Max Weber and Vladimir Lenin say, in almost identical words, that with regard to the use of force the state is always a dictatorship.
[Max Weber e Lenin dizem, de forma quase identica, que quanto ao uso da forca o estado e sempre uma ditadura]
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude.
Negri e Hardt são dois retardados mentais.
[T]oday, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that ‘territory’ is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the ‘right’ to use violence. Hence, ‘politics’ for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state. This corresponds essentially to ordinary usage. When a question is said to be a ‘political’ question, when a cabinet minister or an official is said to be a ‘political’ official, or when a decision is said to be ‘politically’ determined, what is always meant is that interests in the distribution, maintenance, or transfer of power are decisive for answering the questions and determining the decision or the official’s sphere of activity. He who is active in politics strives for power either as a means in serving other aims, ideal or egoistic, or as ‘power for power’s sake,’ that is, in order to enjoy the prestige-feeling that power gives.
To maintain a dominion by force, certain material goods are required, just as with an economic organization. All states may be classified according to whether they rest on the principle that the staff of men themselves own the administrative means, or whether the staff is ‘separated’ from these means of administration. This distinction holds in the same sense in which today we say that the salaried employee and the proletarian in the capitalistic enterprise are ‘separated’ from the material means of production. The power-holder must be able to count on the obedience of the staff members, officials, or whoever else they may be. The administrative means may consist of money, building, war material, vehicles, horses, or whatnot. The question is whether or not the power-holder himself directs and organizes the administration while delegating executive power to personal servants, hired officials, or personal favorites and confidants, who are non-owners, i.e. who do not use the material means of administration in their own right but are directed by the lord. The distinction runs through all administrative organizations of the past.
Ouviram? Então deixa eu separar, direitinho:
The question is whether or not the power-holder himself directs and organizes the administration while delegating executive power to personal servants, hired officials, or personal favorites and confidants, who are non-owners, i.e. who do not use the material means of administration in their own right but are directed by the lord. The distinction runs through all administrative organizations of the past.
Então faz o seguinte, a próxima vez que for falar uma asneira destas, de preferencia dá uma lida no Weber.
Porque as pessoas acreditam. Elas acreditam no intelectual italiano que fala que o estado democratico webberiano, quando policial, é uma ditadura. E eu sinto muito, mas não foi isso que Weber escreveu. Existe um criterio de legitimidade e presunção de representatividade inerente ao exercicio do poder de policia – isso sem falar nas questões materiais supra mencionadas. Se tu é incapaz de ver como isso é totalmente diferente de um modelo Leninista de exercicio de força, bem, tu nao entendeu nada de nada do que tá em jogo, e se faz necessidade de primeira ordem revisar o universo inteiro.
[corrigido, às 10:30 PM]