We have seen it all before but once again heads of state have been \nindulging in verbal international belligerence. Whether it is a matter \nof trade, borders or resources such leaders feel it is both their role \nand duty to be seen to protect the \u2018national interest\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Most commentators for the media and their readers take it for granted\n that this represents, to various degrees, the exercise of the leader\u2019s \npower. But can a single individual possess political power and if they \ncan what is its nature and origin?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The myth of the \u2018strong man\u2019 and the invincible leader is an \nessential component of bourgeois ideology since any authoritarian system\n must have a summit to its pyramid of power. But like every other \ncomponent of reactionary political theory this too might turn out to be \njust another myth. Could it be that this illusion of power is testament \nto the power of illusion?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Political power itself is no illusion. The state is the incarnation \nof social power and exists in part to restrict access to the fruits of \nproduction by the producers (the working class of wage and salary \nearners). The tiny parasitical minority knows that it is only through \nviolence and the threat of violence that they can maintain ownership of \nthe means of production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And here we have the origin of all social power: the relationship of \nan individual and his class to the production of the means of life. No \nindividual or group can force anyone to do anything without the threat \nof the removal of access to the means of living (sometimes absolute or, \nmore often, various degrees of imposed poverty). Authority is given to \nthose who have undertaken to protect the wealth and power of the \nminority ruling class. Those who are seen to be successful in doing this\n acquire access to a higher rank which can potentially lead to the \n\u2018presidency\u2019 itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course those with \u2018connections\u2019have a head start on all of the \nothers but even these privileged individuals will get nowhere if they \nare not seen to do their job with the ruthlessness, duplicity and \nimmorality needed to justify oppression, exploitation and greed. Given \nthe nature of such success and the character and skill set it requires \nit is not surprising that it is the insecure, sociopathic and \nnarcissistic who are most likely to succeed. Paradoxically it is quite \npossible, within this cultural context, for the weakest (in terms of \nmoral integrity and intellectual insight) to access the highest office. \nThe weak are attracted to power and power seeks out the weak. Given this\n perspective can we say that those thought of as having the most power \nare, in fact, among the weakest within the community?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not so great men <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Biographers spend their time seeking out the \u2018essence\u2019of a \npersonality \u2013what is it that sets the famous (or infamous) apart from \nthe rest of us? Biographies of leaders focus on this element within the \nsubject\u2019s character and come up with titles like: The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler <\/em>or God<\/em>\u2019<\/em>s Englishman<\/em> (Oliver Cromwell) etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many of these individuals are driven personalities who seem to be \ndesperate to prove something about themselves to others. Ironically one \ndefinition of strength is the relative absence of this egotistical \nobsession. But before we get too taken up with the popular hobby of \npseudo-psychology what is usually overlooked in such biographies is that\n when a society believes in the myth of leadership it creates leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is the office and not the individual (who emerges, invariably, as a\n great disappointment in terms of character analysis) that needs to be \nanalysed if we seek the origin of perceived power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The myth of a dominion that flows downwards from some ultimate \nauthority is still very prevalent. In fact it is quite the opposite: \nruling classes rule through the illusion of individual leadership which \nis ultimately dependent on the political manipulation of the masses. \nThis is made possible by the stability, or otherwise, of political \ninstitutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When such historical stability is absent a ruling class may lose \ncontrol of the individuals it has promoted to look after its interests. \nSuch an occasion was the weakness of the Weimar Republic in Germany in \nthe 1930s that allowed the rise of the Nazis and Hitler.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Capitalism\u2019s failures had led to the political disillusion of \nmillions at that time in Europe and many supported leaders who made \npromises to radically change things; and the true litmus of any \nattribution of power is this ability to bring about change. With the \nwhole power of the state concentrated in his hands did Hitler bring \nabout any profound and lasting change?