• Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s not just about being cost effective - the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Private firms doing this without state backing would be immediately read by anyone watching as illegitimate and they would quickly face organised resistance to it.

    The unrestrained mass of people organising is a much more powerful force than any police a state could muster. That’s why the state has to find ways to legitimise itself so as to be allowed to stay in power.

    Corporations don’t have that level of cultural legitimacy yet, and we should hope they never get there.

    • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Thankfully, that monopoly on legitimate violence is one that the people can give and take. If the people decide that the state’s violence is illegitimate, then it is illegitimate.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Yup, I was going to make the distinction between perceived legitimacy and actual legitimacy, but on reflection I think legitimacy is socially constructed, so perceived legitimacy is just legitimacy.

        That’s why things like the George Floyd uprising was so important. The legitimacy of the state’s violence has taken a huge hit in recent times, and I don’t see it getting better any time soon.