Who has the power

[Nay_Sayer]

[Spongebob]

Picking directly antithetical groups for comparison might lead us to believe in a zero sum game more than any two other examples would- but even here, here’s something to consider.

The us attempted to assert its power after the defeat of the confederacy- but if that’s an example of holding and using power then it would be more accurate to say that the us and the remnants of the confederacy shared power - as they were swinging their weight around too.  The us didnt -give- anything back.

I agree that it was a somewhat shared power during occupation, but the North clearly held the upper hand.  Blacks were seeing massive improvement in freedoms.  Southern politicians made it their primary goal to get rid of the northerners until that became a reality in the 1877 election of Rutherford B Hayes.  Remember, Tilden (the Democrat) had more electoral votes and there were 20 disputed votes.  Hayes needed all of the disputed votes to win, but because it went to a committee, it became a smoke filled room deal where the North agreed to finally end reconstruction if the Democrats gave in to Hayes.  That was when they "gave it back".

Any rate, I think a great approximation for who holds power in a society can be determined by prison demographics.  Whatever they happen to be, the people in power are the opposite of that.  Power may not actually be zero sum…but human beings can turn anything into a zero sum game, so…you know.

That's an interesting angle I hadn't thought of.

[tackattack]

If we define "power" as "the ability to do something, acquire something, or affect the world," then I think we have to say that whoever has money has power. The federal gov't and capitalist classes have the power using this metric. Corporate institutions also have a great deal of power. The Catholic Church too; they not only have lots of money, they have an enormous institution through which they can enact change in the world.

OK so then a thought experiment. If all moneys were completely devalued by some cataclysmic EMP type event, who would have the power. If money meant nothing tomorrow who would have the power the day after?     I liked your definition. Those that can most affect the world. This starts by being a person that can effect their world. I believe that those with the most power have the best ability to effect those around them. A hunter gatherer gathers excess and shares with his less capable family... it give him power. This power can be from money earned, especially in global economies and a capitalist society. I don't think a millionaire in America overcharging for gas has the same power as the applied skills of a doctor without borders worker, or the compassion of a Red Cross volunteer. Especially when viewed from the perspective of the recipient of that power. 

I think power is definitely relative. Often it requires some financial backing, because in the age of a global economy that's how things are done. I don't think that money = power at all though. I consider power a more personal trait/skill, rather than a possession one has. 

To turn this into a more lively perspective, does owning the gun give you power? Does being able to effectively use the gun  give you power? Do the application and upkeep of said tool give you power? I don't want to confuse power with the tools we use to acquire power. I don't think owning a gun or having lots of money gives you any power, or any happiness, fwiw.

[Spongebob]

I think in your EMP example, the most aggressive/violent group would attain power by accumulating resources. If money were to disappear, currency would emerge in some form and that initial form would be basic resources like fuel, water, shelter...so on. I don't believe many people would be able to avoid aligning with some powerful group or another because there is safety in numbers and anyone left on the outside would be easy picking. That's one thing I believe post apocalyptic stories get right. Picking a group will be a necessity.

[polymath257]

Usually, power is defined as the ability to get others to do what you want.

So, if I want my wife to make breakfast, I offer to do the dishes after. That exchange makes her more likely to do what I want.

So the question becomes what motivates people to do what you want. A first step is the old 'carrot and stick' approach. Either offer them something that they want in exchange for them doing what you want OR make it uncomfortable for them to not do what you want.

In this, persuasion is relevant for both approaches: you can show how doing what you want is actually in line with their goals or you can show how not doing what you want is against their goals.

The problem is that humans are complicated and don't always have clearly defined goals and may not have a good hierarchy of goals. So, if you argue that doing what you want achieves a 'more important' goal, it is possible to get them to go against a different goal. This is common.

So, the reason money gives power is that people want money so that they can do other things. If you give them money, they are more likely to do what you want. This is why we have jobs.

But you can also get power from having other types of resources: if you raise food, you can get people to do what you want by feeding them, for example.

You can get power by convincing people that you can do a job they want done better than others can. This happens a lot in politics.

And, of course, you can get power by the threat of physical violence. People want to avoid pain and suffering, so the threat can motivate them to do what you want.

Power is inevitable because resources, ability, and persuasiveness are not equally distributed. People will always want some things they don't have and be willing to do things to get them.

So, the question becomes who has the power and what do they want to do with it?

[brewer]

[vulcanlogician]

If we define "power" as "the ability to do something, acquire something, or affect the world," then I think we have to say that whoever has money has power. The federal gov't and capitalist classes have the power using this metric. Corporate institutions also have a great deal of power. The Catholic Church too; they not only have lots of money, they have an enormous institution through which they can enact change in the world.

OK so then a thought experiment. If all moneys were completely devalued by some cataclysmic EMP type event, who would have the power. If money meant nothing tomorrow who would have the power the day after?     I liked your definition. Those that can most affect the world. This starts by being a person that can effect their world. I believe that those with the most power have the best ability to effect those around them. A hunter gatherer gathers excess and shares with his less capable family... it give him power. This power can be from money earned, especially in global economies and a capitalist society. I don't think a millionaire in America overcharging for gas has the same power as the applied skills of a doctor without borders worker, or the compassion of a Red Cross volunteer. Especially when viewed from the perspective of the recipient of that power. 

I think power is definitely relative. Often it requires some financial backing, because in the age of a global economy that's how things are done. I don't think that money = power at all though. I consider power a more personal trait/skill, rather than a possession one has. 

To turn this into a more lively perspective, does owning the gun give you power? Does being able to effectively use the gun  give you power? Do the application and upkeep of said tool give you power? I don't want to confuse power with the tools we use to acquire power. I don't think owning a gun or having lots of money gives you any power, or any happiness, fwiw.

Yes. Owning a gun (or for that matter a hammer or a paperclip) increases your power by my definition. Why don't you think money is power? I think there is a 1-1 reduction or at least a 1-0.9 reduction between money and power. Of course, money BEING power relies on a social network in which people learn to value money. But we have that. And since we have that, money=power.

[Neo-Scholastic]

IMHO not giving a fuck is its own kind of power.

[paulpablo]

Controlling effective forms of violence seems to be what power is, in terms of civilisations and society.

Tokens/money/valuables are good for bribing violent people to help you out.

Ideally the government is supposed to have the monopoly on violence in your local area, you pay for police protection.

In reality though, unless you can pay for your own devices, highs walls, metal gates and your own land you're pretty much at the mercy of whoever are the most violent locals.

[Rev. Rye]

But that power shifted to the government, who put them down.  And many people seem to resent this, at least right wingers do.  Why is that?  Or is my idea of power just flawed completely?

That aspect of power, I'm not particularly interested in, more in the who and what of power. But one thing I know is that for all the right-wing's gripes about the government, using their power to crush down criminals or dissidents (as long as those dissidents aren't them) is one of the few things they don't resent about it. It's more when the government uses its power to actually help people that sets them off.