QUYỀN LỰC

by Bertrand Russell, Nguyễn Vương Chấn (Translator), Đàm Xuân Cận (Translator)

Con người đối với con người không hơn gì ác thủ rừng sâu. Những bạo động, âm mưu, thanh toán đã xô đẩy con người vào những bị kịch đầy ắp hận thù, lo âu, nước mắt, máu và hối hận. Nhưng chỉ một trận chiến vừa qua đi là con người lại mưu toan, sửa soạn cho những trận chiến kế tiếp. Lịch sử nhân loại cận đại và hiện đại đã cho thấy nhiều cơn cuống bão như muốn hủy diệt bao công trình văn minh con người đã dày công xây đắp.
Russell là một khuôn mặt lớn trong triết học và toán học. Ông là một triết gia lỗi lạc, nhưng công trình không chỉ giới hạn trong những tác phẩm triết học hoặc toán học, lòng yêu thương con người đã khiến ông viết rất nhiều về những vấn đề xã hội mà cuốn Quyền lực là một trong số đó. Ông đặc biệt nhấn mạnh đến sự tiến hóa của ý niệm quyền lực theo suốt dòng lịch sử, trên quan điểm nhân bản, đứng về đám đông nhân loại đang gào thét đòi hỏi công lý, đòi con người phải đối xử nhân đạo với chính con người.

“Một nghiên cứu tuyền bắc và nhạy bén"

- The Economist -

"Một phân tích cực thấu suốt về bản chất con người trong hoạt động chính trị."

- The Sunday Times -

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Sociology, History, Psychology, Social Science

356 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1938

About the author

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

Reviews

[Mohammad Ranjbari · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتابی که هر ایرانیِ درگیر زندگی روزمره با بن مایۀ سیاسی- اجتماعی باید بخواند!

در واقع نمی دانم از کجای کتاب شروع کنم. از ماهیت قدرت و یا ابزارهای اعمال قدرت و تشدید و یا رام کردن آن. اما در ضرورت دانستن این مطالب حتمیتی برای ما پنهان است. بخصوص برای رهایی از غشای شبه آگاهی فضای مجازی. ساختار و ماهیت انواع حکومت ها و روش شکل گیری و بروز و سقوط آنها، رویکردها و تصمیمات مختلفی را می طلبد. این نکته را برتراند راسل با آگاهی تمام و با بررسی حکومت های ملی و محلی کشورهای اروپایی و آمریکا و آسیا، از دورۀ باستان تا روزگار خود، تحلیل و ارائه می کند. او با قلم خود حکومت های فاشیستی ایتالیا و هیتلر و زورگویان زمان را مورد انتقاد قرار داده و پیشگویی های قابل تاملی ارائه می دهد.رویکرد اصلی کتاب در واقع بیشتر حول محور تخفیف قدرت و کاستن آن و به عبارتی رام کردن قدرت است. نامی که عنوان یک فصل از این کتاب نیز هست.

«برای جهان امیدی نیست، مگر آن که بتوانیم قدرت را مهار کنیم و آن را نه در خدمت این گروه یا آن جبار متعصب، بلکه در خدمت تمامی نوع بشر به کار بگماریم، از سفید و زرد و سیاه، فاشیست و کمونیست و دموکرات، زیرا که علم وضعی پیش آورده است که یا همه بمانند یا همه بمیرند». ص 51

