What is the place of violence and force in both maintaining state power and overthrowing it?

Q1) What is the place of violence and force in both maintaining state power and overthrowing it? Is the
state’s legitimacy derived from anything other than its use, or at least threat, of force? If so, can
political power be obtained by any means other than violence? What are the ways state and revolutionary
force manifests themselves in the day-to-day lives of citizens or others under the control of such a state? By what
means are certain people given the authority to legitimately use state force and what type of character is
required for such political power?

Q2) What are some of the major critiques to liberal democracy and majority rule put forth by thinkers
such as Marx, Goldman, Gentile/Mussolini, and/or Fanon? How is political power tied to dominant
factions such as a certain economic class, nationality, or ethnic identity? Can power be separated by
these dominant groups from within the system, or does a real transition of power require a restructuring
of the political system, and in what manner? How would supporters of such a system, such as Locke,
respond to these criticisms and how would they justify the liberal democratic political structure?

Q3) What is the role of the nation in terms of political behavior for Marx, Gentile/Mussolini, and/or
Fanon? What is the role of the state in fostering national identity? What does it mean to be a member of
a nation, what is its basis, what responsibilities does it entail, and how does a nation go about instilling
national identity in its citizens? How does it interact with other identities, such as economic class?
What objections are put forth against maintaining the idea of nations and how might supporters of
nationalism refute them? (You may wish to consider earlier authors, such as Machiavelli and Rousseau,
on this as well.)

I will provide reading based on the chosen question.

Last Completed Projects