Armies versus gangs - a comparison

Post Reply New Topic

In a sense aren't armies just gangs on a large scale when war breaks out? Think about it, both are a result of perhaps one side commiting an act of aggression and the other side feeling the need to retaliate.

Why is it then, that wars between 2 (or more) countries are viewed so much different from gangs engaging in gun battles?

-Soldiers in a war are almost always viewed positively for their bravery to fight for one's country. Gang members on the other hand, are viewed as criminals who cause trouble.

-When deaths of soldiers occur in a war, your allies call it "the ultimate sacrifice" and they are honoured for sacrificing their lives. The enemy views it as "an unfortunate but neccessary death" in order to accomplish their mission. Gang members who get killed are deemed as "a criminal murder investigation" by the police.

I just sometimes don't understand why there is so much difference? Is it possible that an enemy gang member is killed as an act of self-defense by another gang? I'm sure many countries always site "their right to self-defense" as the reason for war.

A state by definition has (within its jurisdiction) a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is why an army is seen as different from a gang. Gangs act outside the legal uses of violence, whereas armies are established and directed by law.

As to wars, generally it is seen as necessary to blame one side, thus making their actions illegitimate. The other side is thus seen as compelled to act in self-defence, or occasionally just against whatever the other side is doing that is considered illegitimate, even if they are not directly defending themselves.

Ah. Well that is because responsibility is abstracted up to the state which is judged to be in the wrong. Individual soldiers (who after all are the ones doing the killing) were not responsible for starting the war, so there is less desire to hold them individually accountable. In a gang war, the "gang" is not recognized by the police as a legitimate organizational unit, thus it cannot take responsibility for the actions of its members.

look at any gang in history, their main goal is money. not stabalization or stopping terrorism. money pure and simple thats the only thing about gangs

i just thru thows out as examples. world war 1 was started over the assassination of archduke ferdinand.

also following my opinion ww1 wasnt started over money

I just wanted to say: I love wrong planet.

That said, an interesting topic.

More similarities:
Armies and gangs are both about power.

They both have uniforms.

Members can be said to join both voluntarily and involuntarily.

Leaving both is difficult, if not impossible.

They both heavily employ propaganda.

Let's put it in simpler terms.

An "army" is just a mob of thugs operating with the authority of the state.

A mobster hurts you, you have someone to appeal to.

A soldier/officer hurts you, there is nobody to appeal to.

I know some could argue that a mob is criminal and an army is often made of more honorable folks, but when the state itself becomes criminal, the difference is purely academic.