سرشت و سجایای حاکمان و قانونگذاران و اعمال کنندگان قانون و قدرت باید رفتار متناسبی داشته باشند. متناسب به این معنا همیشه در حصار قانون مورد حمایت قرار بگیرند، نه توسط حزب و گروه خاص یا فشار و زور و تحمیل. رسیدن به چنین حالتی سخت است و تاریخ نشان داده که کمتر جامعه ای بدان دست یافته و در صرت دستیابی هم به آسانی آن را از دست داده است.
هیچ چیز برای مردم از دموکراسی با ارزش تر نیست و هیچ چیز نیز مانند دموکراسی نتوانسته تودۀ مردم را فریب دهد. زیرا مردم را به این گمان می اندازد که حکومت دست خودشان است.
عنصر دین و دخالت آن در نوع دولت، سوای فواید مختصر و کم دوام، می تواند بهترین زمینه برای سو استفاده دولتمردان باشد. زیرا شرایط آینده را در گرو ابهام های دینی قرار می دهند و مردم نیز انتظارات خود را از روی اجبار یا اعتقاد به تعویق می اندازند. چنین حالتی باعث می شود جامعه برای خود ایدئولوژی هایی را طراحی و منتشر کند و آن ایدئولوژی که ضامن بقای یک سیستم قرار گیرد و از دهان دولت بیان گردد، جز بیماری و استبداد و یا رکود، نتیجه ای نخواهد داشت.
قدرت، برای هر پدیده ای در جهان غیر قابل پیش بینی است، از شیرِ سلطان جنگل گرفته تا هیتلر و ...
بنابرین راسل با قاطعیت تمام اعلام می دارد:

«زندگی اجتماعی اگر بخواهد آرزوهای اجتماعی را برآورَد باید بر اساس فلسفه ای استوار شود که از عشق به قدرت برنخاسته باشد». ص 276

دوست داشتم بسیار در مورد این کتاب بنویسم اما دعوت می کنم از دوستان که این کتاب را با ترجمۀ زیبای دریابندری بخوانند و بدانند. چون من به نکات خوبی پی بردم.
98/01/01

[Clif · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bertrand Russell delved deeply into logic over his long life, going so far as to develop a symbolic language of logic. He found that some problems that appeared to be unsolvable were only so due to the way they were stated. Language can be an impediment to understanding because we use it so casually paying little attention to meaning and assuming, in most cases correctly, that others will know what we mean.

In his writing Russell is always at pains to make himself perfectly clear, choosing his words as a sculptor might choose his strikes on a piece of marble. This is why I find Russell's popular works so enjoyable. He makes his points simply but powerfully. Time after time he makes statements that I can't imagine could be better phrased. I'll give some examples below.

In this little book, he handles what causes humanity so much trouble: the desire for power that is present in all of us, but which is too easily grabbed by the few to rule over the many.

Starting with a description of individual variation regarding power, he divides people up into three groups. The first is self-confident and feels entitled to power. The second group is by comparison timid and prefers to let others lead. Members of the third group neither seek power nor are timid, but prefer to stand apart from the contest enjoying power in mastery of self. It follows that the members of the first group gain positions of authority because it is important to their self regard that they do so.

This leaves a minority ruling over the majority and as Russell says, "Whenever a minority has a secure monopoly of political power, the majority is likely to sink, sooner or later, into either slavery or serfdom. All history shows that minorities cannot be trusted to care for the interests of majorities."

Russell outlines the way that power has been exercised through history. He describes the means of rule that we all know about such as tyranny, priestly rule, and royal hereditary rule showing how each one has advantages and disadvantages. He goes into how power is exercised from "naked" power (direct force) that inspires fear through the more subtle methods of propaganda, education, economic rewards and punishments that, if successful to the leadership, build within a public a mythology of the society so deeply held that citizens are compliant without the need of coercion.

The qualities that are valued in the powerful vary among societies. Honor, wisdom, wealth and persuasion have all been admired as characteristic of leadership over the ages with society structured accordingly to advance those who show particular traits.

We read of how power changes through revolution and what conditions are necessary to bring a society to the point of violent uprising. It is here that royalty shows stability, while tyranny by an individual does not. Heredity rule through "royal blood" is patently absurd as each generation of any family does not necessarily carry on traits, good or bad, of ancestors, but the important point with royalty is family rule can eliminate contention for power, there being only one royal first born, preventing civil war over succession. By the way, in history, the word tyrant did not mean a bad ruler. Tyrants could be good rulers and were usually preferred to the chaos that democracy could bring more often than not.

