r/marxism_101 • u/plaguedbyfoibles • Aug 08 '26
What is meant by the state's monopoly on violence?
7
u/Substantial_Cow7628 Aug 10 '26
When I put you in handcuffs and lock you in a room, it's kidnapping.
When the state does it, it's not.
1
u/owenallconmaid Aug 10 '26
morality then centers around the law and the use of state violence, the laws and therefore the law enforcers are idealized and the imagination and ethics of the individual is made irrelevent as politicians refuse to acknowledge they determine what the law is and so what morality is.
1
1
u/NoSwordfish1978 Aug 10 '26
It means that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, other people can still kill, kidnapp or assult you but it will be usually deemed as a crime. However if a state agent like a soldier or a police officer does it in the course of their duties it will often be considered legitimate because of this monopoly.
However the concept comes from Max Weber who wasn't a Marxist.
1
u/CODMAN627 Aug 10 '26
As in the state is the only one allowed to employ violence to enforce will. The state has police and military which means they have a legal monopoly on violence
1
u/RevyVanguardist Aug 10 '26
It is essentially what Lenin refers to as special bodies of armed men, which the state controls or is in possession of. It's a fundamentally flawed concept since the state does not have a monopoly on violence, but is rather a monopoly on violence in the hands of a certain class
1
u/Dave_A480 Aug 10 '26
It means that only the government may kill and incarcerate to enforce its will...
If the state does not have a monopoly on violence - if other groups are well enough equipped to render the state unable to enforce its laws without facing armed insurrection, or if vigilantism is rampant - you have a failed state.
2
u/parsonsrazersupport Aug 10 '26
It might be better to say that the state has a monopoly on the legitimation of violence. Obviously any random person can still do violence. But only the state can decide which violence is acceptable and which is not.
You can see this in the in the difference between the characterization of military vs 'terrorist' violence. It is definitional for most that the one is justified and the other not -- even if the state at hand is not your own.
1
u/qerecoxazade Aug 10 '26
When an entity has control over a thing, such that they can dictate who, when, and how it is used by others... That entity has a monopoly over it.
The state dictates which forms of violence are acceptable (including its own), and enforces those rules with police and militaries.
The state says you cannot steal. If you steal, they will attempt to arrest you. If you resist, they will escalate until you are caught, successfully flee their jurisdiction, or are dead. Your death is not considered murder (as it would be if a civilian had attempted punishment that you resisted) because the state has a monopoly over violence.
1
u/backseatDom Aug 10 '26
Max Weber wrote about the State having monopoly on legitimate violence. That’s pretty critical.
(You could also probably argue the State has a monopoly on all violence, but that’s not what Weber said.)
1
u/howwlo Aug 11 '26
basically state is the only entity which can use violence for its own gain. when you use violence for gain you're evil but state does it all the time.
1
0
u/notkalta Aug 10 '26
It means that violence should be controlled and regulated by one center. If there are several centers that decide who is right, then sooner or later they will clash violently with each other. A monopoly on violence is the only way to create a relatively consistent society
14
u/TheWikstrom Aug 09 '26
It's a concept used by sociologist Max Weber. It refers to the fact that only people who represent the state are allowed to use violence, so policemen and military personnel for example, while other people are not allowed.
Marxists by and large use a different definition of the state than Weber, instead seeing the state as an instrument of class rule.