<\/p>\n\n\n\n For those who lived and died through the Second World War Hitler\u2019s \ndecisions obviously had a great impact but the \u2018Thousand Year Reich\u2019was \nquickly seen as the delusionary mirage of a madman. Fascism is the most \nunstable form of government and depends on continued military success. \nHitler\u2019s power was dependent on the maintenance of an illusion and \nillusions cannot survive the realities of the momentum of history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Millions believed in him but he was still just a troubled insecure \nlittle man who understood nothing of historical reality and believed in \nthe myths of racism and German legend. Change happens as a result of a \nconfluence of elements: development of productive technology, failure of\n old relations of production and the subsequent ideological doubt and \ntheoretical innovation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cromwell, Napoleon, Lenin and Hitler rode on the coat-tails of change\n and were not instigators of it. Without the ability to instigate change\n individual power is seen for what it really is \u2013merely a licence to \nbully; and that is always an indicator of weakness and never of \nstrength.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Myth of political competence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If we turn to the reasons why the majority still believe in this myth\n of individual political power we, as ever, have to look deeply into our\n own motivations, needs and paradigms. Quite often when discussing \nsocialism someone will accept our case but will then confidently declare\n that most everyone else would not have the intelligence or education to\n believe in it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This \u2018projection\u2019 onto others of political ignorance is usually an \nindication of the intellectual insecurity of the speaker. We live in a \nworld of \u2018specialisms\u2019 where the division of intellectual labour is \nexclusive and rarely inclusive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As children we turned to our parents to explain the world and in \nlater life we turn to our doctor, accountant, priest, therapist, lawyer,\n mechanic or IT expert. The different talents of individuals and our \nsocial interdependence make this a rational procedure but, in the end, \nit is you who have to make the decisions and in the full knowledge that \nexperts can be, and often are, mistaken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The great problem with representative (bourgeois) democracy is that \nyour right to make decisions concerning your life is given to another \nfor five years and, as we\u2019ve seen, those decisions are made not in your \ninterest but in the interest of the ruling class. We are told that \nsomehow these representatives are more knowledgeable or somehow more \ntalented at knowing what\u2019s good for you than you are. In effect they are\n claiming to be your parents and in this way the system infantilises the\n electorate. Another myth lurks here: that of \u2018privileged\u2019information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many believe that once the \u2018corridors of power\u2019have been accessed \nthen, depending on the individual\u2019s level of security, the secrets \nexposed provide a privileged insight into \u2018what\u2019s really happening in \nthe world\u2019. This is at the heart of the reason for the proliferation of \nconspiracy theories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is somehow more comforting to believe that a Machiavellian \nconspiracy is responsible for the anarchy, suffering and immorality of \ncapitalism rather than the impersonal and innate amoral character of the\n system itself. Although the secrecy of any political establishment has \nsomething to do with disguising corruption and lies it has everything to\n do with preserving the myth of political competence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reality of stupidity and ignorance would immediately reveal the \nalmost complete absence of the ability to change or direct capitalism in\n any major respect; the \u2018corridors of power\u2019 would be seen as all \u2018smoke\n and mirrors\u2019. Parliaments the world over are merely the fa\u00e7ades of the \nillusion of control; they provide a political diversion masquerading as \ndemocratic power while the ruling class and their functionaries get on \nwith their real business of exploiting everyone and everything for \nprofit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Again and again we see the dangers of attributing power to \nindividuals, both in the hubris of those who think they have it and in \nthe impotent illusion of those who think it is politically legitimate \nfor \u2018exceptional\u2019 individuals to wield it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n WEZ<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" We have seen it all before but once again heads of state have been indulging in verbal international belligerence. Whether it is a matter of trade, borders or resources such leaders feel it is both their role and duty to be seen to protect the \u2018national interest\u2019. Most commentators for the media and their readers…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2868,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"magazine_newspaper_sidebar_layout":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2865","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2865","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2865"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2865\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2866,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2865\/revisions\/2866"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2868"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2865"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}