All of this is wonderful reading, but Russell is out to make a point that democracy alone, with the rule of the majority, is the one and only way that power can be exercised that will look out for the welfare of the ordinary citizen. Yet it is a fragile structure that depends upon civil stability to endure. The end is near when contending parties stop recognizing each other as equals and begin to make charges that one group is good and another evil. Compromise is the foundation of democracy, so it is cause for concern when, for example, we see a president and Congress in a standoff as we do right now over the border wall, and government shutdowns become routine. When there is a significant minority that wants to bring down the entire system for whatever reason and can bring the system to a halt, democracy becomes unworkable and calls begin for a strong leader to take control. Ancient Greece was well acquainted with this.

Quoting Russell, remembering this book was published in 1938 while keeping modern America in mind, is a good way to influence you to read the book. Here he is on debt/credit regarding the importance of respect for the law in a citizenry to keep it accepting the way things are (think of the bank bailout and the law to prevent student debtors from declaring bankruptcy):

"Where law is not all powerful, money lenders are, at intervals, murdered by debtors...It is only where law is respected and enforced that the borrower has to go on paying interest until he is ruined. Where that happens, economic power passes from the borrower to the lender, and that lender is usually a bank."

Russell on a challenge democracy faces (think of the issue of global warming today and the elimination of the OTA, the Office of Technology Assessment, in 1994 by Newt Gingrich):

"(democracy) must be capable of acting speedily without consulting the electorate and it must be able to act on technical expertise that the electorate lacks."

Russell on the justice system (I had never thought of this powerful point):

"The power of the state is all on the side of the prosecution...the ablest lawyers are employed by the state to create prejudice against you in a jury. You, meanwhile must spend your private fortune collecting evidence of your innocence...There should be an equally powerful police and justice department on the side of the defense, as the acquittal of the innocent is of equal importance to the conviction of the guilty."

And finally, this marvelous statement on the education necessary to limit power in a democracy:

"A population should be free of hatred, fear and subservience. Teaching obedience above all produces either rebels or slaves, not proper citizens who assert opinion up to a point but no further (that is, not resorting to violence or refusal to compromise)...Beware of talk of principle, self-sacrifice and heroic devotion as a disguise for hatred, fear and revenge...this is opposed with a happy and secure childhood coupled with a scientific habit of mind, a temper halfway between dogmatism and skepticism."

I'm sorry Russell is gone, but he left us a wealth of food for thought of which Power is a part.

[Xander · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting work of Bertrand Russell in his later years. His aim in Power: A New Social Analysis is to establish power as the fundamental concept in all of the human sciences, similar to the role the concept of energy plays in the natural sciences. Russell argues that power takes on different forms - traditional (by kings or priests), naked (lacking inherited authority), revolutionary (the establishment of a new creed), economic, and propagandistic (through persuasion).

Wihtin societies, power takes on many different forms, often there's a complex mixture of different groups holding different types of power, and power changes form through time. In the latter parts of the book, Russell argues that power accumulates - not just economic power, like Karl Marx already predicted in the 1840's - and that most power starts with military force of one group over others. Through force, this group of vigilantes, is usually able to establish economic dominance - i.e. plunder transforms into taxation and landed wealth. Likewise, the moral codes or creeds of those groups are spread by force and persuasion.

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw democratic developments in which power bases were broken up and divided among different social groups. After democracy died a spiritual death after The Great War (1914-1918) certain revolutionary groups were able - all over the world - to revert back to enforce their power through their fanatic creeds and revolutionary power. This book was published in 1938, meaning fascism, nazism and communism play a big role in his analysis of power. He correctly views these creeds as temporary, yet he acknowledges modern technology has drastically changed propaganda, military and economic power.

