Talk:Monopoly on violence

reason for reversal of redirect

The idea is that a state is a "monopoly on violence". The states claim is that it has a "legitimate monopoly on violence". These are two seperable things wherein the former represents Weber's basic thesis and the latter represents only a small portion of said thesis (i.e. the states claim). talonx138.246.7.148 (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Need more on failed states

I added a "See also" link to Failed states. With the count of failed states at 35 this year, (See Failed_state#2008), it might be appropriate to review the article's implicit assumption that a state monopoly on violence is the normal case. --John Nagle (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave "failed states" out of it. (1) Even if the figure of 35 "failed states" is accepted, that still means that, at most, 16 per cent of states fit into that category, while 84 per cent of states don't. Nearly nine out of ten states managing to meet Weber's criterion (his caveats included) seems like a good-enough case of "normal" to me. Unlike all too many people interested in politics these days, Weber was not an absolutist and didn't insist either on binary definitions or on 100 per cent application of concepts. (2) This entry is about Weber's concept, its details and (though less than there should be) critiques of it. Introducing the much more recent, much more contested concept of "failed states" into the discussion would confuse the issues and remove the focus from violence, which is only one dimension of the success/failure of states, to the broader issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.21.78 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

reference is incomplete

edition and city is missing in the reference: Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1964). p. 154 65.94.160.215 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond Weber

There's a school of thought that the "monopoly on violence" as a defining feature of the state is obsolete. See, for example, [1], which explicitly discusses Weber in a modern context. Also see Violent non-state actor and asymmetrical warfare. The state with a monopoly on violence is a European concept. Europe (and Weber) went through World War I, which produced states with incredibly strong, centrally controlled militaries. Much of the world never went through a cementing experience like that.

"Parameters", the journal of the U.S. Army War College, has many papers which address this area. See, for example, [2] and [3]. US military thinking now seems to be that most of the twentieth century, where strong nation-states dominated, was a historical anomaly. The normal condition of society, according to some current military writers, involves a whole range of violent actors, from religions to criminal gangs. --John Nagle (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Illegitimate states??

Isn`t it possible to think about governments that have a monopoly on violence, but that are not seen as legitimate by a majority of the population? Take South Africa under apartheid as an example. Compared to a clearly failed state like Somalia, it actually had military control over its territory. It was legal in the sense that it was based on laws, but these laws were not seen as legitimate by the majority of the population. Would not this be an example of a state that had a monopoly on violence, but where it was not considered legitimate?? Because it clearly was state, wasn`t it?? --Oddeivind (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, the concept that the legitimacy of a state derives from the consent of the governed. Contrast with Divine right of kings and Family dictatorship. --John Nagle (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious POV issues

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, the name of this article should be "Monopoly on Violence". This is not only a more direct translation it IS the translation most commonly used. This is not a contentious issue and I'm having real trouble assuming goodwill when people are trying to push some sort of agenda regarding the very easy direct interpretation of Weber. Talonxpool (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any indication of a serious dispute about the title of the article, but I consider the title to be defective because it uses the word "violence" rather than "physical force" or "physical coercion". Politics as a Vocation appears in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills and published by the Oxford University Press in 1946. Weber's formulation appears there as: "A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." If I plug the phrase from this article ("das Monopol legitimen physischen Zwanges") into Google translate, what I get is "the monopoly of legitimate physical coercion". The claim seems to be that "violence" is the direct and most common translation, but no evidence or citation is given to back that up. "Violence" is a loaded, pejorative term that connotes a negative value judgement. It does not qualify as objective, neutral "scientific" terminology. Given the examples I have provided, my own opinion is that "violence" is being used in order to project a point of view other than that of Weber's, most likely the view point of libertarians and individualist anarchists who see physical force or coercion as intrinsically illegitimate and immoral.

