The Purpose of Violent Force in Politics

The Role of Violence
The evidence shows that the role of violence in the 20th and 21st centuries was to bring about or shape a new social order: no matter what type of government was in place—whether it was in Russia, Italy or Africa—violence was a motif that reared its head again and again as leaders sought to assert themselves and determine the future of their respective nations by force. In some cases, violence was a threat to individual nations or a continent—as Nkrumah (1961) argued when he called for African unification in the face of the neo-colonial ambitions of world powers seeking to dominate the continent. In other cases, the threat of violence came from the state itself, as was the case in Stalin’s Soviet Union, where the dictator threatened anyone opposed to the ideology of the Party. This paper will show how the role of violence was a mainstay throughout the 20th century and into the 21st and what its role meant.
As Stalin wrote in 1930, “the Party’s task is to wage a determined struggle against [the negative] sentiments, which are dangerous and harmful to our cause” (Stalin, 1930). Struggle was everywhere in the minds of leaders around the world. Stalin wanted to transform Russia’s class-based country into a collective—and he had to use violence to make it happen. The peasant class had no interest in being forced to work for the State and forced to hand over the fruits of their labor. Stalin’s liquidation of the kulaks, however, was proof that he was willing to exterminate the peasants if they dared to oppose his scheme.
Mussolini in Italy, on the other hand, wanted to resist socialism, and he pledged to use force to make Italy strong, stating that “empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice” and that force characterizes the “necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century” (Mussolini, 1932). Mussolini would join the fight against the Allies—the U.S. and the Soviets—in World War II, but would ultimately be strung up by his heels and killed, a victim of the violent forces of world powers who sought to force their own ideals and interests on the world stage.
In Africa, Nkrumah wanted to resist neo-colonialism by appealing to African Independence in order “to prove that greatness is not to be measured in stockpiles of atom bombs” (Nkrumah, 1961). The violent forces of the modern empires seeking to exploit Africa were to be opposed by the force of unity of the Africans, according to Nkrumah. Nkrumah wanted to end the era of neo-colonialism in African and let Africans determine their own future. He wanted to avoid the idea that might makes right. He wanted to show that principles and honor are force enough. Yet, he also understood that the larger world and its leading empires knew that weapons and violence were still capable of striking blows to honorable peoples. Violence would have to be countered with violence.
Violent force continued well into the 21st century, with 9/11 serving as the trigger that would launch a virtually unending war in the Middle East, and the threat of war all around the world as the East prepared to assert itself in opposition to the hegemony of the U.S. Today, the wars continue: the threat of violence seems to lurk around every corner. In a way, it is used as a boogeyman to frighten society into thinking that it must rely upon the state for protection. Thus, the role of violence has many parts—it is used to overthrow countries and to keep one’s own country subjugated through fear.

References

Mussolini, B. (1932). What is Fascism. Retrieved from https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp

Nkrumah, K. (1961). I speak of freedom. Retrieved from https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1961nkrumah.asp

Stalin, J. (1930). Dizzy with success. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/03/02.htm