Let us talk, today, of the basics of holding power.
In the end, power comes from the barrel of a gun
Weber called this the State’s monopoly on violence. There is no state, as moderns understand it, without this monopoly. Places like Lebanon are not states – Hezbollah controls violence in southern Lebanon, for example. To put it in older terms – the King’s writ does not extend to large parts of Lebanon.
In Iraq, when the US did not stop the rioting in the early days, when it did not challenge the militias during the first few months, it gave up its sovereignty over Iraq. As militias, religious leaders and tribal leaders became the ones who enforced such law as there was, they became, such as it is, the real government of Iraq.
The King’s Court is called a Court for a reason
There is no law without the ability to coerce. People will put up with a lot, but they will not put up with anarchy if they have any choice. Even governments like the Taliban are preferable to the random violence of anarchic states.
In Iraq today, if your car is stolen, or you are assaulted, the only person who may be able to get you justice is the local religious leader, chieftain or militia.
You Must Be Generous
It is not an accident that the most efficient operation in Saddam’s Iraq was the provision of food to the population. Everyone got their food. Period. There were few things stupider than the US’s intention to break up that system and replace it with a “market” system before gaining unquestioned control of the country.
It is likewise no accident that the local religious leaders, tribal sheiks and militias grabbed control of social services first. Food, local health clinics, schools, food distribution – within the first months they walked in with guns and took control from the civil servants who used to run them.
The reason Hamas, in Palestine, won the election was that they supply competent, professional and honest education, healthcare and welfare for people who need it. People forget that Hamas started as a charitable organization.
The reason Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon is, in part, for the same reason. The reason the Taliban had a hard core of supporters is that they were the only people who cared for and raised Pakistan’s numerous orphans.
You Must Supply Meaning
This is why people like Sadr are more powerful than the tribal chieftains. It is one reason why religious sites are so important (in addition to the fact that they make significant money). It is why the insurgency has TV shows. It is why the US army was told Iraq was behind 9/11.
People need a narrative. We seek out stories naturally, and fit disconnected facts into patterns that don’t exist. In Iraq the story the US should have told is prosperity, reconstruction and democracy for everyone. The Insurgency’s story was fighting against foreign invaders. It wasn’t necessary for the insurgency’s narrative to win, at all – people forget that in the first six months or so there was very little armed opposition. It took time to get going, as it became clear that the reconstruction, in fact, wasn’t happening.
Everyone Wants to Belong
You choose markers of group identity, whether religion, or specific belief. You choose visible symbols of membership, whether Burkas or gun ownership, or flag flying. You require specific behaviour that sets your people apart from others. You may decide to allow interaction with outsiders only in specific situations, or to encourage interaction only within the community. Outsiders are viewed as either enemies or subjects for conversion to the beliefs and norms of the community.
American Taliban
In the US the right has built institutions that supply meaning and the necessities to their followers. The Christian right supplies meaning for their people. They supply a narrative that pits their followers against the godless seculars in the rest of society. They tax their own people and redistribute that money (church tithing = taxation). The Minutemen, most of whom are nowhere near a border, watch over internal enemies and train to fight them. They are the beginning of an internal militia which could easily be turned loose against gays, Muslims, wetbacks and liberals. Organizations exist meant to purge the universities of liberals. The military itself is used as an organ of one party, something which is nominally illegal, but routinely ignored. Eliminationist talk, pushed onto TV and out through publishing houses, and indeed by Senators on a regular basis, regularly tars any opposition to the agenda of the right as treasonous. The penalty for treason, as everyone knows, is death.
And when the right fails, that failure is either because those who failed weren’t right wing enough or because they were betrayed by weak liberals. George Bush, as he spirals into irrelevance, will become for many right wingers, a liberal. For the hard core who are too invested in his personality cult to ever say such, it will be clear that Liberals stabbed him (and the military) in the back.
Prestige and The Invisible State
In the US the visible, coercive prestige parts of the state are claimed by Conservatives. The police, the courts, the military are all “conservative” parts of the State are the parts they draw their support from, and support. The softer parts, the invisible infrastructure of commercial law, of power generation, of roads and sewage, that they leave to Liberals. At one time those areas were very high prestige, because people remembered not having them. Today they are taken for granted. You flip the light switch, the light goes on. Electricity, sewage, the internet, are all disconnected from the fact that they would not exist without the state. Food is provided by the private sector (or so it seems), likewise health care (and the right does not want universal healthcare because liberals would own it and its prestige.) Indeed the only remaining high prestige areas associated with Liberals and Democrats are Medicare and Social Security. It should be no surprise that the right wants to destroy them. Nor should it be any surprise that unions, which along with black churches are the only social organization left to liberals, have been under a relentless 35 year assault.