I recommend that the article be titled "Monopoly on Physical Force or Coercion"

--Alan.A.Mick (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Your position is blatantly cherry picking a single line from the paper and then claiming that this line is an embodiment of Weber's position on the subject. Weber is quite clear on the matter throughout his treatment of the topic over the first three paragraphs of his essay. The word which he uses *repeatedly* to describe this practice, power relationship, or defining, if not sole, characteristic of national entities (nations, states) is "gewaltsamkeit". This word is best translated as "violence" in English. It in *no way* ascribes the quality of legitimacy to the act itself. He uses this word multiple times in order to describe this power relationship. The line to which you refer is in fact what Weber states to be the position which national entities formally adopt in order to characterise their sole claim to the right to use of "gewaltsamkeit". It highlights the fact that this "legitimacy" emanates from the national authority. It also recognizes the euphemistic quality present in the entire idea. Weber's precise selection of language in the original German essay, specifically "gewaltsamkeit", along with the concept of legitimacy, are what give the final product a more forceful appeal. It highlights juxtaposition of terms and ideas which make them stand out and gives them a novel quality in the essay. It is important to note that the main idea here at the beginning of this essay is not the violence, but the characteristic of legitimacy claimed to underpin it. I have read a number of English translations and it is fairly clear from these that the skewed POV lies not in favour of Anarchists or American libertarians or individualists of any kind, but instead in favour of those who attempt to rationalize the violent acts of national entities. As was mentioned, most translations will take the idea or concept of "legitimate force", which actually only represented Weber's euphemistic conclusion, and swap this notion for every instance of "gewaltsamkeit" found in the original essay. This is a blatant mischaracterization of the original intent. The reason that the idea of "monopoly on violence" is such a pervasive term today is because it is, in fact, the most accurate representation of the underlying idea of the essay. As was mentioned, it is the juxtaposition of this idea with "legitimacy" which gives the original essay its impact. This was Weber's intent and is patenly clear in the original German essay.

It is also worth noting that this essay was written over one hundred years ago, at a time when the vast majority of people, including Weber, would never think to question the sovereign authority of the nation over the individual. As a result of the progression of liberalism (not the weird American definition of liberalism) in western democracies over the past 100 years, traditional ideas which recognized the authority of the state over the individual have changed drastically and this relationship between national entity and citizen has been completely redefined (most would argue for the better). There was no need for proponents of the nation states claim to the right to engage in violent acts against its own citizenry when desired to euphemise the acts in any way. This right was held to be inviolable by most citizens who assumed that their nation was always doing "the right thing". This viewpoint, of course, is no longer accurate and does no reflect the views of the vast majority of people in western liberal democracies. As such, attempts to characterise Weber's essay and the concept of "gewaltsamkeit" by referring to it as "legitimate coercive force" is a prime example of the use of weasel words designed to achieve this very end. Using weasel words and euphemisms to soften the impact of terrible things in this world has, alas, become rather commonplace. The lessons of Edward Bernays have been well learned it would seem.

And of course the word violence has a negative connotation. It should!!

Daystrom (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

--Fortunately I actually speak German and if you were to speak with a German political philosopher they would tell you as I will again that 'Monopoly on violence' is used more often than the technical definition which is 'monopoly on the use of physical force'. Anything else betrays an ignorance of the literature. Talonxpool (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Article is now Move protected to prevent move warring. If a consensus is reached to move it again please contact me or file a request at WP:RFPP if I am not around. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add a couple things to the POV issues: Alan, your terminology is technically not scientific (although I see you already acknowledged that). "Physical force" would be (I believe) objective, neutral political term while "violence" would be objective (depending on the individual case, such as an oppressive dictatorship), non-neutral political term. But that would be nit-picking. The more important thing is the interpretation of "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" as meaning "the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten to use, or authorize others to use direct physical violence against members of its territorial domain.". Perhaps I have not read enough Weber, but he does not seem to define state as an organization (such as a government). He said "human community". I believe there may be a conflict here between the belief that the government and the people are the same thing and the belief that they are two separate things.

You make a valid point; he deliberately uses the term human community given his initial stated objective of trying to establish an acceptable baseline definition of what a "state" or national entity is exactly. Taking your point about all of this being nitpicking a step further, it is crucial to remember that this sort of bickering over definitions and connotations would seem absurd to Weber and his contemporaries keeping in mind the evolving relationship and obligations between state and citizen in the century plus since this was written. Remember, this document was written at a time when it was considered perfectly acceptable to line PTSD/battle fatigue suffers against a wall and shoot them. We as a society are much less tolerant of the state engaging in violence against its citizens and much more cynical of the underlying motives for said violence. The sort of quibbling will become much more pronounced in the coming decades as pro-state agents find it a much more daunting task to justify acts of state violence against the generations of increasingly individualistic types coming up through the pipe now. For example, governments will find it difficult task to justify violent acts such as incarceration for some guy or gal who decides to grow a marijuana plant at home in 20-30 years time. The kids being born as I type now will no longer tolerate the society warping effect of such things in a few decades time.