A very interesting chapter is Chapter 16, which deals with power philosophies. Russell claims that solipsism (Fichte), pragmatism, hero-morality (Nietzsche) and Creative Evolution (Bergson) are all self-refuting d0ctrines. These philosophies all propagate power doctrines - i.e. the notion that individual desire is the origin of truth and certainty - which will subsequently lead to a situation in which the doctrine itself cannot hold. For example, solipsism holds as long as no controversy arises among the people who view themselves the Creator of reality. As soon as two or more of these claim so, they refute the others, and conflict arises. This conflict will lead to the realization that they are not alone, after all. In the same vein, the pragmatist holds that what is true is what is beneficial. But beneficial to whom? Not to the person who is not the pragmatist - Hitler viewed his doctrines as true, but I'm sure the Jews (and later the Allied Forces) didn't...

The general importance of these remarks is the acknowledgment that all of us have a desire for power. Most philosophers primarily develop ethics which are good and benificent to/for themselves and only secondarily universalize them - rare is the person who loves mankind as such (Russell mentions Buddha, Christ, Pythagoras and Galileo as the four best examples of persons lacking a will to power.) Peaceful, stable and just societies find a means to curb the destructiveness of these desires, yet construct valves through which these energies can escape.

In the final chapter, Russell lays out the conditions for just such a society. In this he recycles his older ideas on education, democracy, economics and politics. According to him, we need:

1. Democracy with checks and balances, controlling associations, political balance and a counterweight of police and law (attempting to establish the innocence of the accused).

2. Public ownership and control of large scale industry and finance through democratic State control (i.e. social democracy/democratic socialism). Economic competition should be garantueed, which means monopoly-formation should be hindered. Accumulation of military and economic control should be hindered through distribution of power and autonomy of subordinate groups.

3. Government monopoly on propaganda combined with freedom of propaganda. Representation of different viewpoints on each topic, as far as possible impartial coverage. Within science, art and party politics: no uniformity at all - unreigned competition.

4. Curbing of enthusiasm/fanaticism and prevention of war (as the road to despotism). Education should be aimed at the development of free-thinking (as opposed to instilling submissiveness, the road to dictatorship) and intellectual honesty (being able to see both sides of an argument and form your own opinion). The medicine is to learn people to psychoanalyze all claims to principles, which are mostly collectivized and idealized desires for revenge, pride or hatred.

In general, what we need is a society of individuals who have learned to rest in the "half-way house between scepticism and dogmatism" is a condition for a peaceful and stable democracy, a just economy, and intellectual growth.

I was really impressed by Russell's book. Written during the spread of totalitarianism (in Europe as well as Asia), and its immediate threat to liberal democracies everywhere, his plea is one of common sense. There is a desire for power in almost all of us, which is part of the human condition. Only be recognizing this fact, by constructing society in ways that this power can be used for creation, and mostly by preventing war through the application of mass psychology and creeds fostering fanaticism, can we hope to establish a safer and healthier world for all of us, notwithstanding any race or nationality. As always, Russell tells it like it is; he doesn't make matters more difficult or obscure as necessary; and he calls a spade a spade.

In my opinion, this book should be mandatory in high schools and colleges all over the world, together with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932), Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and George Orwell's 1984 (1948). Some will remark that Russell's philosophical analysis lacks the scientific backbone to be useful. I disagree wholeheartedly - we need more philosophical analysis and less scientism in matters political and economic.

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

A '38-as év egyik divatos gondolati trendje volt a Marx-i elmélet, miszerint minden a gazdaság körül forog, és belőle levezethető. A másik meg ugye a náci, khm, nevezzük jobb híján "gondolatnak", hogy a vér az élet. (Ilyesmit amúgy előtte Dracula mondott, és hát fel is fedezhető némi szellemi rokonság Hitler és a vámpírpápa között.) Russell viszont udvariasan jelzi, hogy srácok, ti mind meg vagytok bolondulva, a történelmi folyamatok mögött ugyanis nem ezek, hanem a hatalom ide-oda áramlása áll. Ebben a megközelítésben a hatalom olyan, mint egy fizikai jelenség, egyfajta társadalmi gravitációs törvény - megpróbálhatjuk ugyan irányítani vagy megszelidíteni, de kivonni magunkat a hatásai alól lehetetlen.