It is not enough to do things for people. You must be seen to do things for them. You must be associated with power, with provision of services, with force and with symbols that speak of in-group identity. You must wrap yourself in the flag, and speak endlessly of the symbols of the group. From your hand must be seen to come that which is good, and you must also be seen to be the enforcer of the group’s beliefs and laws. You must be seen to defend the group from its enemies, both internal and external – first on the line against those who threaten the group’s cohesion and identity.
The King
Leadership has not changed since the earliest chieftains. Brave in battle. Just in law. Generous to your followers. A paragon of whatever virtues your people admire.
As long as humans are human, these will be the rules for those who wish to hold power.
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Ian!
Bravo!!
The only rules for the current crew are:
trash it, pardon everyone involved,
and retire to the Hoover Institution or AEI.
Wow, Ian. This is pretty profound stuff for a Saturday night. I’m guessing you are not in the mood for Par-tay?
Serously though, this is quite insightful.
“People need a narrative. We seek out stories naturally, and fit disconnected facts into patterns that don’t exist.”
And, when events arise, they reinforce the story, good or bad.
That, my friends, is pretty much one of the main teachings of Buddhism. If you can recognize the narrative you tell yourself, and observe it, you will be able to distinguish “reality” from “story”. Don’t believe the lies you tell yourself, don’t believe the lies others tell you.
Ian, please forgive the OT from Reuters via MSNBC Protests across the US call for Iraq War end.
Imagine what Iraq could be like today if competent people had been in charge. No shock and awe, no dolts running ministries, no weapons caches left for militants…
dakine01 @ 6
Yes!!!
LS @ 5
Exactly. Which is so much why i’ve been studying that very thing, and find myself intrigued by it. It encourages critical thinking which is so very rare in this country. But also compassion when you get down to it as well.
“Brave in battle. Just in law. Generous to your followers.”
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to live in a country with a leader like that.
Brave.
Just.
Generous.
Almost sounds like a fantasy at this point.
Loo Hoo. @ 7
No invasion on false pretenses.
No occupation.
aliasofwestgate @ 9
Yup. It is amazing to observe the tangling of the memory of the experience of concrete reality. Concrete reality here and now is the only place it is.
Ian, thank you for this insightful post, to copy lhp.
Such clarity of thought.
.
marymccurnin @ 10
it would be wonderful marymcc! We must never stop searching for such a leader.
a very interesting perspective!
LS @ 8
Well, the symbols of the state were very much in evidence at this event in NYC (by Union Square). The protests, when I passed by, were pretty tame and, hate to say it, not all that well attended from what I could see. Though honestly, I wasn’t there for the protest and only passed by at 9:30 and again at about 11am.
Weather wasn’t a help.
But to bring back to the topic…you do see similar evidence of community creation that Ian is talking about above:
Placards
Chants
Basic elements of meaning (war for oil)
…and the state showing up with armed cops…didn’t see any horses or riot gear so that’s a change from prior marches and protests. But lots of cops.
The key words in that sentence are are “in part”
Yes the Hizb are rigorously honest. Yes they provide services that the state cannot or will not provide. But you’re missing rather a lot of context here.
I’m going to presume you’ve never been to Lebanon let alone to the South. I did a lot of my growing up there. You have NO IDEA how hated the Israelis and the SLA made themselves.
The fact is that the HIzb beat them kicked them out. They’re seen – rightly – as the liberators who kicked out the invader when nobody else would.
They are very nationalistic – important in Lebanon.
The Hizb are rigorously non-sectarian. Don’t believe it? Then come up with a really good explanation for why 30% (and that is generally reckoned to be an underestimate) of their officer corps is Christian.
You see the same thing in Irak. If you want help you can forget the central government and you can forget the SIIC (SCIRI) dominated governorate bodies. Who you’ll get help from is the Sadrists.
I also like the fact that some of Buddhism’s heroes and the most prominent figures are creatures of legend that were heaven’s rebels. *grin* The Monkey King, Sun Wu Kong for one and the Journey to the West with Tripitaka. An epic of amazing proportions historically, and even with the add ons of the 3 pilgrims, crazily relevant. They gained enlightenment, but it wasn’t by being entirely well behaved. (Much less by initially pissing off the Jade Emperor!)