And as I already stated, I just do not understand Alan's point that "violence has a negative connotation". Of course it does and it should! Using violence (or force) against other human beings is _always_ a negative thing, or it certainly should be at any rate. Claiming that there is a negative connotation to the word "violence" is like claiming that there is a negative connotation to the word "rape" or "genocide". Some words are meant to connote negativity given that they describe exclusively negative ideas or concepts. Any attempt to euphemize such acts is, IMHO, a fundamental failing on our part and it is this sort of thing which betrays a clear POV. I feel that the example you provide regarding the dictatorship only further euphemises acts of violence. We citizens of western democracies have this tendency to white wash our own national violence as somehow rational or justified when compared to the acts of other foreign actors, especially those who are outside of what we would consider "western liberal democracies". For those who are interested in a good definition of what exactly violence is, I suggest they have a look at the one provided by the World Health Organization:

"Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

— World Health Organization

Daystrom (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Article clean up, sources needed, german version

I've gone through the article and removed most of the references to violence which appear to be a POV mistranslation of the Weber's "gewalt" which has various meanings including: force, power, control, violence, command, etc. [4]. The cited translations in the article do not use the language "monopoly of violence" tending to prefer physical force or coercion. Comparing this article to the German version, there is a significant quality gap. Having good secondary sources which summarize the topic neutrally would go a long way towards improving the article. aprock (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

--as a German speaker I can assure you that 'gewalt' translates to violence. This unilaterall action of yours, taken without discussion is unacceptable and I recommend calling in a moderator before further actions are taken following my revert to the January 2012 version. Talonxpool (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're going to need to provide sources for this interpretation. Your original research, removal of sources, and other edits have degraded the article. aprock (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.dict.cc/deutsch-englisch/Gewalt.html is his the correct dictionary link. aprock (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.dict.cc/deutsch-englisch/%5BGewaltt%C3%A4tigkeit%5D.html It is a direct translation and there is not a single sociologist published who would infer that 'Gewalt' as used by Weber connotes anything other than 'Violent', especially considering that where he wished to refer to 'Force' he used the word 'Zwang'. Your accustations are dishonest in the least and lack any specific substance as the one instance you provide for any of your accusations (original research) is a universally excepted translation of Weber, which was in fact cited. I will likely revert and call in moderation or have the page locked should you refuse to discus your changes again. The point of wikipedia is not to unilaterally decide what reality is, it is to discuss and build on each others citations, massively changing an article without any discussion, or worse, despite previous discussion, is most definately a hurtful practice. Talonxpool 79.247.62.226 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The published translation cited in the article is:

A compulsory political association with continuous organization will be called a 'state' if and in so far as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of order.

If you can find a authoritative source which translates the phrase another way, please do provide the source. aprock (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Rolled back original research

Without explanation, original research cleaned up two years ago was added back. I reviewed the content, and more robust sourcing would be required to include that content. aprock (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

quote from trotsky

Weber agrees with trotsky that every state is founded on force so perhaps there should be a mention of this in the article seeing that troysky said almost the exact same thing in different words and weber of course cites trotsky whereas our wiki editors have not.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=VfG817VebnkC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=state+monopoly+on+violence+trotsky&source=bl&ots=xtElGAhhKS&sig=DL3b37l8zOg-9QI_PRM9rZLdFNA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sVqkUODjA7HZigKP_YCgDQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=state%20monopoly%20on%20violence%20trotsky&f=false

Relationship to other articles

Added some academic refs, US Army War College, etc. A key point one source makes is that in the last decade or so, most of the wars around the world have involved non-state actors. There are some related articles. Westphalian sovereignty is especially relevant, because it's the same concept as this article, but pre-dates Weber. It's also a better article. (Merge, perhaps?) There's also non-state actor. --John Nagle (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

More refs of interest on situations where the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence:

