4 ms·

This is a semantic argument. I agree that power flows from consensus. When it doesn't, we're talking about coercion, force, and violence, not power. But the wor

by slibhb 5y ago

This is a semantic argument. I agree that power flows from consensus. When it doesn't, we're talking about coercion, force, and violence, not power. But the word power is often used colloquially to mean those things: coercion, force, violence, and that's how I was using it.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> This is a semantic argument What argument? > I agree that power flows from consensus. That’s...not what I said, really. > When it doesn't, we're talking about coercion, force, and violence, not power “Power”, at least in the social sense, is the ability to get people to act as you wish; idealized moral or rational persuasion is one mechanism of that, the direct application or imminent threat of violence is a mechanism, and there’s a whole spectrum in between. But a leader’s ability, in practice, to apply power (by any mechanism) over a population is largely due to the successful use of power to influence a group of agents to act on behalf of the leader, and their application of power to others, etc. We might talk as if the state is a real concrete thing, but its really just an abstraction of the penumbra of indirect power emanating outward from the leadership.
- slibhb 5y ago
  First you said "power is itself largely a product of voluntary submission". Then you said "'power', at least in the social sense, is the ability to get people to act as you wish". These are not commensurate statements. If submission is voluntary, you aren't "getting people" to do anything...they're doing it voluntarily. Anyway, from what you write, it's clear you don't believe that anything is voluntary. > Idealized moral or rational persuasion is one mechanism of that, the direct application or imminent threat of violence is a mechanism, and there’s a whole spectrum in between. But a leader’s ability, in practice, to apply power (by any mechanism) over a population is largely due to the successful use of power to influence a group of agents to act on behalf of the leader, and their application of power to others, etc. We might talk as if the state is a real concrete thing, but its really just an abstraction of the penumbra of indirect power emanating outward from the leadership. Power is the possession of a group of people rooted in their ability to act in concert (i.e. their voluntary submission or assent to something). "Persuasion," moral or immoral, rational or irrational, doesn't come into it. And power is never the possession of a leader or a party or anything like that. You mistake power for authority, coercive force, and violence. For you, all political categories run together in a category you call "power". This view does not acknowledge the fact that people can voluntarily choose to act together. Everything for you is about "persuasion," "threat of violence," "influence," and so on. As I said, you don't believe that anything is voluntary. This is a political philosophy that cannot make meaningful distinctions between political things.
rhizome 5y ago
Those are all forms or uses of power. Where English uses one word, "power," the French use two, puissance and pouvoir, referring to "strength/energy" and "influence/control" respectively (and very roughly translated).

by slibhb 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> This is a semantic argument What argument? > I agree that power flows from consensus. That’s...not what I said, really. > When it doesn't, we're talking about coercion, force, and violence, not power “Power”, at least in the social sense, is the ability to get people to act as you wish; idealized moral or rational persuasion is one mechanism of that, the direct application or imminent threat of violence is a mechanism, and there’s a whole spectrum in between. But a leader’s ability, in practice, to apply power (by any mechanism) over a population is largely due to the successful use of power to influence a group of agents to act on behalf of the leader, and their application of power to others, etc. We might talk as if the state is a real concrete thing, but its really just an abstraction of the penumbra of indirect power emanating outward from the leadership.

slibhb 5y ago
First you said "power is itself largely a product of voluntary submission". Then you said "'power', at least in the social sense, is the ability to get people to act as you wish". These are not commensurate statements. If submission is voluntary, you aren't "getting people" to do anything...they're doing it voluntarily. Anyway, from what you write, it's clear you don't believe that anything is voluntary. > Idealized moral or rational persuasion is one mechanism of that, the direct application or imminent threat of violence is a mechanism, and there’s a whole spectrum in between. But a leader’s ability, in practice, to apply power (by any mechanism) over a population is largely due to the successful use of power to influence a group of agents to act on behalf of the leader, and their application of power to others, etc. We might talk as if the state is a real concrete thing, but its really just an abstraction of the penumbra of indirect power emanating outward from the leadership. Power is the possession of a group of people rooted in their ability to act in concert (i.e. their voluntary submission or assent to something). "Persuasion," moral or immoral, rational or irrational, doesn't come into it. And power is never the possession of a leader or a party or anything like that. You mistake power for authority, coercive force, and violence. For you, all political categories run together in a category you call "power". This view does not acknowledge the fact that people can voluntarily choose to act together. Everything for you is about "persuasion," "threat of violence," "influence," and so on. As I said, you don't believe that anything is voluntary. This is a political philosophy that cannot make meaningful distinctions between political things.

rhizome 5y ago

Those are all forms or uses of power. Where English uses one word, "power," the French use two, puissance and pouvoir, referring to "strength/energy" and "influence/control" respectively (and very roughly translated).