Violence as the Collapse of Power: Arendt, Mao, and the Limits of the Gun

Taken, dir. Pierre Morel (EuropaCorp, 2008), promotional poster. The film encapsulates the assertion that coercive organizations mistake the capacity for violence for power, but a trained adversary fighting from genuine human connection — a father, a daughter, a relationship no threat can replicate — will dismantle them every time. As Arendt writes, “violence appears where power is in jeopardy.” The traffickers were always in jeopardy.

Why Kidnapping Your Enemy’s Daughter Is Almost Always a Bad Plan

There is a scene early in Taken, the 2008 action thriller starring Liam Neeson, that most viewers experience as pure setup: bad guys take the girl, good guy goes to get her back. Simple. Satisfying. Pass the popcorn.

But watch it again through the Arendtian lens, and something more interesting emerges. The Albanian trafficking network that abducts Kim Mills does not just make a moral error. It makes a structural one — a mistake so fundamental that their defeat is essentially guaranteed from the moment they take her. They confuse violence for power. And if Hannah Arendt, one of the twentieth century’s most important political thinkers, were watching from the couch beside you, she would nod slowly and say: of course they lost. Snub out her cigarette: They never had power to begin with.

This essay uses Taken (2008) as a window into one of the most important, and most consistently misunderstood, distinctions in political philosophy: the difference between power and violence. Along the way, we will reckon with Mao Zedong’s famous insistence that political power stems from the barrel of a gun, draw on what communication studies tells us about why threats only work until they don’t, and arrive at a conclusion that is both philosophically serious and, frankly, useful the next time someone tries to hold something over you.

What the Traffickers Actually Built

Let’s start with the villains, because Arendt would.

The Albanian trafficking network in Taken is, on the surface, formidable. It operates across international borders. It has corrupted French law enforcement. It moves human beings through layers of intermediaries , scouts at the airport, handlers in apartments, buyers at auctions, with apparent efficiency. It has money, reach, and a demonstrated willingness to kill. By any conventional measure, this looks like an organization with power.

But look more carefully at what holds it together. Every relationship within the network is coercive. The women it traffics are held by force. The low-level operatives comply out of fear or financial desperation. The corrupt police offer their cooperation because they have been bought or threatened. There is not a single person in the entire structure who is there because they believe in something, who would show up if the money stopped or the threat was removed, who has any genuine stake in the organization’s survival beyond their own immediate self-interest.

This is not a minor detail. It is the entire ballgame.

Hannah Arendt, in her 1970 work On Violence, draws a distinction that cuts right to the heart of what we are watching. Power, she argues, is not the ability to compel. It is the ability to act collectively, “the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.” Real power belongs to a group and exists only as long as that group genuinely coheres. It is built from shared belief, mutual investment, and willing participation. Violence, by contrast, is what you use when you do not have any of that. It can produce compliance. It cannot produce cohesion. And compliance without cohesion is a house of cards.

The trafficking network is a house of cards. Bryan Mills is the wind...

Article continues here: e-schomann.medium.com/violence-as-the-collapse-of-power-arendt-mao-and-the-limits-of-the-gun-3380c4c1f884

#2026 #Medium #ErikSchomann #Article #2008 #Film #Taken #LiamNeeson #LucBesson #World #US #America #Europe #Ireland #France #Military #Intelligence #History #Warfare #Vehicles #Transportation #Weapons #Crime #Trafficking #Firearms #PsychologicalWarfare #SpiritualWarfare #BiologicalWarfare #CultureWar #EconomicWar #BureaucraticWarfare #KineticWarfare #UnrestrictedWarfare

@Vermillion-Rx One thing I would say is that women paying this evil woman money is a sign of the mercenary nature of many women. It is strongly to their benefit to be able to claim victimhood when performing their only unique selling point -motherhood. So they want to back her. She makes them all look good. If she gets away with it, it gives them all license to be worse.

Because men can't be mothers, women get away with claiming motherhood is a terrible suffering. When I was a single parent working full time for a few months it was bliss. I have no idea where all the suffering comes in. My mother always told me how she hated women who were saying they dreaded the summer holidays and were happy when children went back to school. My mother always said "why have children if you are going to be such a bad mother. I love it when my kids are home." I always told my kids the same thing. "I like having you around"

Granted some women do get post natal depression but you know millions of people get depression. Millions of women post natal depression. Its what you do about it that counts. Many women like the idea they get it. Most mothers like to flirt with the idea they have it because it might give them more leeway, get them more help.

It is a bit like Briffault's law. Women have a relationship with this witch and give her money because they see it being to their advantage. They should be urging making a large bonfire to put her on top of but they donate money. The bonfire would remind them of duty that must not be failed. However, if she wins, she will make them all look good.