• USMC Small Wars Manual, 1940ed. [5] A classic how-to manual for those little problems that requre sending in the Marines. Still widely read; on the mandatory reading list for USMC officers. Much of the book is about re-establishing a state monopoly on violence. There are sections on "disarmament of populations", and setting up a constabulary and a military government.
• USMC Small Wars Manual, new rev. (to appear) [6] With all the small wars lately, the Marines are updating their manual. It's not out yet.
• "The Modern Nation State and Regimes of Violence: Reflections on the Current Situation" [7]. A recent paper on the subject by Kossler, a German academic writing for a Japanese audience. Pages 15-18 have a good summary of the history of the concept - Hobbs, Weber, Marx, etc. He views the "monopoly on violence" as the result of the consolidation process which turned Europe from a collection of feudal regions into nation-states. Rather than trying to define "legitimate" violence, Kossler speaks of the "public dimension of violence". Kossler also sees an economic dimension: "The guarantee of sound market conditions therefore is also dependent on the effective exercise of sovereignty by the state.". After covering the classic position, Kossler points out that non-state actors mess it up: "The post-9/11 situation forces important and disconcerting qualifications on this rather conventional picture. This goes back to the fact that an act of outrageous violence emanating from a non-state source which cannot be defined in territorial terms has been interpreted as an act of war, to be countered by military means, including the targeting of certain state-bounded territories, such as Afghanistan and later Iraq." He also mentions the rise of "networked organizations", including crime cartels that operate across borders, as challenging state monopolies on violence.
• In 2004, George Will wrote, about the US-Iraq war, "The first task of the occupation remains the first task of government: to establish a monopoly on violence." [8] Because that effort wasn't successful, there's a lot of later material on what happens when the state can't establish a monopoly on violence. See also Arab Spring.

Please read some of these and contribute to the article. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of these sources do not look adequately reliable for broad mainstream understanding. I would suggest turning to textbooks, or published academic books treating the topic on at least a chapter level. The should help establish due weight, and possibly branching into the sources listed by the textbooks to flesh out any missing details. It is not our job to research the topic and present our findings in the article. Government manuals or op-eds are not the high quality sources need to provide context and due weight. aprock (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

remvoed definitional controversies

This section appears to have contained extensive original research, and was based on very poor sourcing. If there actually is some sort of definitional controversy, it needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources which treat the topic in full. One of the sources lists wasn't a published source, and the second only mentions the concept in passing. If this really is a section supported by due weight please start with solid sources, which address the issue in context. aprock (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Undid big deletion. That material is well-cited. "Parameters" is the peer reviewed academic journal of the U.S. Army War College. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That's where the people who fight wars publish papers on the theory of war. Materials from a study group at the London School of Economics also qualify. Much written on insurgency and counter-insurgency relates to this issue. See especially Counter-insurgency#Counter-insurgency_theorists. John Nagle (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Were there any secondary sources available that can be used to determine if the research represents a broad enough view to merit inclusion? The monopoly on violence is usually presented in the context of the state acting to enforce against it's own citizens, not other states. aprock (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Many articles on this subject

Wikipedia has articles on:

• Violent non-state actor
• Non-state actor
• Monopoly on violence
• Westphalian sovereignty
• Insurgency
• Counter-insurgency
• Military operations other than war

There's a lot of overlap. Some mergers may be desirable.

It's a big subject. Most wars today involve non-state actors. Even Russia's current invasion of Ukraine involves soldiers with weapons but not in uniform. Terminology varies. The USMC uses the term "Small Wars" [9] (Their classic Small Wars Manual from 1940 is being revised this year[10]). The U.S. Army used the term "Operations Other than War" in the 1990s, but that term has fallen out of favor. "Counterinsurgency" is now more used. There are lots of articles on this. Basic places to look are Parameters, the Marine Corps Journal, and U.S. Army Military Review[11]. --John Nagle (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I put a note on the military history noticeboard about this. The war buffs will probably have more citations at hand.[12] John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If wars involve non-state actors, that monopoly isn't so monopolistic ;)

That said, this article isn't about military force per se, but enforcement. In fact, I think this applies more to articles like Police and Judiciary than the articles that you mention. Better secondary sourcing is required here though. The section you added back is a good example of something that doesn't have secondary source support. aprock (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what the war buffs have to say. There's a huge amount of material on counter-insurgency, which is mostly about trying to re-establish a state monopoly on violence. I recently read "The Insurgents", by David Kaplan [13] which is a book-length analysis of how the U.S. Military tried to come to grips with what to do about insurgencies. The U.S. military was designed for "real wars", nation-state vs. nation-state. Both Iraq and Afghanistan didn't fit that pattern. The U.S. Army had a hard time internally dealing with that. Kaplan points out that many U.S. Army leaders are strongly invested in the idea that the Army's job is to fight other nations, but "that's not the war we've got".

