Hello and Welcome to History on the Run and welcome to the final episode of the series “Violence for Profit”. Today, we’ll be talking about governments and Max Weber’s definition of a government. Then I’ll follow it up with the modern changes in government’s role and how the concepts and definitions have changed. However, before we get into this subject I should put forward a disclaimer. I will be talking about how being a soldier is a career, one that would not be possible without the monetary benefits. However, I will add that for many soldiers money is not the main issue. Patriotism, honor, and a sense of national duty are often what will make many choose a career that is not as profitable, more dangerous, and not so easy on the mind and body. In most of the cases money is of secondary concern. As such I’d like to read a section from one of my favorite military historians John Keegan in his book A History of Warfare and then say how I agree and disagree with his statement.
“Soldiers are not as other men – that is the lesson I have learned from a life cast among warriors. The lesson has taught me to view with extreme suspicion all theories and representations of war that equate it with any other activity in human affairs. War undoubtedly connects, as the theorists demonstrate, with economics and diplomacy and politics. Connection does not amount to identity or even similarity. War is wholly unlike diplomacy or politics because it must be fought by men whose values and skills are not those of a world apart, a very ancient world, which exists in parallel with the everyday world, but does not belong to it.”
Now, several things can be easily agreed with and several things can be disagreed with. For one, as I said above, soldiers often choose their profession for reasons that are not economic. War obviously is different than economics and involves different types of men with very different values and skills. However, economics, politics, and I would add culture drive warfare. A military is defined by politics, culture, and economics as much as they are defined by warfare. The US has a highly technical military because it has a strong economy and is therefore able to afford it. Politics also starts the wars, pays the bills, and shapes the culture of the military by forcing integration, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and other policies. Well, that’s enough of a distraction. Let’s get going.
In this podcast I want to build up the history of the concept of government and finally conclude with Max Weber’s definition of what a government is.
Since ancient times the concept of government was more about what type of government instead of what is a government? Plato, for instance, said in Republic that, "Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race." Basically, kings or rulers should first be philosophers in order to rule effectively. During the Medieval period the state was by definition the rightful property of the Ruler and was a part of the divine right of kings. During the Renaissance and the Enlightenment thought once more turned toward who should rule and no more questions were asked of what he or she was ruling. The rights of man, democratic rule, and other classic questions were debated long and hard into the night by society’s best philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Voltaire, John Locke, and others.
Then along came Max Weber and the sociologists who wanted to ask the question of what is a government? Let me give you Weber’s definition and then we can discuss its meaning and implications. According to Weber a government is an institution that has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a region. Let me repeat that: a government is an institution that has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a region. What Max Weber means by that can be explained by examining these situations. One, a gangster demands protection money. He beats up the man when he refuses to pay. A man is thrown in jail for not paying his taxes. A man is killed for treason. A group of activists cross the border into another country and kill someone. A country declares war and kills someone in a border skirmish. When a government kills someone, roughs someone up, invades another country, or anything involving violence it must be considered the legitimate user of that violence in order to be considered a government. If it doesn’t it’s simply a gang, a mob, or a rebel group that does not have the right to govern or use violence.
Let’s look at the first two examples in some depth. Both the gangster and government are using violence against another person for not paying them. Whether it’s called protection money or taxes is quibbling over a definition that involves the same action. The difference between the mobster and the government is that the government is viewed as the legitimate user of that violence. This was especially true before the Enlightenment when all the government did was “protect” you. Now the second part of Weber’s definition is that the government has a monopoly on this violence. Whether it is going to war, executing a criminal, or maintaining order on the streets it’s the job of the government and nobody else.
Now I’d like to give a basic counter to Weber’s theory as well as finish out the history of the development of the state and its concept. But before I get to that I want to explain how this fits into Violence for Profit. Today we live in a world with a Non-profit government. However, and this might seem weird, but that has not always been the case. Imagine that the government you pay your taxes to, the one that you pledge allegiance to and might someday be called up to fight and die for is a For-profit government. These have existed and will exist into the future.
Let us first examine India. India was for a long time ruled by a corporation. A corporation that fought wars, raised taxes, and was a government. How crazy is that? In one country they were a company, and in another one they were the government! It was an interesting process that led to this. The Europeans had a series of ports that they were licensed to trade in during the 18th century, and until the battle of Plassey that’s all they were. Then the Black Hole of Calcutta happened. Now the Black Hole of Calcutta wasn’t a special anomaly or some world ending rift in the space time continuum or anything. We’d be dead if that were the case. No, the Black Hole was a room. It was a very small stuffy room where troops of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daulah, held British prisoners of war after the capture of the Fort in 1756. The Nawab was unhappy with the British East India company attacked the fort and put 146 prisoners in a tiny room. After one night in the room 123 of the 146 people had died. It was a travesty and the British East India Company was faced with two options. Withdraw from the very lucrative Bengal market or come back with a vengeance. While the rational decision might have been to back off we are not rational people and the East India Company attacked with a vengeance. At the battle of Plassey in 1757 the East India Company won a decisive battle and all of a sudden. Boom. They were the government. They proceeded to gobble up territory bit by bit until the entire subcontinent was under their control. They were a company and a government. A for-profit government! Now, eventually, after the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, 100 years after the beginning of company rule, the territory was taken over by the British Government. About 100 years later India would become independent.
