In the context of post-colonial societies that had never developed a real sovereign state in a Weberian sense and jumped into the lucrative trap of neoliberalism, they find themselves in the grip of neocolonialism and have perpetually maintained a soft state that has no monopoly over legitimate coercive power. Rather, it delegates that power to different non-state groups, which has moved towards majoritarian violence and mob justice.
Your piece on Weber’s monopoly of violence highlights how power structures evolve — and today’s narratives about “security,” “development,” and “stability” often function to hide the same mechanisms of control and expansion. It reminded me of how old expansion stories run modern systems too — language changes, but patterns repeat.
In the context of post-colonial societies that had never developed a real sovereign state in a Weberian sense and jumped into the lucrative trap of neoliberalism, they find themselves in the grip of neocolonialism and have perpetually maintained a soft state that has no monopoly over legitimate coercive power. Rather, it delegates that power to different non-state groups, which has moved towards majoritarian violence and mob justice.
When the state loses its monopoly on force, order doesn’t just weaken the social contract breaks.
Security stops being a right and becomes a commodity.
This isn’t just politics; it’s the beginning of a civilizational shift.
Anarchists, I mean the real ones such as Mikhail Bakunin, Pyotr Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, etc were correct all along.
No kings or masters. Only people working in tandem and federating into larger groups, for their mutual benefit can secure a truly free society.
Your piece on Weber’s monopoly of violence highlights how power structures evolve — and today’s narratives about “security,” “development,” and “stability” often function to hide the same mechanisms of control and expansion. It reminded me of how old expansion stories run modern systems too — language changes, but patterns repeat.