There's a 2013 paper from the University of Chicago which attempts to update Weber to cope with the realities of insurgencies.[14] Prof. Staniland writes "There is a consensus in otherwise disparate research that states are pursuers of a monopoly of organized political violence on their territory." But weak states can't achieve that monopoly. So "Rather than always pursuing Max Weber’s monopoly of legitimate violence, governments often tolerate or sponsor militias, insurgents, party backed armed wings, local strongmen, and private armies." This approach predates Weber; the author has examples from Britain's colonial period in India.

There are plenty of secondary sources available which, like Staniland, explicitly cite Weber and go on from there. Search for "monopoly on violence" insurgency. A lot of people around the world are trying to figure out what to do about all those guys running around with AK-47s. John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Citing Weber only make a source secondary to Weber. Any new conclusions are primary. If you have a good source which is secondary to the new conclusions, please offer it up. All the sources in the new section look primary, and thus are not sufficient to determine due weight. aprock (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Staniland is analyzing the works of others in his paper. You could probably find some clearly secondary references in "The Insurgents", which reviews the development of the U.S. Army doctrinal manual on counter-insurgency. A good, heavily footnoted article which reviews the relationship between a weak state, the breakdown of the state monopoly on violence and insurgencies is "Controlling the Human High Ground for Insurgency"[15]. (Even though written as an academic paper, the author is an active-duty USMC officer who did three tours in Iraq, so this might probably be considered too "primary".) John Nagle (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the Broekhuizen source, it only mentions the monopoly of violence in passing, and only uses it as an example of the weakening of state authority. I would classify this as a dubious source for this article because it does not treat the article topic at length. This article does not give enough context on the subject to determine due weight, though if such a secondary source was found, this article could be used to support some of the content, once appropriate weight is established. This looks like a great source for Insurgency. aprock (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I will be removing the section based on the source review directly above. aprock (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed aprock (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

New section added

I've moved the information on the two authors other than Weber (Aron and Phelps) to a new section, for the sake of structural clarity and to allow this page to be opened up to a discussion of the concept in broader literature, rather than just in Weber. Looking at the talk page, there's a lot of contention on whether the term "monopoly of violence" or "monopoly of physical force" should be used; I have no dog in that fight, but I titled the section "Other writers on the monopoly of violence" for the sake of consistency with the article's title. Feel free to change it if need be.

Hopefully this section can be fleshed out a bit more, to provide a more comprehensive picture of this concept post-Weber. Ianmckeachie (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Weber's statement is an observation, not an endorsement.

When I first saw this article a few minutes ago, it contained the statement, "According to Weber, the state is the source of legitimate physical force."

That's not quite right. Weber's statement is an observation, not an endorsement. Rather, he is saying that the state is that "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given 'territory'" (emphasis mine). ("Heute dagegen werden wir sagen müssen: Staat ist diejenige menschliche Gemeinschaft, welche innerhalb eines bestimmten Gebietes – dies: das »Gebiet« gehört zum Merkmal – das Monopol legitimer physischer Gewaltsamkeit für sich (mit Erfolg) beansprucht.") It is this successful claim on or maintaining of (beansprucht) such a monopoly that Weber is calling a fundamental characteristic of a modern state. Again, Weber's statement is meant as an observation rather than as an endorsement. This is underscored by his use of scarequotes around the word "territory" or "zone" (»Gebiet«)--calling attention to the state's attempt to naturalize a concept it has created--as well as around the word "right" in his expression "'right' to violence" (»Rechts« auf Gewaltsamkeit).

Relatedly, it should be clear to any reader that "Gewalt" can be translated as "violence" in addition to (the perhaps more innocuous) "force". "Force" is of course a term which states themselves employ to legitimate their violence.

Alfred Nemours (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)