to action that is not
constrained. A violent storm, for example. But this is so general a
meaning, having no necessary social or moral implications, that I
don't believe this is the meaning you intend.

The second meaning is, if I may paraphrase, an unjust injury. This
does have social implications, for it depends on social norms
(justice). It implies an organized society with an instituionalized
sanction of norms rather than, say, my wife popping me on the side of
the head. Certainly an individual is not a political entity by
definition, and it seems to strain the word politics to apply it to a
small group, where there may be little institutionalization and where
the interest of the whole generally do not prevail over those of its
members. If we use words in unconventional ways, we should offer some
compelling justification for doing so, for our aim is to communicate.

You seem to want to universalize the notion of violence to be the
equivalent of "force", but the dictionary does not agree, for force
has no social or moral implication, nor does it imply lack of
constraint. If I force the door to close, is that a violent or
political act? If the government arrests a murderer, is that act
unconstrained or illicit?  All governments sanction certain uses of
force, such as penalizing anti-social behavior or in the defense of
its citizens. If one feels any use of force is wrong in any situation,
that is an unconventional position that needs justification. 

Besides my question about your syllogism itself, I'm uncomfortable
seeing a syllogism being used as a substitute for social analysis. In
other words, a syllogism cannot yield a social "theory", and formal
logic can't be applied to such emergent processes as human
society. We can't generate truths simply by manipulating words or
by playing with logic. This, I believe, is a fundamental Marxist
objection.  

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM

         
        

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism