Hannah Arendt argues that violence and power are dipoles. Power is collective belief, as you say. It is its own end. Violence is instrumental, a means to an end, a tool we resort to when power and influence fail. Violence consumes power, expends and diminishes it. But since power is relative, if the winner of the violent contest has diminished the enemy's power more than their own then they come out ahead in relative terms. Power is an end, violence is a means.
Where you offered this link to me was on WhyNotThink, and I said I would answer here. There you had said:
"I think that violence and force, as direct threats and methods of survival, are necessary underpinnings for everything else." But you don't develop that point here, or just a little bit toward the end.
I agree, that deterrence has kept major wars at bay. Deterrence was the gift of Stalin, when they tested the hydrogen bomb in 1954, (after his death). I believe that there are many declassified documents that prove the plan was to "nuke" Russia. (Would there have been a nuclear winter)?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria have all been devastated, because they had no deterrence, while North Korea is untouched.
People love the Von Clausewitz quote that War is the continuation of Politics by another means. So maybe influence and raw power are the same, but just on different ends of a sliding scale. You say the willingness and ability to use violence to get what you want may be a shared belief; but isn't that based on the demonstrated other instances where they devastated some weaker county?
Influence is not just charisma, good looks nor an appeal to similarly held morals. All parties act on their immediate needs and interests. For instance: export trade is extremely good because it makes for full employment, and eliminates excess inventories. Therefore America stayed out of WWI and WWII until the last minute. Was that because they couldn't make up their mind who was "morally correct"? Not hardly. They were selling munitions and supplies to both sides of the conflict for as long as they could.
They finally had to get in the war, because if you're not in the war, you don't control the peace. All peace treaties were immensely favorable for America. Furthermore they plundered lands on all continents, and made the beleaguered populations finally pay for every bit of reconstruction. But the best part was most all industry in the world was destroyed, accept the American, that remained untouched. Therefore in the rebuilding process, most all nations became more and more dependent on American industry and American finance for the greater part of their economic turnover. And that is where they stand today.
SO INFLUENCE turns out to be that since 30% of your economy is dependent on the US, if you don't do what we say we'll take you off of the most-favored-nation status, or Tariff your goods. We'll put a major dent in your economy. Let's see if your electorate will accept that? You'll be out of power. In my opinion, that is the sum and total of influence.
You said: "Direct contests of power and strength between combatants quickly force all others to reveal their hands as well. The neutral attempt to play both sides off against one another or ally as they see fit." I am not so sure about that.
I think we are back to "Influence" from the above. If I control 30% (or more) of your economy, (and I issue the dollars that you are used to using), then these things can't be changed overnight. Only Russia has ever done it. (Maybe Iran to a lesser extent or Cuba). You are going to have to dance on the fence, or cross over into our yard. There used to be a large non-aligned nations pact. But that is no longer allowed. In certain strategic areas, like Turkey or India, they have to make allowances, in the hopes that they can butt up against China.
You said: and we join states as protection from each other – both other individuals, other corporations, and other states. I honestly think that alliances are also a case of trade payoffs. How is Finland more secure than they were as a neutral country? But they are going to get huge money for allowing military bases on their northern shore, to block Russia in the Arctic.
_____________
A few other points:
"Violence always carries the cost of the endeavor and the risk of injury and death". Except when the main actor is a proxy, and the sponsor is rarely at risk, and almost never prosecuted nor brought to justice. The cost in dollars? There seems to be no shortage or no end to dollars.
Bidding wars do happen: What year was it when Saudi Arabia and America over produced oil in order to drive the price down and bankrupt Russia?
I agree when you say rather than you-controlling-power; power-controls-you. But that is the whole scheme of power among adversaries, and its back and forth application over even centuries. It's perhaps why genocide was often practiced by the ancients, to put a stop to it.
All nations in all regions have different interests. Even the 50 states of the US have very different interests. A so-called "world-government" will surly and only consider the interests of the hegemony. Call all the rest the vassals, or really they're the slaves. it's existential.
More to come in this vein. It's easier for me to break my thoughts into smaller articles than just write a really big one, and I don't want to be in the "long" genre.
Hannah Arendt argues that violence and power are dipoles. Power is collective belief, as you say. It is its own end. Violence is instrumental, a means to an end, a tool we resort to when power and influence fail. Violence consumes power, expends and diminishes it. But since power is relative, if the winner of the violent contest has diminished the enemy's power more than their own then they come out ahead in relative terms. Power is an end, violence is a means.
