There is one thought experiment I created a while ago to illustrate the problem. Imagine that Stalin gets enlightened in 1948 and introduces capitalism and a free market. There is one caveat: he owns everything the state or local councils used to own: all the businesses, the farmlands, the apartment houses, the roads and so on. Everybody works for him, there are no other employers. Most urban people live in apartments he owns. People are free to start new businesses, or build houses, but he does not intend to make competing with him easy, there will be outrageous tolls for using the roads and so on, and if a startup still somehow survives making sure to use his weight to suffocate competitors at their infancy, such as by undercutting them at all and any costs—he can bear some loses with an immense wealth like that. Would you say he still has immense economic power? If yes, this illustrates why the distribution of property matters, and a shorter form to express it is to say money is power. It is important to understand here that it does not simply means cash: owning productive property is far more important. Money is just used as the short form of this.
His main power would not come from money, it would come from the people having been trained that questioning Stalin leads to death camps.
This is obviously a form of power. I don’t see any ways how it could not be. If you can tell people all this around here is mine and you do what I say or GTFO, that is power. The only way it could be not power is if people can easily GTFO and homestead some new property for themselves.
Or if they ignore you, or kill you.
As for your examples, obviously a gun trumps a purse, but the whole point is that they were particularly violent periods of history. Liberal democracy tries to take violence out of human relationships, this is why the second most powerful thing after the gun: the purse tends to be so important there.
No, the second most important thing after a gun is connections. Now obviously money can buy both if you know what you doing and can ensure that the people you bought stay bought. However, that makes money less important then both.
Julius Caesar got an immense amount of gold through violence, then used it buy himself into the top of politics. While it is true that the root of it was violence/war, still gold was immensely useful at bribing magistrates, entertaining the voters with gladiators, financing public works privately and generally buying popularity. Romans understood perfectly that nothing trumps violence, this is why they tried to keep legions to the north of the Rubicon. And yes, there was a civil war. But plain simply killing or threatening enough is not enough to secure rule. Caesar understood he must also buy people off. Most importantly, ensuring the support of soldiers by giving them gold.
The most important sources of Caesar’s power were violence and the popularity he acquired, due to being good at said violence. Compare him with Crassus who made even more money without using (as much) violence.
A second good example would be the use of various Italian and Swiss mercenaries.
I believe Machiavelli had some rather pointed things to say about how much power using mercenaries actually gave you.
I am afraid this way it would be an endless argument, so I try a different angle. Do you believe that “Power resides where men believe it resides; it’s a trick, a shadow on the wall, and a very small man can cast a very large shadow.” ?
If yes, well, you cannot deny that people feel their employers or landlords have power over them: and this feeling is power itself, because it makes them behave so.
Power is a relationship. You have power over me if I find it in my interest to grant it to you. This could be a financial interest, a desire to avoid physical harm, or anything else. What’s granted can be revoked. If I no longer fear your ability to inflict harm or if I decide I don’t want your money, your power over me ceases to exist. Power resides where men believe it resides, because they put it there.
With that said, there are, as observed, a number of methods of reliably gaining power over individuals. Money and force will work on most people in the short term.
Power is a relationship. You have power over me if I find it in my interest to grant it to you
That’s sophistry—it’s easy to adjust your interests. Power still grows out of the barrel of a gun. Yes, you can be a martyr and get shot, but the great majority of people do what powers-that-be tell them.
Force comes from the barrel of a gun. It may or may not lead to actual power. There are countless historical examples where use of force simply served to fan the flames of resistance or where brutal persecutions only strengthened the cause.
People generally listen to the powers-that-be because said powers still look after their interests to an extent. People might not like the local tyrant. They may yearn for a better government. They are also keenly aware of how things can get worse. If the Emperor is tough on crime, leaves you alone if you follow the rules, and makes the trains run on time, that’s probably better than a bloody civil war or domination by criminal gangs.
If I willingly submit to force, it’s because I expect better treatment than I’d get by resisting.
I understand what you are saying, it’s just that I don’t think it’s a useful framework for analysis.
There are a bunch of issues with what we mean by “power”, so let’s define the thing. Actually, let me offer three definition in a descending order of generality.
(1) Power is the ability to achieve your goals, make things happen, actually do stuff. If you’re Superman you have the power to fly.