They thought about it, questioned it. Did something about it and then kept on Moving Forward. Something i find infinitely valuable.
Sparkatus @ 15
I lived in NYC for about 22 year, and one of my best friends was a cop. NYC cops are good people for the absolute most part. They are not a stereotype “police state” type of cop, although there are some, as in any powerful group, individuals; especially, during Ghouliantime. NYC cops and FDNY are not happy with what has gone down over the last 6plus years. Many, I’m sure, wish they were protesting too.
So right, Ian. Terrific post!
Regarding protest. Is anyone else as deeply and viscerally offended as I am by the term “free speech zone?” I was raised under the assumption that the whole damn country was a free speech zone. (A series of expletives have been deleted here in case young people or those easily offended are present.)
aliasofwestgate @ 17
Well, many of those “stories” were designed to lead the people to freedom of the mind, by example…they were not intended to make people “believe” the story…human nature likes to attach to things, and, of course, people got stuck in stories…but the ultimate goals was to “dissolve” the stories….”dissolve” the myth created in the mind.
Marion in Savannah @ 20
Count me in.
Dubhaltach @ 16
Agreed. I’ve noted in the past that Hezbollah is popular because they were (and are) the only effective opposition to Israel and because they forced the Israeli occupation to come to an end.
But I think the other parts matter as well.
Marion in Savannah @ 20
as a matter of fact I am!
Marion in Savannah @ 20
Yeah, they’re an atrocity.
As a reminder — while Bush has expanded them greatly, they stared under Clinton (along with extraordinary rendition and the “no fly” list).
Eureka Springs @ 22
The whole damn country IS a free speech zone, no matter what they tell us. Those that stomp on that are acting on BS power trips.
Ian, what a excellent post. Thank you. I believe one of our problems is that we have lost the sense of “we.” Now is “I” have the right…..or “they” are doing this to me. It used to be that the” we” was family first and the circles spread from there. We are all so scattered now and the discontent in this country has been growing for many years. Dubya just put the icing on the cake because the Repub plan was to divide and conquer. I hope they don’t succeed but we have to work very hard to stop it. We really have to care about “them.”
Ian Welsh @ 25
According to Wikipedia Atlanta had them for the 1988 Convention, before Clinton.
Free Speech Zones
They still suck.
Marion in Savannah @ 28
I stand corrected. Even worse though.
Force (police) is used to protect the rights of property.
We have a quasi police state.
Ian at 4:40 pm:
Oh they matter very much Ian – but the sine qua non is that they’re militarily effective. The other thing is that their ideology – a mix of Islam and nationalism – is entirely appropriate to a Muslim country.
I think though that there’s something westerners need to “get” – and most us don’t. For any Muslim who is even reasonably devout the idea of separation of church and state is abhorrent. They don’t want a secular state they want an Islamic one the debate between the secularists and the Islamists is over. The debate now is how rigorously Islamic the state should be.
And who cares bout how they structure their state, as long as they have basic human rights.
Twain @ 27
Kurt Vonnegut constantly said on his last book tour, “Join a gang.”
Dubhaltach @ 31
There seems, to my wetern eyes, to be a lot of room in Islam for questions of rigor to be thrahsed out, it’s all in the interpretation — if they chose to allow it. The original ummah wasn’t “fundamentalist” in the modern sense. But that debate is one that swiftly moves beyond my level of knowledge.
And aye, I put “In the end, power comes from the barrel of a gun” first for a reason. In the end, if you can’t translate whatever influence you have into force, you don’t have power.
Ideology works very well with armed force, up to a point. Believers in something are much more effective than those who don’t really believe. Contrary to the perspective in America, being will to die for the cause (as opposed to eager to) is a strength, and one of the great weaknesses of American soldiers is that in far too many cases they put their own safety before the mission.
“In the end, power comes from the barrel of a gun.”
“There is no law without the ability to coerce.”
Ian, I totally agree that it is vital to think about ‘power’ and ‘violence’ in these very violent but also peculiarly powerless times. What I am acutely aware of, however, is that ‘violence’ and ‘power’ are very different things and ought not be conflated, and nor should ‘authority’ be equated with either of them. In this regard I am, if you will, a ‘true believer’ in the political insights of Hannah Arendt, whose book On Violence ought to be required reading for every thinking person in the world right now. In case some of you aren’t familiar with it, or with the distinctions she made between violence, power and authority, here is a condensed version.
