Power

[IzzyPop]

I got involved in a tread over in Politics and the discussion turned towards power and how it is attained and kept. Personally, I think that power ultimately comes down to violence in some way or another. I was called totalitarian for saying that. I tend to agree from a purely objective standpoint. The only reason we do not have a totalitarian government is that it would be less efficient long term than we have now. The nice-nice rights and privileges we have now keep us from each others throats and working happily alongside people we are competing against.

In my professional life, I manage around 75 employees. These employees do what I say. Why? Because, ultimately, if they do not, I will fire them. Now, that being said, I do not use my power in such a manner very often. I ask, show appreciation, empower people to make their own decisions, etc. But underneath it all, I still have that big stick to beat people with if needed.

Any thoughts?

 

[The Nihilist]

I disagree. Power is about getting people to do what you say. There are lots of ways to do that. My preferred technique is persuasion. It works at least as well as violence, and it's cleaner.

 

[IzzyPop]

I get that in interpersonal relationships. Maybe power is the wrong word. Authority seems to fit the idea I am trying to express a bit better.

 

[peter22]

Authority tends to be asserted by violence or more commonly in the west, the threat of violence/punishment.

 

[Braunwyn]

I got involved in a tread over in Politics and the discussion turned towards power and how it is attained and kept. Personally, I think that power ultimately comes down to violence in some way or another. I was called totalitarian for saying that. I tend to agree from a purely objective standpoint. The only reason we do not have a totalitarian government is that it would be less efficient long term than we have now. The nice-nice rights and privileges we have now keep us from each others throats and working happily alongside people we are competing against.

In my professional life, I manage around 75 employees. These employees do what I say. Why? Because, ultimately, if they do not, I will fire them. Now, that being said, I do not use my power in such a manner very often. I ask, show appreciation, empower people to make their own decisions, etc. But underneath it all, I still have that big stick to beat people with if needed.

Any thoughts?

Interesting topic. It makes me think of the company I'm currently working for and the changes that have been ocurring in the last 6 months. There has been downsizing and shifts in management structure. The particular dept I'm in holds to a flat platform. Yes, we have a global head and a general lab manager but our setup doesn't really have people that dish out orders who subsequently punish when needed.

When I first started the global head met with me a couple of times to ask me who I thought the boss or supervisors were etc. I honestly couldn't point to anyone in particular and that pleased him. All of the scientists work both independently and in unison. The work we do supports other groups in the co and they are referred to as customers. My experience with them shows that they do not have a similar platform and I notice that a number of them fear their higher ups. It makes me nervous being around them. Who would want to work in such an environment?

So, our dept is the only one expanding in this co in North America. We've been found to be more productive than other depts and the co is now seeking to expand our platform through out the co. Of course I give credit to the global head and lab mgr. They've known each other for years and have worked together in industry prior to their current situtation; a dept they pretty much invented.

I think the atmosphere they have created fuels the commitment each of us have towards our job. I could blather all day about it. Either way, I feel very fortunate to have landed the position I have where I can be late (I'm perpetually late for everything lol) and not have to worry about someone looking over my shoulder. As a youngster and an adult, I've had problems with authority lol.

eta: point to this post? Authority doesn't always lend to productivity.

 

[quatona]

I disagree. Power is about getting people to do what you say. There are lots of ways to do that. My preferred technique is persuasion. It works at least as well as violence, and it's cleaner.

One might, however, suspect that my position that allows me to inflict undesirable consequences on others (like: firing them) in case of disagreement makes them quite a bit more inclined to be "persuaded" of what I say.

 

[randomman]

I got involved in a tread over in Politics and the discussion turned towards power and how it is attained and kept. Personally, I think that power ultimately comes down to violence in some way or another. I was called totalitarian for saying that. I tend to agree from a purely objective standpoint. The only reason we do not have a totalitarian government is that it would be less efficient long term than we have now. The nice-nice rights and privileges we have now keep us from each others throats and working happily alongside people we are competing against.

In my professional life, I manage around 75 employees. These employees do what I say. Why? Because, ultimately, if they do not, I will fire them. Now, that being said, I do not use my power in such a manner very often. I ask, show appreciation, empower people to make their own decisions, etc. But underneath it all, I still have that big stick to beat people with if needed.

Any thoughts?

what is your definition of "violence"? is cutting food supplies considered violence? is intimidation considered violence?

power is an abstract attribution that is limitless and unbounded. It can only be confined by the limitations and confinements of whoever excercises power. power in hands of God is therefore different from power in hands of humans.

same goes for violence. you would not say burning people in hell is violence (if you are a believer). on the other hand, you would say human burning another human is violence.

 

[quatona]

same goes for violence. you would not say burning people in hell is violence (if you are a believer).

...and a subscriber to the fundi redefinition project, that is.

 

[elman]

Interesting topic. It makes me think of the company I'm currently working for and the changes that have been ocurring in the last 6 months. There has been downsizing and shifts in management structure. The particular dept I'm in holds to a flat platform. Yes, we have a global head and a general lab manager but our setup doesn't really have people that dish out orders who subsequently punish when needed.

When I first started the global head met with me a couple of times to ask me who I thought the boss or supervisors were etc. I honestly couldn't point to anyone in particular and that pleased him. All of the scientists work both independently and in unison. The work we do supports other groups in the co and they are referred to as customers. My experience with them shows that they do not have a similar platform and I notice that a number of them fear their higher ups. It makes me nervous being around them. Who would want to work in such an environment?

