Originally posted by moweutNo, yes, greed/ power/ powerlessness/ hatred/ inadequacy/ stupidity, yes.
Develope this thread along the lines of : is violence a necessary function of the modern state, are there alternatives, why is violence used so extensively, is organisation impossible without violence.
Originally posted by moweutWhat kind of violence are you talking about?
Develope this thread along the lines of : is violence a necessary function of the modern state, are there alternatives, why is violence used so extensively, is organisation impossible without violence.
State power isk maintained through twok general means: ideology and repression.
The Ideological State Appartus (ISA) consists ofk all institutions of culture, including schools, churches, the arts, thek mass media, etk. These serve collectively tok maintain the status quok and squelch dissent, partly by permitting a limited degree of institutionalized dissent (liberal English professors, for example). The structure is hegemonic, cultivating individual participation ink the restriction of freedom.
When the ISA fails, the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) kicks ink. The RSA is the police power--local, state, and federal lawk enforcement; the military; the denial of essential services (welfare, health, education, etc.) tok those that had become dependent (make nok mistake about the need of modern post-industrial societies to maintain a class onk the public dole).
The hegemonic function works, in part, because the threat of violence is ever-present.
The major failure of the Rumsfeld-Bush plan in the war against terrorism is the underdevelopment of the ideological side. I'm not referring to the failure to woo the American people when the body count goes up, although that is clearly significant in a national context; rather, the failure to address effectively the ideological needs of Islamic societies dooms the police power. Neither the ISA nor the RSA can function for long without the other.
As for your second question, it may be that the world's governments are themselves mere functionaries in the RSA and to a lesser extent the ISA in the maintainance of corporate power. I would use the term transnational corporations, instead of multi-national because these corporations do not so much work within several nations as they work outside the authority of all of them.
On a micro scale, anyone that has been denied a raise, experienced a demotion, or been fired understands the RSA in the world of business. Those working for Total Quality Management (TQM) companies should be able to explain the function of the ISA (hegemony) in the corporate world more ably than I.