Violence, for Arendt, was human strength used to coerce others(often times multiplied by weapons that could increase its destructive capabilities). The crucial thing about violence is that it can only coerce and destroy, never create. Yes, the threat of violence can be used to control a given population for a while, but never forever, because eventually the people will find the situation intolerable (particulary when they have no more food, no more medicine, no more homes). At those times the people will come together and act in concert to change the situation. That ‘acting in concert to achieve a specific goal’ – for Arendt that is power. In fact, it is the only manifestation of power, and it is always unpredictable and unsustainable. The thing is, once a ruler or a government resorts to violence then it is obvious that they have neither power nor authority. Ah, authority, what’s that? Well, it’s sort of like the status that comes with a particular role in the community. Ministers, doctors, politicians (ahem), they are provisionally granted authority by the people simply because they occupy those offices. As long as the people in those offices make a credible showing of exercising their authority wisely (or at least not too poorly), then they are allowed by the people to keep doing it. But when they start fucking up (to put it in words that Arendt wouldn’t have used), then the people no longer recognise their authority, and that’s when the trouble really begins. Because societies are structured around basically stable sites of authority, and those sites provide some basic continuity and certainty in life, and when they are gone and uncertainty comes flooding in, well, then you get people grasping for rigid narrratives which will fill the void left by the loss of authority. Which is to say…there is in fact law that is not supported entirely by the threat of coersion. It’s the law that people, acting in concert, give their assent to. And power, real power, can never come from the barrel of a gun. The only thing that can come from a barrel of a gun is a bullet. Lastly, this point, “Leadership has not changed since the earliest chieftains. Brave in battle. Just in law. Generous to your followers. A paragon of whatever virtues your people admire. As long as humans are human, these will be the rules for those who wish to hold power” actually only makes sense when you exchange the word power for authority. If you want the people to recognise you as a real authority then yes indeed, be just and wise and merciful and filled with virtue. Finally, I think it’s important to note that today, when the weapons of violence created by humans are indeed capable of destroying all life on earth several times over, then the situation is quite simple. We must never go to battle again, for to do so risks literally everything. Um, apologies for the sopa box nature of this mini-essay, it’s just that I don’t believe that traditional understandings of politics help us to make sense of what is really going on in the world today, which is frightfully violent but also frightfully removed from what ‘politics’ used to be.
Our president knows what sovereignty is. I heard him explain it once to a Native American reporter.
Eureka Springs @ 33
I bow to the master on that one. It’s a really good idea – to belong, to feel a part of the group. Everyone needs that feeling and I believe that a lot of the hate in this country comes from a feeling of fear of not belonging to “something.”IMO
Wow.
That’s pretty much all I have to say.
Wow.
Wait. I’ve got something else.
Nope. Just… wow.
That was absolutely brilliant.
Dubhaltach @ 31
Hi dub- I am very interested in your further perspective on Lebanon. I was not entirely sure about one aspect of your comments above. I have never been to Lebanon, but one of my long time friends lived there in the late 60’s, and as a result, I feel a connection.
Her parents lived in serveral ME countries (father was consultant for crop production) and I owe to her my (albeit limited) education about the ME.
A few years back I had 2 students in one of my college classes, one whom I got to know very well. What I took away from the many conversations we had was that Lebanon is not a typical Islamic country (or was at that time) holding a much wider tolerance for different religions.
So, I was unclear as to whether you were characterizing Lebanon as a Muslim country per se, referring to other countries in the region, or?
I would much like your perspective on how Lebanon compares/ contrasts with other countries in the region.
Thanks much.
Ian, I very much like this post with one exception. The section “American Taliban” doesn’t fit. It’s not a prescription for holding on to power. It’s a bunch of examples of favored (even underwritten) eliminationist groups which have very little in common. In fact, their various agendas are in conflict. For some of them it’s not so even an ideological cause but a way of making a living.
Another cuppa cheer from the Ozzie. How’s that drought going? You’ll be mingling with us hoi polloi sooner than later. Figure out some solutions, dammit.
Hhhhhhmmmm @ 35
Hard to read but full of good points! (a few line breaks next time please.)
Elliott @ 42
sorry….usually don’t write more than ten words at a time.
Hhhhhhmmmm @ 43
:)
Ian
Could you say a little about vigilantes in regard to an ineffective justice system.
