Customer Reviews

Power

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

When I read Russell's autobiography his genius
combined with such a humble and loveable manner
attracted me undescribably, so I got to this book.

"In the course of this book I shall be concerned to prove that the fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy is the fundamental concept in physics Like energy power has many forms, such as wealth, armaments, civil authority, influence on opinion" (P.9)
He starts his study by showing "The Impulse to Power",
and here one immediately recognizes how
power determines human action in every scale, whether
the household or the world, and at every time.
human affairs, being the development, love and hate

In Chapters 4 and 5 he differentiates Kingly Power,
and Priestly Power, identifying repating processes
in history, through which power is acquired, and lost
again. He describes various forms of power, at different
times:

Naked power over human bodies, (Ch. 6)
Revolutionary Power, (Ch. 7)
Economic Power of the Controllers of Industry (Ch. 8) and
Power over Opinion Ch 9)

"The Biology of Organisations" explains
the internal forces which press an organisation's
actions, may it be a party, a church or a chess club.

"Organisations and the Individual" shows how government
is a requirement for civilization, and how various factors
contribute to the worst people having the biggest desire
to get most power, place them into positions from which
they oppress the majority.

He concludes with the chapters "Competition", "Power and Moral
Codes", "Power Philosophies", "The Ethics of Power" and
"The Taming of Power", with the last two chapters being
of invaluable ideas for the development towards a mankind
living in cooperation instead of war; What makes his
ideas realistic, are their complete lack of dogmatism, with
the acknowledgement, that the development of live
must not be constrained in the limits of a system, and
with the primary objective, of basing most on the individual,
and only what is necessary for civilization, on the community or
the state. What's important is the human live, not an
abstract construct, a creed or an ideology, excusing the
power hungry rulers with discussions about some abstruse
goal which lies in totality and not in the individual.

I was deeply shocked when I read George Orwell's 1984, as
his insight into human minds was so overwhelmingly convincing,
and his fears so often proved right. "If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever". Seeing
the world's people becoming a raging crowd, crying to a manic leader,
after last Tuesday's insane attack on the World Trade Center, a indiscribable
fear mounted in my mind again, leaving me only left to hope for the
war cries to silence again, and reason to revive, but as this is not likely,
I was at least pleased to be able to read an answer to 1984 now, which
was written 12 years before the question. With "Power", Russell gave
the world a present of his intellect; explaining the free and liberal
education of children, guiding them to a critical and reasonable
thinking, instead of making them brutal fanatics, screaming like
animals and marching behind leaders, who don't regard human
beings as the most precious and exulting part of live, but as means to power.

Overall, I think this book is very good. The conclusions that Russell reaches regarding the frightening aspects of power, and the suggestions he gives are extremely important and relavent to today's world. However, I do think that his analysis suffers from some flaws, though this is merely a personal observation. It is painfully obvious from reading this work that Russell is a mathematician. This is not a problem on its own, but has some consequences in this work. He continuously attempts to place historic events in formulaic conceptions of how power functions to determine the effects of different types of power, and the relations of power to individuals. His conclusions are mostly correct, but I simply do not think that we can look at a few historical examples, and from there determine the scientific functions of "Power." I think we can look at the concept rationally, and we should, but this does not require us to assume that "Power" functions on a scientific model. There were other points of his that I had some minute personal disagreements with, for example, his assertion that the love of power is part of human nature. I simply do not feel that we know enough about our "nature" to make any such claims. Certainly the dangers of power are real, but that it is part of our nature to love it seems a little nonsensical. In fact, some of his writing reminded me of Thomas Hobbes' line of thought, something which I think makes very little sense. Also, his Victorianism comes through quite clearly, which bothered me. If you happen to find those qualities admirable, you'll like the book better than I did. Despite these faults (at least in my eyes), it was an interesting read, and the majority of the conclusions reached made sense to me.