/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

bumping with zizek until I get a discussion.

bumpin with more zizek

Power is influence.
The leader of a group does not directly command his subjects, but still influences them to enact his personal will, indirectly. There is a twofold nature to this, where without the implicit consent of those who are subject to power, it would lose its legitimacy, and therefore not be power at all. So then, a soldier is directly responsible for the act of killing, yet responsibility (e.g. power) is delegated to his commander, despite his indirect influence. The so-called "Nuremberg" defense highlights this perfectly. If a soldier is just "following orders", they put their personal responsibility in another by the notion of duty. So then, power ultimately rests in the consent of the governed, but the governers are personifications of this mutual consensus, and thereby become "powerful". So then, influence begins externally, but is activated by internal acceptance. Power then is a relationship of mutual consensus toward an end.

Now, the critical reading of power is that it is self-justifying, and so we may describe it as "ideological" (that is, in the Marxist sense, of inverting the real world by having its cause appear to be above it). All evil is committed by servants of power, rather than the powerful themselves (in the political sense). Hitler killed nobody in WW2, it was those who used Hitler as a justification of their own evil who killed others. In all reality, Hitler was innocent, since his influence was entirely indirect, but by the sake of law, he is made guilty. This is then ideological, in seeing the cause of evil in those who speak evil rather than those who perform it. For example, there was a case of a man killing himself after his ex-girlfriend told him to. She was made guilty by a degree of 'responsibility', and so was seen as the cause. Here, the words of another act as a self-justifying command - this is obviously the work of politics in general, and also of religion, that it is the words which hold power. A leader is simply a speaker. Another case of ChatGPT suggesting someone to kill themselves was put under legal scrutiny, as if the mere command held influence over the person, without their agreement. The truth of course is that the person who kills themself wanted an excuse, and so chose the words of another as their self-justification. All activity is self-moved in the order of life, and so there are no actual excuses, there is only agreement to influential commands. This then makes the case clear that power is in some sense an illusion.

>>2868730
>Power is influence.
I agree but not totally. Power is not just influence, but i think it gets to the heart of what power is. I think we need to think about power as a relationship. Influence can certainly give you power. A leader of a modern nation-state certainly has power, but that power must ultimately be maintained through the application of violence.

Am i more powerful than a dictator if i shoot them with a gun until they're dead?

More important though, can power be wielded as a tool for good or is the inherent inequality of power mean that its more of a push-and-pull, and that the fluctuations of power will ultimately produce a constant cycle of abuse of it in order to maintain power?

Also bumping with commie muppets.

>>2872836
forgot the commie muppets

>>2872836
>power must ultimately be maintained through the application of violence
Not necessarily. Direct violence is always the last resort.
>Am i more powerful than a dictator if i shoot them with a gun until they're dead?
Well, this concerns general arguments about "legitimacy". What is the mechanism which transfers power? In an assassination, a leader is killed, but power is not transferred to the assassin, while in a revolution, the murderers become the new leaders by right - the same pretext as a "right to the throne" which initiated wars, like the Battle of Hastings. So, as per the saying, you can "kill the man", but not "the idea". Power is in "the idea", therefore, not the man, the same way God as an idea is powerful because God is not present.
>can power be wielded as a tool for good
All power must be justified, and so power always serves good - but only an exclusive good. So this is a larger debate about morality, but in politics, goodness is often seen as class interest.
>produce a constant cycle of abuse of it in order to maintain power?
Well, that is the ancient opinion in people like Plato, Aristotle and Polybius, that politics is a cycle of violence (e.g. Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy, etc.) which has no resolution. These opinions certainly seem valid given the history of politics, where no permanent state has ever been maintained, due to contradictions within and without. Realists of political violence are people like Hobbes and Locke who see that the social contract is a temporary peace treaty between self-interested parties. Peace can exist, but not forever, and so the social contract is broken by a means of war. Heraclitus believed that all things in nature were at war, and if this is so, then power is simply a cycle of abuse - projected onto life as a whole, this becomes Darwinism. I personally have a mutualist view of nature - not because I think all things can exist in peace, but that there is clearly an ecological equilibrium at play, otherwise life would have already destroyed itself.

>>2872877
>In an assassination, a leader is killed, but power is not transferred to the assassin
if by "assassin" we mean the one who organized the murder,this DID happen during medieval times,and even as recent as Lincoln assassination,it can always happen as long as there is some form of direct succession (necessary to have transition of power)

>>2867455
>>2867845
>>2868673
Azov Glowzek

>>2872990 (me)
btw this is why the best way to not be assassinated,other than towing the line of the ruling class (renouncing power in all but name) is having someone that is more radical and extreme than you as successor/direct opposition