VG at 5:13 pm
At that time (60s) it was Christian dominated and their (French imposed) constitution is explicitly sectarian. My take is that it’s not typical because (like Turkey) it’s always been a crossover point between what purely for brevity I’ll call “the west” and the Muslim countries.
I wouldn’t agree that Muslim countries are intolerant of other religions. So long as you follow the teachings of a recognised prophet then you’re to be protected. The Qur’an is very explicit on that point:
“There must be no compulsion in matters of religion”
Quran 2: 256
or
Quran 3:84
Quran 49:13
Quran 2:213
Certainly that was my experience of both Lebanon and Irak. It was the Islamists who took freedom of religion seriously and the secularists who didn’t. If you want½ an example of that I know several Christians whose families fled where they lived in Baghdad. Where they fled to was Sadr city.
Technicolouryawn @ 36
“Sovereignty means they’re sovereign people and so they have sovereignty.”
Hmmm..35…!!! Yes!!!
The final thing is that when people believe, because of the way the justification is framed, that one can “survive” the violence somehow…they tolerate the idea, and it enters the mind as a possibility.
Cheney’s specialty.
Dubhaltach @ 46
How about quoting all the places in the Koran where it sez the opposite? As far as I know, there are very few unambigous passages in the Koran except the one about beating your wife.
Max Weber said that a state holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Hezbollah holds only military control over southern Lebanon, in violation of civil and international law. Lebanon is universally recognized as the sovereign over its entire territory — no one questions its legal authority to use violence in southern Lebanon. So Lebanon is a state, though with serious internal disturbances.
eCAHNomics at 5:35 pm
Pick somebody else to do your Muslim baiting for you.
Michael S. at 5:37 pm
Not in fact correct Saniora explicitly came out both during and after the invasion to say that the Hizb were lawfully constituted defenders of the Lebanese territory.
There is no question whether Cheney and Co. are going to attempt to go to more war. The question is, will people go along with it due to the “thought” that we can survive. It is not a question as to whether the opponent can survive, it is a question as to whether, if “done” correctly, the deed can yield the mythical success that the ramp up constantly suggests by those who advocate it. Those are the lies. History tells us, they lie. FEMA lied. They lied us into war. They are liars, but many believe the lies.
That is the truth. That is what is at stake…those who will believe, and those who won’t.
dub at 5:30- thanks for the perspective. I was hoping you’d read my query, and offer info.
Now I will go back and reread your comments, so see that my next question is. Thanks much. VG
Marion in Savannah @ 28
Proof, if it’s needed, that a Clinton is unlikely to give up powers claimed during a Bush Presidency.
dakine01 @ 47
Exactamently.
dub- thanks again. My knowledge of the ME doesn’t even come close to yours, and so I will defer further questions for now. But, as result of my relatively limited education about the ME (or maybe I would have know anyway) I knew from the very first that a US invasion of Iraq would be a disaster. And, I apologized to my students for the US action.
By some odd turn of fate, I was at a college-wide faculty meeting, long-scheduled, where Jimmy Carter was addressing the college faculty. Odd turn of fate: it was the morning after the US invaded Iraq.
Needless to say, it was memorable. Carter spoke with absolute candor.
Twain @ 27
If you have time read Pilip Agee it’s still at Amazon it can be slow but you’ll see the divide and conquer. Countries populations running scared will give away anything (Naomi Wolf and lots of Others have written about).
It waswhenStudent &BlueCollar came together Nam was stopped but it took 6 years? to get there.
In the 80s I saw Hunter S. about leap of the Kennel Club stage to try and kill some one who said they were a member of a group to save the furry little seals after he had just said unless we got back to the the common cause to save the human race, everything else didn’t matter. If we couldn’t join forces to help fellow humans, well everything else was gone any way.
As each group has broken down to smaller cells off in their on little worlds to save what ever, you get what we have now. It only takes a small powerful group to control the masses when you have this.
jo6pac
Thanks Ian and FDL & others that have taken this on to push forward, it’s a long hard battle but it can be won. The movie V reminds me of this.
I think you mean chaos. Anarchy is a valid political philosophy, frequently and incorrectly used as interchangable with chaos.
You don’t understand how different that part of the world is until you live there. I had half a dozen trips in and out of Lebanon in 1969-70 when I was a contractor in Saudi Arabia. (Shock, horror … no, an engineering job. :-) )
Beirut was truly the jewel of the Mediterranean then, cosmopolitian, the heritage of years of French influence showed. But I got to Byblos and Baalbek, too. And almost to Damascus one day trip.
