Stories with a moral about the illusory nature of state power: King Solomon’s enslavement of the jinn to build the Temple. Mario and the Magician by Thomas Mann, a 1929 allegory about Fascism.
Then, when We decreed (Solomon’s) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff: so when he fell down, the jinn saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating penalty (of their task).
Qur’an 34:14
Same moral to the story as in Mario and the Magician: the illusory nature of state power—all it takes to topple the fascist state (symbolized by the magician) is for the workers (symbolized by Mario) to realize it.
In fiction, it was Mario who fired the gun that took down the oppressor. But in real life, it was Luigi.
This is what has always seemed so surreal. That guys like Putin, Kim, Mao, Hitler, etc. are really, in a physical sense, just 1 body out of millions of bodies - and if the nearby people decided they didn’t like this one guy anymore, it would be the fastest and easiest thing in the world to drag him away by force. Power exists only in people’s minds.
It brings me back to Robert Anton Wilson’s dictum “Reality is what you can get away with.” Then I think of all I learned from The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by Graeber and Wengrow. State power originated among free peoples as ritual play. Eventually the play monarchs parlayed their temporary position into the permanent monopoly on violence that we now define as the state.
That monopoly on violence only holds as long as the masses stay bamboozled by it. It can collapse overnight, in the blink of an eye, like that. Syria in December 2024.
I mostly agree, but minor disagreement, which these two quotes tie into (not again disagreeing with you as posters but using them to make my point). The monopoly on violence, as normally managed by a nation state is terrifying and formidable to an individual. It is however extremely vulnerable to the masses. It’s getting to that stage where the problem lies. As far as an individual is concerned, the state can and has (in many systems) obliterated them when challenged. It is very real, and absolutely non-illusionary power.
But, if a sufficient mass of individuals get to the point where that risk seems more tolerable than the current conditions (real or perceived) then absolutely! In almost all systems, the coercive power can only be effectively operated by a tiny portion of that system. And yes, especially if that tiny portion is cooperative, unwilling to intervene, or otherwise sidelined, it can collapse quite quickly!
Again, disagree, but only on the matters of scale.
I mean it’s not that illusory. Sure if literally everyone in the country (or most of them) decided they are going to take to the streets and depose the government then the government is toast, but that’s a very hard trick to pull off IRL. The fact is the government has all the levers of power at their disposal and that is not an illusion. All the guns(or most of them), all the tanks, planes, etc. but also the monetary power of the state, the legal system, the communications systems and media, etc. None of those are illusions.
Even just considering the military, if you can keep those loyal, then that counts for a lot. It takes a hell of a lot brave inspired but poorly armed citizens to overcome one armored regiment with air support.
As a rule of thumb it takes a combination of massive economic crisis combined with a dictator who doesn’t know what their doing for the people to overcome a dictator.
Remember Ceaucescus last speech? Suddenly people stopped shouting hurrah! and started booing. He was speechless, his facial expression priceless, he tried to flee, but before the end of the week he and his wife had been shot, he allegedly still wearing the same clothes.
And rumors claim Putin watched in horror the video of Colonel Gaddafi’s killing. Would he have understood it if the subtitles had read mene mene tekel upharsim?
Yes, there is still hope.
Well the decade plus of civil of war, for most of which he was winning handily was definitely not an illusion. And it’s not like his ultimate defeat was the result of a sudden uptick of grassroots opposition, it was support from turkey for the opposition combined with Assad supporting Russia being distracted by Ukraine.
Also Mr al-Asad junior was the younger child of the former dictator, who was never meant to be leader and seemed destined for a life as a posh dentist in London. The very archetype of a dictator who doesn’t know what they’re doing
No one asserts that violence is unique to the state. It’s common knowledge that criminals including cartels, terrorist organizations and assassins enact violence. That’s not a profound realization. It’s also not a good thing to advocate because the wide-spread adoption of said extra-judicial violence as a good thing rarely leads to a good thing.
Not to mention modern states are MUCH better at finding pockets of dissent and crushing them long before they become a major problem. Control over the media, cameras everywhere, phone data with your location easily accessed, what you write and so on has become quite extensive now. Sure, some small cells can manage to hide but getting the whole populace to rise up is nearly impossible today. The populace will only join in if the revolutionaries show considerable success and likelihood of winning and that is very hard to do.
Saying that sates have a monopoly on violence doesn’t mean that states are the only bodies capable of committing violence. It means that the state is the only body that can legitimately use violence.
Your example of Luigi is an art one. The state’s monopoly on violence doesn’t mean that Luigi can’t shoot someone; it means that we as a society agree that it’s not OK for him to do so, no matter how much we might dislike the guy he shot.
When that mutual agreement fails, society falls apart. Instead of a functional society, you have a bunch of Belkars killing each other:
(By the way, the title of the strip that image came from is an extra punchline: “Actually, it’s probably you”. This, indeed, is the common issue with “revolutionaries” who tell society that it’s OK to kill the least popular members of society: those people end up being the least popular and then being killed.)
Morocco has a centuries-old tradition of dealing with political dissidents by letting them escape to inhospitable desert and mountain areas where it was too difficult to project state power anyway. Such areas were officially designated the “Land of Rebellion.” It was a standard part of political geography in North Africa, on which Ibn Khaldun based his theory of cyclical state formation in the Muqaddimah: tribes who banded together in the outlands would get strong enough to take over the civilized areas, until the next wave of tribes from the outlands overthrew them, etc. Currently Morocco is practicing the modernized form of the “Land of Rebellion” in their occupation of Western Sahara. They built a berm dividing Moroccan-controlled zones with all the cities from the desert zones left to the Sahrawi People’s Liberation Army.
And it’s a false assertion. That’s why concepts such as self-defense exist, it’s also why legitimate arguments can be made for revolutionary acts. It’s also why it’s legal to defend yourself against illegal state action. The wisdom of such escalation, is of course, debatable.
Yeah though it’s not a super good model for a stable autocracy as every few generations a new batch of those rebels, with their berber allies, would sweep down from the mountains, decrying the decadence of the current regime and promising to bring Morocco back to the true faith (and then upon succeeding, taking a look at how sweet the palace was and becoming the new decadent rulers of morrocco)
that. Syria in December 2024.
