• Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no time for my research project.

    I want to define exactly to what extent the state is present in America. If the state is defined as the only legal perpetrators of violence, and gun ownership is prevalent to such an extent in the US, then what does that say about gun owners?

    Similarly, why is a larger percentage of white men more likely to own guns compared to non-white men?

    Like, we know the answer from theory, but what are the laws and regulations that led to this result? Who had put these laws into practice? How does this criminalization used to segregate the populace and enforce privilege?

    • ☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭@lemmygrad.mlM
      ·
      1 year ago

      The civilian gun owners aren't part of the state; civilians can exert violence in many ways, not just guns, but it's not legal outside of special circumstances (even if the law isn't applied equally in practice). As for why more white men own guns, using black men as an example, one reason is that they've been unable to access guns until relatively recently and even when they could legally acquire them, it was either very difficult in practice or caused them to be targeted by the state (especially in revolutionary groups like the Black Panthers)

      • Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        In general, I would agree with you, but I think it’s a special case in the US. I would argue that with the way that gun ownership exists in the US, that civilian gun ownership is part of the state, as much as propaganda is a part of the state. As in an oligarchy, it would make sense that the government wouldn’t comprise of the entirety of the state.

        There is a reason that gun ownership is mainly attributed to reactionary elements. This is intentional, resulting from the propagation and polarization of gun culture across party lines, and the subsequent rejection of gun culture and gun ownership by the opposing party. This results in the means for violence being concentrated in the most reactionary elements of society.

        The state, through propaganda and law, has essentially set up this reserve militia as a reserve bulwark against progress. We have seen that it’s these reactionary forces that are the most willing and most able to use violence.

        It’s not just gun ownership, but rather reactionary adventurism in general that’s not only encouraged but funded and protected by the state. (Like with the libs of TikTok bomb threats) I would go so far as to say this parallels what we saw in Italy before WWII, and the start of an official fascist regime.

        But of course, this is just a framework for my research, and a lot of these claims are something I would still need to prove or deny. But this is a trend that I’ve been noticing recently.

        • ☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭@lemmygrad.mlM
          ·
          1 year ago

          I still wouldn't classify them as part of the state; they may act in the interest of the state (knowingly or not), but they have no institutional power, even if those who are part of the state may use their institutional power to defend them in some cases. Cuba also has an extremely high level of gun ownership and its gun owners also act in the interest of the Cuban state (which is also in their own interest), but I wouldn't say they're part of it

          I don't think any of us would argue that the government (meaning the president, the congress, etc.) is the state; it's just there to hide the fact that the big bourgeoisie is fundamentally in control

          • Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not arguing that either. To expand on the idea of a state in an oligarchy, since power stems from the capitalist and not the official government body, then the concept of the state can extend beyond the law and (official) institutional power.

            I think we can all agree on the fact that the propaganda apparatus is part of the state, including mainstream media, and is beyond official government control. However, as described by Edward Bernays, propaganda stretches beyond just print and electronic media, but also includes think tanks, special interest groups, and movements. Like the NRA, GOA, etc.

            For example, you can’t say that the Cuban American lobby or the Zionist lobby isn’t part of the state. On the surface, they appear to be grassroots organizations, but they are propped up and given power by capitalists because they support capitalist interests, and in return, they influence the people through false narratives, and gives an excuse to justify reactionary domestic and foreign policy.

            • ☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭@lemmygrad.mlM
              ·
              1 year ago

              Mainstream media may not be directly controlled by the government, but it is controlled by the core of the state (the big bourgeoisie), which is not the case for the average gun owner. This is also more or less true for "non-governmental" organizations like lobby groups and think tanks. It ultimately depends on how wide a definition of "state" is used, but including every gun owner would mean that at least 30% of the population are part of the state, and (IMO) such an extremely broad definition doesn't seem very useful

              Regardless of the exact definition of "state", we can certainly agree that the majority of USian gun owners are aligned with the interests of the state, whether they know it or not

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      1 year ago

      Interesting topic.

      If the state is defined as the only legal perpetrators of violence…

      Is that the right definition? It could be a good place to start. You might want to look up John Austin. This article may be useful: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/ If Austin is useful, you might want to check exactly how he reflected Bentham and then see if Marx said anything about that part of Bentham. Marx wasn't generally kind to him lol.

      If you find this legal view of the state and keep reading you may come across Kelsen. If so, or if you're otherwise interested, have a look at Max Adler, The Marxist Conception of the State: A Contribution to the Differentiation of the Sociological and the Juristic Method. It's an old text but may be useful.

      Otherwise, is the state the 'only legal [perpetrator] of violence' or does it have a monopoly on violence? Is there a difference?

      I've yet to read it but Ralph Miliband's The State in Capitalist Society could be useful, too.

      If you are going down a legal path, Pashukanis and Renner may be essential reading. Even anti-communists treat them seriously. I'm unsure if he's an anti-communist, but Fuller's Morality of Law relies on Pashukanis. Fuller was involved in one of a few great debates in jurisprudence in the twentieth century. His was the Hart-Fuller debate. Hart being the arch-positivist. You'll see him mentioned in the Austin article cited above, along with Kelsen (Pashukanis gets a line about some Marxists rejecting positivism).

      (For those who are just passing by, legal positivism is basically the idea that there is a difference between what law is and what law ought to be. I.e. law doesn't necessarily tell you what is moral and law doesn't necessarily have to be moral.)