On "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun&quot

This post wants to introduce the concept of "political power comes from the barrel of a gun".

First, some of you may think that Mao Zedong had said that quote, and that is true. But Mao is not the original inventor of that theory. Lenin was the original inventor of that theory, Mao simply summarized it in a very plain way. I believe this theory was first expounded by Lenin in his book "State and Revolution", and this theory was influenced by Marx in his "French Civil War". First I must say that I do not claim that this theory is better than others, I simply am putting forth this theory in a matter-of-fact way. If I claim that this theory is superior, than I would lose my objectivity and violate the engineering mindset.

Second, you may now say "Math, this theory sounds so brutal and violent! I do not like it!". Well, that is ok, you may pretend that it has a better name, such as "political power comes from flowers.". Now I'll start with this theory.

Human societies are a natural historical process. In this process, people first must satisfy Eating, Sleeping, Shelter. After those 3 needs, then they'll have more energy and time to think about "high things" like religion, art, morality, etc. And humans differ mostly from animals in that humans must labor for their food. And as a result, the productive force of human societies will always be enhanced.

As human societies' productive force develops, there'll be a point when people are divided into poors and riches, or rulers and the ruled. And those differing groups will create tensions/conflicts amongst them. Now, in order to harmonize and ease such tensions, humans have developed a "higher" structure that overrides the society, and that structure is the "state". Another name for a "State" is a "Regime". The State appears very fair and objective, and appears not to represent any group's interests, and appears to arbitrate and ease the tensions between various groups. But in reality, the state often implicitly favors or even defends those groups that have more wealth and social resources, and very often even becomes a part of that group. To put in more bluntly, a state is simply an instrument that a group uses to ride on top of other group(s).

And for a State to be a successful instrument, there must be very massive violent tools.
Such as an army, police force, courts, prisons, etc etc. Without those tools, the State cannot conduct the business of "harmonzing group tensions". Without such tools, the State cannot last long.

Therefore, "All State(regimes) must be supported by violent tools", or "political power grows out of the barrel of the gun" is the essence of this theory. If you want to disagree, then perhaps you can give an example of a successful state that did not rely on violent tools.

Today, China's regime keeps running through violent tools. The US government keeps running also violent tools, and perhaps more advanced and more violent tools. The US government keeps the Iraq running also through violent tools such as the Marines, the Hummers, the tanks, the daily patrols, the curfews, etc etc.

Similary, to succcesfully change a regime, there will also be violence invovled. China's regime changed in 1949 through violence. Iraq's regime was recently changed through violence. The American regime changed in 1776 through violenc. Now, some of you may jump out and scream hysterically "Math! You are wrong! The US has free elections every 4 years and we change our government every 4 years!". Those elections simply change a few staffs inside the government, all the laws, all the departments, all the structures that are vital to the running of the state instrument is totally intact. Even the supreme court judges, and Alan Greenspan are unchanged! Perhaps a better name for such change is a "rotation of personel", like when you end you 5-hour shift in McDonald restuant and log your name on the paysheet.

Karl Marx envisioned an ideal society where the State is not supported by violence. Of course today, no regime in the world has reached that ideal, and perhaps never will. So for now, 2/3 of the world's GDP are used in producing and purchasing weapons, or to put it more blunt, used to better enable the state to do its job.

In an ideal state, there'll be no wars and no violence in any literature. In Mao's book, there's a chapter where he says "War will eventually be destroyed by mankiknd". But Mao is a realist, he knows that in order to destroy war, you must first start a war. Or as he says "in order to put down the gun, you must pick up the gun first.".

Of course at the end, you may say "Math, how come you are so violent and brutal?". Well I don't know why you think I'm violent and brutal, I am simply expounding a theory to you. I myself am actually a very feeble and peaceful person. The only time I touched a gun was 15 years ago, when I was in China and a few of my Army friends took me to a shooting range after spending sometime in the massage house, I picked up a pistol, and shot 5 shots at the target, and none of the 5 bullets even hit the paper. From that point on, I know I was a total gun-illiterate person.