Russell megkülönböztet kétfajta hatalmat - az egyik a közvetlen, a másik a közvetett. Előbbi azokban testesül meg, akik a hatalmat tételesen gyakorolják: politikusokban, vállalatvezetőkben, vallási prófétákban. Ők ugye olyan sokan nincsenek, ha csak velük kéne megbirkózni, hamar elrendeződnének a velük kapcsolatos problémák. Csak ugye vannak a tömegek, akik hatalomvágyukat közvetetten élik meg, azzal, hogy egy csoporthoz csatlakozva annak potenciálját saját potenciáljuknak tekintik. Ez olyasmi, mint amiről a mondás szól, miszerint: "A konyak a munkásosztály itala, amit választott képviselői útján fogyaszt." No most a közvetlen hatalom gyakorlója a másik csoport nélkül csak egy bolond a zárt osztályon, aki Napóleonnak képzeli magát, utóbbiakkal szövetkezve viszont tényszerűen Napóleon - kettejük szövetsége szimbiózis, ami alkalomadtán ronda egy zuzmóvá fejlődik. Ez a zuzmó ugyan nem szükségszerűen parazita (mint említettem, Russell a hatalom meglétét, közösségszervező erejét kvázi társadalmi szükségszerűségnek tartja), de mivel érdekelt saját fennmaradásában, ezért folyamatos kísértésnek van kitéve, hogy ne a közösség érdekeit, hanem önmagát tekintse prioritásnak. És sajnos túl sok eszköze van ahhoz, hogy ezt elfogadtassa az irányítottakkal is - például a propaganda vagy az állami erőszakszervezetek. Ezzel szemben a vezetetteknek egyetlen eszközük van, hogy a hatalmat kordában tartsák: a demokrácia.

A gondolkodás nemessége elegáns mondatokban csomagolva és váratlanul finom humorral spékelve - Russel nagyon szimpatikus lett nekem. Külön tetszik, hogy nem adja meg magát a korszak általános depressziójának, hanem egy nagyon is előremutató, produktív és humánus megközelítést alkalmaz, ami mindazonáltal végig higgadt és tárgyszerű marad. Tulajdonképpen lenyűgöző, hogy egy sötét és vészjósló időszakban képes volt megfogalmazni azokat a tendenciákat és lehetőségeket, amelyek aztán a második világháború után a demokráciáról való gondolkodás alapkövei lettek. Ha van hibája a kötetnek, hát az paradox módon éppen ez: hogy amit mond, az olyan ismerős, mintha mindig ezeken a kérdéseket elmélkedtünk volna.

[Rêbwar · Rating 3 out of 5]

گاهی حقیقت، نه در عدالت و نه در آزادی، بلکه در سایه سنگین قدرت شکل می‌گیرد؛ جایی که انسان‌ها، سازمان‌ها و ایدئولوژی‌ها در جدالی بی‌پایان برای تسلط بر یکدیگر می‌چرخند. برتراند راسل در قدرت، همچون یک جراح اجتماعی، پیکره پیچیده مناسبات انسانی را می‌شکافد تا ریشه‌های سلطه را در جان و روان بشر نشان دهد. او قدرت را نه صرفاً ابزاری سیاسی، بلکه جوهری زنده می‌بیند که در اقتصاد، فرهنگ، ارتش و نهادهای مدنی جریان دارد و پیوسته شکل عوض می‌کند.

راسل در این کتاب – که در سال ۱۹۳۸ و در دل طوفان فاشیسم اروپایی نوشته شد – به جای تحلیل انتزاعی، تاریخ را چون صحنه‌ای زنده پیش چشم می‌آورد: از امپراتوری‌ها و انقلاب‌ها تا ظهور و سقوط ایدئولوژی‌ها. او چهار محور اصلی را می‌کاود: نخست، میل به قدرت به‌عنوان بخشی جدانشدنی از سرشت انسان؛ دوم، تنوع و درهم‌تنیدگی شکل‌های مختلف قدرت اجتماعی؛ سوم، پیوند ناگزیر سازمان‌ها با شخصیت‌هایی که آن‌ها را هدایت یا منحرف می‌کنند؛ و چهارم، ضرورت مهار قدرت خودکامه پیش از آنکه به فاجعه بینجامد.

