We associate the monopoly for force with the attributes of state organizations. This is how we view this collective being under the influence of modern (or even actually contemporary) observations and doctrinal studies from various thinkers.
Such conclusions are imposed by the fact that public power, over the years, has become increasingly omnipotent. The Almighty, actually. This comes first and foremost from the fact that the state's method instrumentation is increasingly powerful. If there are tools, why not scope for them? This direction of change is followed by observations and their theoretical generalizations. Let us add here, however, that from time to time various theories about the imminent death of political power gain in importance.
The anarchists, who died on behalf of their beliefs, recognized that the state was of its deepest being something worthy of moral condemnation, and even the request to fight it. Marxists said that this organization would come down from the scene of past under the influence of social processes that are a historical necessity. And in a situation where they themselves – where they were in power – built structures of power of a peculiarly oppressive character. besides present there are voices that the future in the globalised planet belongs to corporations, and the state device itself is simply a relic phenomenon.
The events of the past fewer years indicate that they are alternatively delusions and pious wishes. The state, as an organized form of political life, is inactive well! The view remains that this entity has 1 peculiar property: a monopoly on the usage of violence. It even seems to be the very essence of this organism. This conclusion is eager to decision into the deep past, suggesting that this trait of statehood belongs to its deepest being. The analogy and alleged projection are tempting. In the meantime, it seems that this generalisation can reasonably be called into question and the argument about the right to violence, which is the essence of the state structures, can be successfully knocked off the pedestal.
Let us besides add that presented as a leading view of these matters and treating the essence of the state as an organism of a legal – positivistic nature. And it wasn't and it inactive isn't. It's easy to show. And today, in practice, states do not have the exclusive right to punish, or the right to usage sanctioned violence. Yes, they do, but it is virtually impossible. For example, there is simply a full sphere of cases excluded from state jurisdiction, e.g. sanctions in canon law and norms of a number of another religions.
Penalties imposed and enforced in various types of professional corporations, in organisations of different character. Enforcement of judgments by mafias and organised criminal groups. There are so many exemptions and restrictions to which countries are subject. We besides have the right to defend the essential or different states of higher necessity in which the application of coercion is sanctioned.
Thus, if this is the case today, it becomes evident that in earlier times the anticipation of repression, by the then apparatus of power, was even more scarce. States as an organized apparatus of authority of a monarch or urban republic, were so heavy restrained. So what theoretical conclusions come from this. The first rule is that, in order to decently recognise and specify the essence of public power, it is essential to depart from its legal knowing and return to the ground of organistic beliefs about the state.
Antoni Koniuszewski
photo public domain
Think Poland, No. 35-36 (27.08-3.09.2023)
