The Myth of Power

Lyndon Johnson meeting with Martin Luther King Jr. - Public DomainLyndon Johnson meeting with Martin Luther King Jr. - Public Domain

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”

Everyone has heard and read this phrase many times over their life. Many stand by this supposedly deeply true and meaningful common phrase, and some of you reading this as well surely believe in the truth of this statement. It sure seems true, after all look at all the terrible things that people have done over history when given great centralized power: Hitler, Genghis Khan, Robespierre, and people like Obama today, our terrorist in chief. These people had and have great centralized control, power, and use it to subdue opposition as well as outright kill, but what is power?

Power is, like many terms used in regular language, one of those terms that everyone uses a lot yet know very little about. Power appears in the common usage as a near mystical term, evoking in mind the likes of wizards and witches who can destroy and bend reality to their whim. We say of such fantastic imaginary beings that they are powerful, full of power. We say of a fire wizard that they have the power of fire, or of voodoo witches that they have the power to curse someone, and we say of politicians that they are powerful people. What does power mean? Though it’s clear that very few people think of it, in common usage power means simply the capacity to do. Don’t believe me? Look it up in a dictionary, it would certainly help a lot of people.

If power is simply the capacity to do, the great myth that power corrupts and should not be sought falls apart. Power is a good thing, we as human beings always want more power. We want to increase our capacities to do anything. There is the power of art, the capacity to create art. There is the power of charisma, the capacity to move people to action etc. the list goes on. In our personal lives we want power, all the power we can possibly be get, be given, and develop ourselves. Power is how we actualize anything we want to make or do. Our family, friends, colleagues, society, are all sources of power for us as well as against us in many ways.

Now, the power that is targeted by the phrase “power corrupts…” is a specific kind of power: power over people, i.e. social power, however this is not enough of qualification to make sense. People like Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi (he wasn’t that nice), Lenin all had this kind of power, and in great quantity and we generally look upon these people with some kind of reverence, well not so much in our corner of the left. So to make sense of the phrase it is also a qualification that a specific use of social power is what is being referred to: social power through ‘negative’ force of violence of some form, or fear of something else induced to make people give one power. Here people generally lump the likes of Hitler and Stalin as proofs of the phrase, though this is done with idealist abstraction from some serious differences between these two.

So now that it’s clarified what the phrase refers to and very vaguely really wants to say, does it hold true? No. Martin Luther King Jr. at the height of his place in the Civil Rights Movement in the US could have called for a revolution of the Blacks and would have gotten it had he done so. Gandhi likewise could have called upon the Indians he had influence over and called for the violent overthrow of the British, and likewise would have gotten it. In the case of Lenin, well, we know what he did. These individuals had great power, yet we generally, except for Anarchists who hate Lenin, think they did not abuse this power.

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is false. Power, as it is what it is, allows the actualization of what already inheres in people. That most people become unethical and begin to treat people as cogs as extensions of their will given the chance only reveals what most people wish people really were.  Power does not corrupt, it reveals who people really are. The state of our world just shows that people who seek and are given power happen to be psychopaths, sociopaths, and narcissists who put on a human face when they need to. The way money concentrates and moves power just makes the complexities of it that more mysterious for people to see. Some people are as persons not endowed with power to move others, but with money even idiots like Trump can move mountains and gain adoration.

About the Author

Autodidact on philosophy and science. My aim is merely to reveal one sided views for what they are, and to offer points for critical reflection.

8 Comments on "The Myth of Power"

  1. >Robespierre

    • I’m not exactly the biggest defender of ether Lenin or Robespierre (Although I will defend them slightly more then the average anarchist because when push comes to shove they were both improvements over what came before although Lenin was still a narrisictic asshole who believed that his way was was the only way the workers could gain control of the means of production)But I don’t understand how you can hate one and not the other

  2. Lenin and Robespierre are just general examples. These articles are written with some intent of thus being readable beyond Leftypol, so I’m not going to say things that require some serious elaboration like “Robespierre/Stalin literally did nothing wrong”.

  3. Everyone writing for this publication is still in high school, right?

  4. The Eastern March | November 23, 2015 at 7:27 pm | Reply

    “Power, as it is what it is, allows the actualization of what already inheres in people.” Is the same as “Power corrupts”.

    To distinguish becoming and (realization of) being would be a truly pedantic, and an all too philosophical distinction.

    • To be a pedant who thinks power here is some Hegelian category is an all too air headed position. If you’re going to even drag in Hegelian categories, actualization is something far different than becoming and being, and I’m not speaking Hegelese in any of the article.

      Power as capacity to actualize is not the same as corruption. Corruption is an unwarranted altering of an aim. A person who was a pacifist who is moved to violence by something like cult influences has been corrupted. A good person that begins as a caring and kind being that is through social education led to hatred and cruelty towards a certain section of people is corrupted.

      A person becoming a leader of a group and changing their attitudes after tasting that level of freedom to make others act as they want isn’t corrupted. Nothing from outside has injected itself to change them, it is they themselves that reveal what they already were capable of. A better example would be capitalist democracy. I don’t accept the term of corruption to describe our modern political systems since their purpose and design has always been to guard capital; if anything, it is populists who are corruptions of the aim of the state to protect the interest of the capitalist class.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.