So, our dept is the only one expanding in this co in North America. We've been found to be more productive than other depts and the co is now seeking to expand our platform through out the co. Of course I give credit to the global head and lab mgr. They've known each other for years and have worked together in industry prior to their current situtation; a dept they pretty much invented.

I think the atmosphere they have created fuels the commitment each of us have towards our job. I could blather all day about it. Either way, I feel very fortunate to have landed the position I have where I can be late (I'm perpetually late for everything lol) and not have to worry about someone looking over my shoulder. As a youngster and an adult, I've had problems with authority lol.

eta: point to this post? Authority doesn't always lend to productivity.

I think you are correct. If simple authority worked best communism would have worked better than capitalism.

 

[billwald]

"Law without enforcement is merely advise."

 

[True_Blue]

I think IzzyPop is absolutely right. Power ultimately comes down to the ability to inflict a harm of some sort. Power/violence also determines the formation of laws of all kinds, and ultimately morality itself. God is the ultimate power in the universe, so all laws and morals originate with him.

 

[IzzyPop]

I think IzzyPop is absolutely right. Power ultimately comes down to the ability to inflict a harm of some sort. Power/violence also determines the formation of laws of all kinds, and ultimately morality itself. God is the ultimate power in the universe, so all laws and morals originate with him.

I am not sure that is the source of power. RP's post got me thinking a bit and I can see where he is coming from, power over others can come from a number of sources, but to hold onto that power does require force of some sort.

I also disagree pretty strongly that morals come from laws.

 

[True_Blue]

Morals and laws are quite different. Law capitalized comes from God, and lower case law comes from people. Capitalized Law and morality both come from God.

 

[IzzyPop]

Morals and laws are quite different. Law capitalized comes from God, and lower case law comes from people. Capitalized Law and morality both come from God.

At the risk of derailing my own thread, I have to disagree. God has nothing to do with morality. Just look at how often he violates his own 'Law'.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The only reason we do not have a totalitarian government is that it would be less efficient long term than we have now.

Are you kidding me? Less efficient? That's all?

Totalitarianism is not only less efficient than free societies, it takes away something fundamental to our flourishing as human beings -- our rational self-determination, the political expression of which is called individual liberty. Without rational control over the course of our lives, we have our lives stolen from us. We become mere puppets of Big Brother.

Your ability to fire people (to sever relations with them) does not prevent them from seeking other employment. Self-determination is not removed in this case. However, if you could put them in a gulag for daring to seek employment or start their own companies, then self-determination would be removed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[IzzyPop]

Are you kidding me? Less efficient? That's all?

Totalitarianism is not only less efficient than free societies, it takes away something fundamental to our flourishing as human beings -- our rational self-determination, the political expression of which is called individual liberty. Without rational control over the course of our lives, we have our lives stolen from us. We become mere puppets of Big Brother.

I am not attempting to make a judgement on which system of government is better or worse, nor am I attempting to promote one. I am examining it from the detatched perspective of how power is used. If the totalitarian system could be implimented in such a way that did not cause the deep resentment and rebellion from the governed, thereby forcing the government to spend more and more of its resources on policing the people, it would be a much more prevalent system. The inherent inequities of an oligarchical type goverment pretty much mandate that you either keep the populace ignorant and/or fearful. It is much less efficient to spend a large portion of your GDP on internal security and cracking down on dissenters than it is to give your populace some ownership and say intheir destiny.

The same goes for my work. I can micromanage my staff and crack the whip and keep everyone on their toes in fear that I will fire them. And I will see some short-term gains in productivity. But to keep it that way for a long time will result in greater turnover, which leads directly to greater labor costs and lowered productivity. But if I give people some power to make their own decisions and a sense of 'buy-in', then morale goes up, productivity goes up, and my job gets really easy.

Your ability to fire people (to sever relations with them) does not prevent them from seeking other employment. Self-determination is not removed in this case. However, if you could put them in a gulag for daring to seek employment or start their own companies, then self-determination would be removed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And the analogy between work and government is not an exact one, and that is a place where is breaks down. But in so far as uses of authority and the source of said authority, it does help me clarify what I am thinking.

 

[Received]

Power is a quality that allows your will to be actualized in the world. Obviously, if you're a decent person, you can't have absolute power over action. Some people might get snappy at the job, or refuse to come in, or slack up on their jobs. You can't control this; you can fire them, but that's not going to exterminate the negative behaviors, whether for the person fired or others who are still around.

Violence is a great method for getting around this, sure. You inspire fear in the hearts of people and they cease being human; they become automatons, work in fear, and your word is law. They're less likely to screw around or do other small-level annoyances. But obviously the dehumanization that results from violence will come back to haunt the persons who advocate it.

You can be much clever and look for other methods. Enter the Chomskian idea of thought control, which he considered perfectly analogous to violence; that is, propoganda is to democratic governments as violence is to totalitarian ones. The genius of thought control is that the people don't even know they're being attacked; and the dissenters will be small, thus it's easy to brand them as heretics or idiots and live your entire life without questioning the foundation of certain systems or ideologies you find yourself in.

Thought control is a much better way of attaining absolute power. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to money. No money, no capacity to brainwash.