Saudi Arabia at that time was headed by King Faisal. His edict to the religious fundamentalists was simple: Leave the foreigners alone, we’re bringing them here to drag this country into the 20th century. Every time they forgot that, they paid dearly for it.
Nonetheless, it was a whole nother world! Justice was often harsh and equally personal. Executions on Friday mornings attended by the public in so-called ‘headchop square’. And yes, they did. Not that I witnessed any, but certainly heard reports from a certain U.S. Army major, always reckoned he was really CIA …
One example of how personal it can be: the head of a clan was murdered by a rival. Open and shut case. The magistrate could have recommended various options, rather, he turned to the 15-year old son of the victim and asked his preference. “He should be shot.”
And the response was, “Then you do it.” He did.
Shocking to Westerners, perhaps. But is a state execution in, say, Texas, any better? I think not.
Anyhows, another interesting read, Ian. Thanks.
You’re welcome VG but I can hear from the baby monitor that the twins have woken up which means I have just enough time to stick their milk into the bottle heaters before they start to make pointed comments about shockingly bad the service from the big people is.
I’ll try to get back later.
*poof*
new post upstairs
Dubhaltach @ 51
You have a good point. But still, the central government is the final authority, and could order Hezbollah to disband. Hezbollah could not legally do the same.
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
Koran V:51
Michael S@62
One of the problems with the liberals in this country is that they have delusions about the law – which is why so many of us were shocked by Bush v. Gore. The “legal” status of the Lebanese government is the result of the application of military force and if Hezbollah assembles enough military force to change that, the new laws will reflect the new reality.
Elliott @ 45
Vigilantes will step up if the government can’t enforce law, or won’t. Or, I should say, won’t enforce the standards of the community. In a place with monopoly on force and/or where the government enforces community standards you tend to see less enforcement.
Michael S. @ 50
No. Legitimacy is bestowed by the people. Hezbollah has that – the majority of people in the south where it rules support it – over the nominal governemnt. It has damn near a monopoly on force and fulfills all the functions of government better than the “state”. It is, effectively, a state.
Legitimacy is not “what the UN says” or “what other countries recognize”, it is what the people believe. Understanding this could have avoided a lot of problem, most esp. recently in Somalia.
LS @ 52
I think we all recognize that the mood of the country has shifted significantly and the majority is increasingly impervious to the lies of the administration. But, another terrorist attack if one occurs would probably change this for obvious reasons. Seeing Bill Maher in one of his “New Rules” segments makes me think mocking the paranoia of the right vis-a-vis Iran, for example, can help to deflate the fear which seems to be so pervasive in the country now. The clip brought to mind a very valuable role for the Trickster here. Funny as hell too (although Harry Potter fans may not be amused).
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…../131346/60
Washington/Sana’a: The White House sharply criticised Yemen on Friday for releasing one of the Al Qaida masterminds of the bombing of the destroyer USS Cole in 2000, which killed 17 American sailors.
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Yemen/10163250.html
eCAHNomics @ 63
One point, eC:
When the Moors (Muslims) ran Spain, Jews and Christians had a seven-hundred-year period where all lived in amity. Then Ferdinand and Isabella kicked out the Moors — and started hunting down and expelling (when they weren’t outright killing) Jews from Spain.
Guess where most of the surviving Jews fled?
Not Europe — the Christian states wouldn’t have them for the most part. Not Russia, not with their history of pogroms.
Nope, most of them wound up in the Caliphate — aka the Ottoman Empire. Which was run by Muslims.
1,640 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Ian Welsh:
Nuthin more ta say…and I wish I could thank you for sayin’ it.
KEEP THE FAITH AND BE READY TA DIE FOR IT!!
It nay be so that one has to be *seen* to do things for people, but, dammit, you have to actually DO those things to begin with.
Little Boots is *seen” to be saying what he will do, but then he does NOT do. He just says.
Worse than useless, he is corrosive and destructive in so many ways.
and I am sorry to offend anyone, but…gee whiz…can we put religion as far away from public discourse as possible?
I don’t believe in God. You want to? Fine. Keep your beliefs out of my face, out of my life.
‘enkyew.