There are plenty of other cases where a for-profit government was in existence. After and during the Cold War rulers such as Mobutu Sese Seko and recently deceased Muammar Gaddafi milked their countries for a profit and others such as Idi Amin actually got away and retired in luxury with the money that he made from running a government.
Now, on a side note I might point out that most modern governments aren’t good at what they do, if what they do is merely financially related. Many countries today have a high debt to GDP ratio, which is better than the alternative of having a high profit to GDP ratio.
So, history of government and whatnot. Well, if you asked someone who considered themselves a constructivist they would give you a very different version of the history of government.
Things that society creates have a constantly shifting role that is constantly morphing as society moves…..wherever it goes. You can’t say what a government is because the roles and responsibilities of what a government should do are changing every day. It may involve running a health service one day or maintaining an empire the next. The people may view the government as the property of the King or the property of the masses. One good example is that the EU, which is not sure if it’s really a government doesn’t believe it’s in the power of the European Central Bank to bail out floundering banks or countries and therefore the crisis continues.
When you look at America today you can see successive legislation and action that has expanded the government’s roles and identity. Each and every government expanded the powers of the government and its responsibilities. Even Thomas Jefferson, who championed a constitutional government began to break his word as he sent the navy to beat back the Barbary pirates, he purchased the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, and other things that expanded Federal power. The government’s definition really began to expand at the beginning of the progressive movement. When President McKinley was assassinated Teddy Roosevelt took it upon himself to expand the federal government. Some view this as good, some as bad. Teddy Roosevelt created parks, busted up monopolies and trusts, fought for labor, and quite a bit more. After Teddy Roosevelt was finished you really couldn’t say that government was the same as it was before.
Through the next two World Wars and during the Cold War we saw the powers of government expand by leaps and bounds. During Great Depression the New Deal came out and made the government completely and totally responsible for the economy. The alphabet soup of programs such as the CCC, the CWA, the FHA, the WPA, and Social Security were set up to create a Keynesian style increase in government spending and social safety nets to protect Americans from things they really couldn’t control. The Great Depression could have caused you to lose your job as any sort of economic change could and now the government was responsible for taking care of you during the bad times.
This was a massive change in the responsibilities of government. Now, to put you in the frame of mind of the average American during the time I’ll tell you about the before and after. Before the beginning of the 19th century you were a tough, hardworking, thrifty American. You didn’t need to rely on anyone for anything and especially not the government. You were a farmer and you felt safe in your job. America had just conquered the western plains. America was young, open, and free. America was leaving behind the pain of the Civil War behind and moving forward into a new century.
Now, let’s look that American at the end of the 1940’s. He’s shocked. He has seen his life’s works go up in flames during the Great Depression and if he was a farmer in the west the Dust Bowl wiped out his crops and falling prices made it hard to compete even if his crops weren’t destroyed. He’s seen unemployment, he’s felt the pain as his children cried, but he had no food to feed them. Perhaps he fought in the First World War as a young man and then sent off his son in the Second World War. He fought Germans in the trenches and watched in horror as the bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor. He has come to rely on the government and to expect the government to be there for him in bad times.
Still, he’s confident about the future. America was untouched by the chaos and destruction of the war and is the only one that has its industrial base still intact. His son came home on the GI bill, got an education and things became…..normal as America entered the 50’s. The American begins to find that old self he had when he was a boy and the feeling of American Exceptionalism grows again. Still, his belief in government is still there. Johnson’s Great Society in the 60’s and the 1964 Civil Rights Act were perhaps the peak of this belief that government is there to help. During the Reagan administration the last thing you wanted to hear was “I’m the government and I’m here to help”. The defenition once again began to change. Now, today the battle for the meaning of government is still going on, but I won’t get into that. As historians get closer to today they tend to get more and more political, which I don’t really want to be….well…..at least not now anyways. You’ll get plenty of politics down the road I’m sure.
So, the point of this theory is that the nature of government is always changing. There is no defenition because the government of the 1930’s, 40’s, or 50’s are nothing like each other or like today. The theory holds some weight, but I like to view the Weber view as superior. All of these governments do share something in common, and that is that they have a monopoly on legitimate violence. Each one of them is in charge of dispensing justice and violence and punishing others who commit acts of violence/justice.
A History of Warfare by John Keegan
Politics as a vocation by Max Weber
Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India by Lawrence James
No comments:
Post a Comment