این اثر، پاسخی است به جزم‌گرایی‌هایی که همه‌چیز را به یک علت فرو می‌کاهند؛ پاسخی به مارکسیسمی که اقتصاد را علت‌العلل می‌داند. راسل با نگاهی چندوجهی، تصویری از «پویایی اجتماعی» ارائه می‌دهد که در آن، قدرت اقتصادی می‌تواند به سلطه نظامی بدل شود، سلطه نظامی به اقتدار فرهنگی، و اقتدار فرهنگی دوباره بذر تغییرات اقتصادی را بکارد.

خواندن این کتاب، نه فقط شناخت سازوکار قدرت، بلکه مواجهه با پرسشی عمیق است: آیا ما قدرت را مهار می‌کنیم، یا قدرت است که ما را شکل می‌دهد؟

[Foad Ansari · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب قدرت نوشته راسل اولین کتابی است که از این فیلسوف منطقی و صلح دوست انگلیسی میخونم هر چند راسل یک ریاضیدان بوده است هر چند که
انگاه ریاضی و منطقی به شرایط اجتماعی و سیاسی باعث میشود که ناظر از خیلی چیزها صرفنظر کند دقیقا کاری که ما در ریاضی میکردیم واز ایکس صرفنظر میکردیم ولی در واقع همان جزییات و مسایل نقض لازمه که گفته بشه و تحلیل بشه هر چند راسل اینقدر عاقل است که خود را به چیزی گره نزند و حکم قطعی را هم صادر نکند.

تمام بحث کتاب در مورد آثار و نتایج قدرت است و صحبت اینکه قدرت چیست و چگونه به دست می آید و چگونه باید آن را کنترل کرد. راسل قدرت را در دین و اخلاق در رهبران سیاسی و در کلیسا و نابغه ها و فلاسفه و میان پلیسان و نویسندگان و اشخاص عادی جستجو میکند و در مورد آن بحث میکند و آن را حلاجی میکند در جایی از کتاب به شدت به نیچه تاخته است و فلسفه ابر مرد و پهلوان را زیر سوال برده است. میگوید هر کسی که کتاب نیچه را بخواند خود فکر میکند که ابر مرد است و بقیه گوسفند پس میتواند بقیه را از بین ببرد در حالیکه فکر نمیکند شاید کس دیگری که همسایه من است همین حس را بکند و من را به شکل گوسفند قربانی ببیند. این از بین بردن بقیه فلسفه ی قدیمی است که تا کنون نیز دنبال شده شاید منظور داستایفسکی از کشتن ربا خوار هم همین بود و اتفقا راسکولنیکف این حق ر ابرای خود قایل بود هر چند داستایفسکی در انتهای کتاب به عقل و وجدان بازگشت گرچه اول داستان میگفت هر مصلحی برای نجات جهان باید خون بریزد.

به جرات میتوانم بگویم که مابین تفکر رهبران و افراد با نفوذ که خواند آثارشان را مفید می دانم فقط کامو و راسل را دیدم که انسان را از کشتن دیگران به خاطر آرمان و تعصب بر حذر داشته اند بقیه کسانی که با آنها آشنا هستم یا سکوت کرده اند یا تشویق به آدمکشی البته گروه جدید و نو از انسانها را باید کشت که تمام تمایز همینجاست که میگویند ما با کشتار فلان گروه مخالفیم ولی نظر خاصی در خصوص این افراد یا این نژاد نداریم.
یا حداقل در عمل با آن مخالفند