Phoenix Woman at 6:26 pm
You’re right of couse but I refuse flat out to get into “discussion” or “dialogue” with people like that. For the same reason that I refuse to get into “discussion” or “dialogue” with homophobes, xenophobes, and all the prejudices and bearers of grudges. They’re not open either to facts or reason IME. From their perspective it’s far more important for them to be able to look down on someone.
Ian at 6:21 pm
Yup.
“Government of the people for the people etc …
Which as I’m sure you know was what is in the preface to one of the first Englsih translations of the bible (Wycliff’s 1384 translation):
“This Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Politics is also about how you think your community should be run which means that it and religion go hand in hand everywhere – not just in the Middle East.
Sarah Deere @ 72
Answer: no.
Religion and politics are most often mixed.
The overriding emotional response to all I read about this administration is not hate but white hot rage, the only thing important, to me at the least, is the termination of this administrations power.
Anything less by even a quantum measurement is unacceptable to me and there is not one candidate on the left who is really on the
left, where there would be if it did not cost millions of dollars just to start a campaign for office.
Do you see the drift of why it is not in the best interest of those in office to change the present system of campaign contributions, all manner of rift raft would be able to properly realize the American dream of running for elective office and I am 100 percent certain that there are far more qualified men and women out there than the current crop of assholes running for president. The only two who have stood up Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinch will not be electable in the present world of medias ill served propaganda.
What I fear is the fact that this administration has done so much damage that can be attributed to them in a court of law anywhere on this planet they will refuse to turn over the reigns of power.
Bottom line-impeach them now, there is no other solution that has any value to me, and if they do not turn the reigns of power over after their defeat and by god they will be defeated, then it is time to step up to the plate as our forefathers did.
Maddy @ 75
Madday,here is a clue.
1. There will be war with Iran is x-weeks
2. Fuel supplies will last pehaps2-3weeks
3.A congressperson stated several weeks ago the reason why impeachment is off the table is that the shrub stated the day that the proceedings started he would attack Iran and declare martial law….and end the American experiment.
With those givens,what do you expect the “leaders” in congress to do?
I won’t let this stand without comment:
Gandhi. Martin Luther King, Jr.
oregondave @ 77
oregondave @ 77
Mao, Stalin, Hitler. And what did the Indian government do when it took power? It made non-violent protest illegal. And what happened to Martin Luther King when he started talking about ending the Vietnam war?
Non violence can be powerful, don’t get me wrong, but there are limits to its effectiveness. Mind you, there are limits to the effectiveness of violence – primarily those of consent amongst those doing the shooting.
Nonetheless, we shouldn’t fool ourself about the raw calculus of power most often coming down to who is most effective at violence.
snuffy @ 76
Link on that?
Ian Welsh @ 79
Link on that?
snuffy @ 76
Snuffy, a link?
Ian Welsh @ 66
Well, you omitted the word “legitimate” when you first paraquoted Weber. And we know that a majority of people in southern Lebanon support Hezbollah taking over the role of government — how? Because of the free elections regularly sponsored there? Or because Hezbollah rules at the barrel of a gun? If that’s how you gain legitimacy for the use of violence, then how wonderfully circular the definition turns out to be. By the way, whom do most of the people in the rest of Lebanon recognize as their government?
Fuit Ilium – Virgil
Fuit republic – T-bear
Michael S. @ 82
Polling shows support in the high 90’s, consistently, for Hezbollah. This isn’t a “theoretical” question, because we know, from recent history, that they will support Hezbollah in violent action against other Lebanese. They also vote for Hezbollah in numbers around the high 90’s.
Let me put it in really simple terms for you: if there was a war between Hezbollah and the so-called legitimate state of Lebanon, Hezbollah would wipe the floor with them, and odds are high that the Shia would support them while they did so.
That’s legitimacy. The Lebanese government is so weak, so illegitimate, and has been for so long, that it is incapable of using its army either to put down any of the important internal factions (Palestinians don’t count) or to defend its terrirorial integrity against foreign invaders or occupiers. When Israel invaded the first time they were so scared the army would fracture they refused to commit it to battle and last time they stayed out of it too, while 800K people were made into refugees. Then, when the rebuilding occured, Hezbollah did a better faster job — including for non Shia. This is a matter of public record.
Hezbollah is more of a state than Lebanon is – it fulfills more of the functions of a state than Lebanon does for about half the population of the country, has a stronger army than the state, and has stronger support amongst its people than the official government.
You also miss something important — Hezbollah does not rule the souther Shia through the Barrel of the Gun any more than the US is ruled through the power of the gun.