Honestly, if I had to write this again, I'd boil it down to a card game analogy.
Power is having a good hand.
Influence is how you play the hand.
Violence is when everyone has to show their hands.
Reminds me of J. Coleman's advice not to argue over things you aren't willing to fight for:
https://indamidle.substack.com/p/weaponize-your-words
Good advice in general. If it's not worth it, don't push it.
Where you offered this link to me was on WhyNotThink, and I said I would answer here. There you had said:
"I think that violence and force, as direct threats and methods of survival, are necessary underpinnings for everything else." But you don't develop that point here, or just a little bit toward the end.
I agree, that deterrence has kept major wars at bay. Deterrence was the gift of Stalin, when they tested the hydrogen bomb in 1954, (after his death). I believe that there are many declassified documents that prove the plan was to "nuke" Russia. (Would there have been a nuclear winter)?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria have all been devastated, because they had no deterrence, while North Korea is untouched.
People love the Von Clausewitz quote that War is the continuation of Politics by another means. So maybe influence and raw power are the same, but just on different ends of a sliding scale. You say the willingness and ability to use violence to get what you want may be a shared belief; but isn't that based on the demonstrated other instances where they devastated some weaker county?
Influence is not just charisma, good looks nor an appeal to similarly held morals. All parties act on their immediate needs and interests. For instance: export trade is extremely good because it makes for full employment, and eliminates excess inventories. Therefore America stayed out of WWI and WWII until the last minute. Was that because they couldn't make up their mind who was "morally correct"? Not hardly. They were selling munitions and supplies to both sides of the conflict for as long as they could.
They finally had to get in the war, because if you're not in the war, you don't control the peace. All peace treaties were immensely favorable for America. Furthermore they plundered lands on all continents, and made the beleaguered populations finally pay for every bit of reconstruction. But the best part was most all industry in the world was destroyed, accept the American, that remained untouched. Therefore in the rebuilding process, most all nations became more and more dependent on American industry and American finance for the greater part of their economic turnover. And that is where they stand today.
SO INFLUENCE turns out to be that since 30% of your economy is dependent on the US, if you don't do what we say we'll take you off of the most-favored-nation status, or Tariff your goods. We'll put a major dent in your economy. Let's see if your electorate will accept that? You'll be out of power. In my opinion, that is the sum and total of influence.
You said: "Direct contests of power and strength between combatants quickly force all others to reveal their hands as well. The neutral attempt to play both sides off against one another or ally as they see fit." I am not so sure about that.
I think we are back to "Influence" from the above. If I control 30% (or more) of your economy, (and I issue the dollars that you are used to using), then these things can't be changed overnight. Only Russia has ever done it. (Maybe Iran to a lesser extent or Cuba). You are going to have to dance on the fence, or cross over into our yard. There used to be a large non-aligned nations pact. But that is no longer allowed. In certain strategic areas, like Turkey or India, they have to make allowances, in the hopes that they can butt up against China.
You said: and we join states as protection from each other – both other individuals, other corporations, and other states. I honestly think that alliances are also a case of trade payoffs. How is Finland more secure than they were as a neutral country? But they are going to get huge money for allowing military bases on their northern shore, to block Russia in the Arctic.
_____________
A few other points:
"Violence always carries the cost of the endeavor and the risk of injury and death". Except when the main actor is a proxy, and the sponsor is rarely at risk, and almost never prosecuted nor brought to justice. The cost in dollars? There seems to be no shortage or no end to dollars.
Bidding wars do happen: What year was it when Saudi Arabia and America over produced oil in order to drive the price down and bankrupt Russia?
I agree when you say rather than you-controlling-power; power-controls-you. But that is the whole scheme of power among adversaries, and its back and forth application over even centuries. It's perhaps why genocide was often practiced by the ancients, to put a stop to it.
All nations in all regions have different interests. Even the 50 states of the US have very different interests. A so-called "world-government" will surly and only consider the interests of the hegemony. Call all the rest the vassals, or really they're the slaves. it's existential.
.
Christmas day when I posted, so best wishes.
Well written and thought provoking. Bravo!
More to come in this vein. It's easier for me to break my thoughts into smaller articles than just write a really big one, and I don't want to be in the "long" genre.