「暴力」の版間の差分

しかし、これは暴力と非暴力、善悪の対立ではありえない。暴力に実質的に対抗できるのは同等の暴力だけである<ref>[[山崎正一]]・[[市川浩]] 『現代哲学辞典』 [[講談社]]、1970年、559頁。</ref>。つまり、暴力を統制するためにはより強力な暴力、すなわち組織化された暴力が社会の中で準備されなければならない。[[軍隊]]、[[警察]]がこれにあたり、{{要出典範囲|[[社会学者]]の[[マックス・ウェーバー]]はこれらを'''暴力装置（organizations for violence）'''と位置付けた<ref>『Politics as a Vocation』:'Every state is founded on force,' said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as 'anarchy,' in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state--nobody says that--but force is a means specific to the state. Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past, the most varied institutions--beginning with the sib--have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, 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..（文中に「暴力装置」と訳せる部分があるのかについてノートで議論中）http://media.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/dss/Weber/polvoc.html</ref><ref>『Politics as a Vocation』This analogy is still more striking when one considers that,on the one hand, the military organization of the medieval partyconstituted a pure army of knights organized on the basis of theregistered feudal estates and that nobles occupied almost allleading positions, and, on the other hand, that the Soviets havepreserved, or rather reintroduced, the highly paid enterpriser,the group wage, the Taylor system, military and work-shopdiscipline, and a search for foreign capital. Hence, in a word,the Soviets have had to accept again absolutely all thethings that Bolshevism had been fighting as bourgeois classinstitutions. They have had to do this in order to keep the stateand the economy going at all. Moreover, the Soviets havereinstituted the agents of the former Ochrana [Tsarist Secret Police] as the main instrument of their state power. But here wedo not have to deal with such organizations for violence, butrather with professional politicians who strive for power throughsober and 'peaceful' party campaigns in the market of electionvotes.（文中に「暴力装置」と訳せる部分があるのかについてノートで議論中）</ref>。|date=2010年11月}}11月[[ロシア革命]]を主導した[[ウラジーミル・レーニン]]は、著書『国家と革命』の中で「особая организация насилия」（特別な暴力組織）という言葉を警察や軍隊を指すものとして使っており、「暴力装置」と日本語訳されているが<ref>『国家と革命』大月書店・国民文庫</ref>、ヴウェーバーが国家によって独占（統制）されるべき対象として「暴力装置」を位置付けたのに対し、革命によって打倒されるべき対象・プロレタリアートに必要な組織として「暴力装置」を位置付けた。安保闘争以降の日本で「暴力装置」という表現が左翼の活動家などから[[自衛隊]]や警察を揶揄・誹謗するレーニン的な意図に近い意味で使われてきたとの批判がある<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/policy/101118/plc1011182236025-n1.htm|title=仙谷氏「暴力装置」発言　謝罪・撤回したものの…1/2|newspaper=産経新聞|date=2009-11-18|accessdate=2010-11-19}}引用『レーニンが「国家権力の本質は暴力装置」などと、暴力革命の理論付けに使用したため、全共闘運動華やかなりしころには、主に左翼用語として流通した。』</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/policy/101118/plc1011182236025-n2.htm|title=仙谷氏「暴力装置」発言　謝罪・撤回したものの…2/2|newspaper=産経新聞|date=2009-11-18|accessdate=2010-11-19}}引用『仙谷氏は著書の中で、「若かりし頃（ころ）、社会主義を夢見た」と明かし』『　「ちょっと言葉が走った。ウェーバーを読み直し、改めて勉強したい」』</ref>。しかし「暴力装置」という言葉は政治学や社会学の専門用語としても一般的に使われる<ref>平凡社「世界大百科事典」[[栗原彬]]、[[阿部斉]]の項目。</ref>。