(2) Power is the ability to make other people do what you want. If you’re Elon Musk, you have the power to build spacecraft.
(3) Power is the ability to make other people do what you want through negative incentives (basically, threats). If you’re a cop, you have the power to arrest people.
Going back to DVH’s point, neither of these is “a trick, a shadow on the wall”.
Anyone can testify anything, but I don’t see how “having been a landlord” gives you any particular authority to say whether tenants commonly feel that landlords have power over them. (You might be able to say that your tenants didn’t obviously-to-you feel that. If you knew them closely enough to be sure of being right, then that itself makes you a very non-typical landlord.)
I would not want to claim that anything nontrivial is true of all tenants or of all landlords. But the tenants I know who have said much to me about their experience of tenancy do in fact appear to feel that their landlords have power over them—but there’s a selection effect here: you’re more likely to be talking to other people about your relations with your landlord if something’s gone wrong somehow.
His main power would not come from money, it would come from the people having been trained that questioning Stalin leads to death camps.
Or if they ignore you, or kill you.
No, the second most important thing after a gun is connections. Now obviously money can buy both if you know what you doing and can ensure that the people you bought stay bought. However, that makes money less important then both.
The most important sources of Caesar’s power were violence and the popularity he acquired, due to being good at said violence. Compare him with Crassus who made even more money without using (as much) violence.
I believe Machiavelli had some rather pointed things to say about how much power using mercenaries actually gave you.
I am afraid this way it would be an endless argument, so I try a different angle. Do you believe that “Power resides where men believe it resides; it’s a trick, a shadow on the wall, and a very small man can cast a very large shadow.” ?
If yes, well, you cannot deny that people feel their employers or landlords have power over them: and this feeling is power itself, because it makes them behave so.
Power is a relationship. You have power over me if I find it in my interest to grant it to you. This could be a financial interest, a desire to avoid physical harm, or anything else. What’s granted can be revoked. If I no longer fear your ability to inflict harm or if I decide I don’t want your money, your power over me ceases to exist. Power resides where men believe it resides, because they put it there.
With that said, there are, as observed, a number of methods of reliably gaining power over individuals. Money and force will work on most people in the short term.
That’s sophistry—it’s easy to adjust your interests. Power still grows out of the barrel of a gun. Yes, you can be a martyr and get shot, but the great majority of people do what powers-that-be tell them.
Force comes from the barrel of a gun. It may or may not lead to actual power. There are countless historical examples where use of force simply served to fan the flames of resistance or where brutal persecutions only strengthened the cause.
People generally listen to the powers-that-be because said powers still look after their interests to an extent. People might not like the local tyrant. They may yearn for a better government. They are also keenly aware of how things can get worse. If the Emperor is tough on crime, leaves you alone if you follow the rules, and makes the trains run on time, that’s probably better than a bloody civil war or domination by criminal gangs.
If I willingly submit to force, it’s because I expect better treatment than I’d get by resisting.
I understand what you are saying, it’s just that I don’t think it’s a useful framework for analysis.
There are a bunch of issues with what we mean by “power”, so let’s define the thing. Actually, let me offer three definition in a descending order of generality.
(1) Power is the ability to achieve your goals, make things happen, actually do stuff. If you’re Superman you have the power to fly.
(2) Power is the ability to make other people do what you want. If you’re Elon Musk, you have the power to build spacecraft.
(3) Power is the ability to make other people do what you want through negative incentives (basically, threats). If you’re a cop, you have the power to arrest people.
Going back to DVH’s point, neither of these is “a trick, a shadow on the wall”.
Having been a landlord, I can testify that this is not in fact the case.
Anyone can testify anything, but I don’t see how “having been a landlord” gives you any particular authority to say whether tenants commonly feel that landlords have power over them. (You might be able to say that your tenants didn’t obviously-to-you feel that. If you knew them closely enough to be sure of being right, then that itself makes you a very non-typical landlord.)
I would not want to claim that anything nontrivial is true of all tenants or of all landlords. But the tenants I know who have said much to me about their experience of tenancy do in fact appear to feel that their landlords have power over them—but there’s a selection effect here: you’re more likely to be talking to other people about your relations with your landlord if something’s gone wrong somehow.
You mean they easily disregarded your rules and things like that?
Yes, rules like that they have to actually pay the rent with checks that don’t bounce.