Which is to say — in both cases, ultimately, the power comes from the gun, but most of the time it operates because people cooperate with what they consider legitimate power. But if you don’t believe that US power ultimately comes from a gun, I urge you to stop paying taxes. Do it long enough and men with guns will come have a discussion with you.
Refusal to recognize this sort of thing is what has led to constant problems with organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Courts Union.
Hi Ian:
This is good stuff!
Would you please supply us with some sources — books for further reading, links, etc. Are you mostly inspired by Weber and if so what texts? What other writers are informing your thinking on this topic?
These questions of the sociology of power are all around us these days — and it’d be great if we could all get conversant and deeply informed ASAP.
RFK Action Front @ 85
Sorry to not directly answer your questions…but gotta say I liked checking out some of your earlier writings.
RBG @ 86
Thanks RGB!!
I meant RBG!
RFK Action Front @ 88
It ain’t the first, or likely the last, time it’s happened. The old saw…”just don’t call me late for dinner” works just fine for me.
Thanks for noticing.
RFK Action Front @ 85
A good simple introduction to Weber is Randall Collin’s “Max Weber, a Skeleton Key”.
I also recommend Collins “Conflict Sociology”, it’s big, it’s a bit out of date, but this stuff doesn’t go out of style that quickly.
“Macrohistory: Essays in Sociology of the Long Run” by Collins has some essays that speak directly to the question of when states form and break apart (prestige is big).
And, on the Collins side, “Sociological Insights: An Introduction to Nonobvious Sociology” is something I always reccomend.
(There’s so much Collins because when writing intro texts he is the clearest writer I have ever found in Soc.)
A good basic cultural anthropology textbook would be wise as well (no reccomendations, it’s been a long time since I took anthro).
Strangley enough, Alvin Toffler’s “Power Shift” had, in the first few chapters, a good basic introduction to different types of power.
This piece from Salon speaks to my thesis that you need to deal with the people who have control over violence.
The works of Erving Goffman in general apply. He wrote a lot of books and the connection isn’t obvious, so I’m not sure what to reccomend — perhaps either a reader or a summary book (pick the shortest one).
For writing on meaning, I’d start with Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent is still worth reading.
The Prince, by Machiavelli is a good book to read.
Another book I reccomend, though you probably won’t enjoy reading it much, is Castiglione’s The Courtier. (Which seems to have had no new translation for 5 centuries, making it painful to read.)
“Metaphors We Live By” by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson is also worth reading (skip the later stuff, read the original Lakoff)
There’s no one book that I can point you at, if it exists, I don’t know of it.
As people are socialized they learn to play roles. Part of power is about controlling what roles others play, and making them switch into roles that are useful to you.
To do this you have to supply storylines and meaning; you need to supply an in-group for them and you need to take care of basic needs (very basic).
What people want more than anything is to feel like they belong to something bigger than them and to be able to fit their lives into a story arc.
Taking a look at your personal website, you may know more about Sociology than I do and be able to point yourself better than I, and the texts I suggested may in some cases be too basic for you.
In general, I would say if you take care of people’s Maslowian needs, you’ll have power. Maslow was a bit too western to fully emphasize how much physical security matters and I would take the top two positions and replace them largely with “meaninng and a story line”, but the basic idea is sound.
Ian you totally rock!!!
I’ve read and greatly enjoyed Weber, Csikszentmihalyi, Lakoff, and Chomsky. But Collins, Goffman, Toffler, and Castiglione are all new to me — time to make a trip over to Amazon.com! This is one of the reasons I totally love FDL in particular and the progressive blogosphere in general. I like starting the conversation on line but then moving deeper into the actual texts and becoming conversant in them myself. You don’t get this level of insight from traditional media!
This is incredibly helpful! Thank you so much!!!
I’m amazed you didn’t read Goffman in your undergrad education actually. That’s very interesting to me for what it says about Sociology today.
What did you find most useful from your undergrad days, if I may ask.
Collins is my favourite living sociologist — I think he qualifies as “great”. If you have access to a university library and you like the one I reccomend reading all his stuff. In particular, don’t skip “the Credential society”, it’s old and out of date (75) but it’s still very useful.
Toffler’s Future Shock was very influential the time, by the way, and I think still speaks to us. You may want to pick that up at some point.
Toffler is a “futurist” and I think he’s sometimes too sloppy. But some times he had some real insights.