در همه کتاب راسل هم چون کامو و مثل سایر روشنفکران غرب معتقدند که پیامبران افراد بزرگ و نابغه ای هستند که مسیر جهان را عوض کردند و آنها را صاحب وحی و منزلت خاصی نمی داند و فقط هوش و وسعت نظر آنها را که عموما از تنهایی و تفکر و رنج ناشی شده مورد بحث قرار می دهد. او در قسمتی ا زکتاب میگوید من چهار انسان بزرگ را میشناسم به اسم بودا و مسیح و گالیله و فیثاغورث که محتاج حکومت نبوده اند و قدرت را نه با زور بلکه با فراموش کردن خود و رواج علم یا اخلاق بین انسانها به دست آورده اند و می گوید پیامبر اسلام به خوشبختی و اخلاق برای همه انسانها می اندیشیده است و چون نفع عموم در این بوده و تفکراتش محدود به خود نبوده توفیق یافته است. در نتیجه راسل قدرت را تنها به شکلی میپذیرد که آشوب و جنگ بر پا نکند و در خدمت پیشرفت اخلاق و علم همه باشد و نه یک گروه و سازمان و فرد و شانس موفقیت و ماندگاری را هم برای صلح و اخلاق یعنی طوری که توضیح دادم قایل است.

در خصوص قدرت پلیس به جمله ی زیبایی اشاره می کند که

گرد آوری دلایل جرم متهم کاری است مورد علاقه مردم اما گردآوری دلایل برائت او کاری است مربوط به خود متهم 298

قسمت آخر کتاب را یعنی چند صفحه ای ر ابه صحبت در مورد دمکراسی اختصاص میدهد و میگوید یک شهروند نه شورشی است و نه برده و با این خصوصیات است که هم سهم خود را میخواهد و هم برای دیگران هم آن سهم یا حق را قایل است راسل هیجانات هیستریک آرمانگرایی و تشنج و تعصب را باعث کشتار و جنگ می داند و میگوید ترکیب شکاکیت و جزمیت همچنان که در علم موثر است در جامعه و رفتار سیاسی نیز موثر است یعنی باید اینگونه پنداشت که نه میتوان حقیقت را کامل یافت و نه حقیقت دست نیافتنی است بلکه به مقداری از آن می توانیم دست پیدا کنیم او آرمانگرا ها و ناسیونالیستها ر اکه به راحتی آدم میکشند و جنگ راه می اندازند مورد نقد قرار میدهند شاید تفکرات راسل را میتوان در عمل و کردار گاندی مشاهده کرد یعنی همان قاطعیت بدون هیجان و بدون خونریزی و جنگ. البته گاندی همین مقابله را با کشور راسل یعنی انگلستان انجام داد!

درست است که راسل فیلسوف است و این کتاب هم فلسفی اما به ساده ترین و عاقلانه ترین شیوه ممکن و با دقت و انظبات خاصی نوشته و باید بگویم که با همون ظرافت ترجمه شده ترجمه کسی مثل نجف دریابندری که کتابهای همنیگوی را هم ترجمه کرده و مترجمی به غایت توانا و حرفه ای است که در اوایل کتاب راسل را در چند زمینه به شدت نقد می کند و کمتر مترجمی رو سراغ داشته ام که با جرات و اطمینان چنین نقدی را از یک فیلسوف مشهور بکند آنهم با ذکر دلایل متعدد.

[Holmes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Russell's analysis of forms of power is thorough and persuasive. Though dated in some parts, the book is nonetheless highly relevant in modern times, where power everywhere still goes largely unchecked. My favourite quote in the book:

"The ultimate aim of those who have power (and we all have some) should be to promote social cooperation, not in one group as against another, but in the whole human race. The chief obstacle to this end at present is the existence of feelings of unfriendliness and desire for superiority. Such feelings can be diminished either directly by religion and morality, or indirectly by removing the political and economic circumstances for power between States and the connected competition for wealth between large national industries. Both methods are needed: they are not alternatives, but supplement each other."

[Mat · Rating 4 out of 5]

راسل این کتاب رو در بحبوحه ی جریانات اروپا پس از به قدرت رسیدن نازی ها نوشته .زمانی که نگرانی های عمومی از نحوه ی حکومت و کشورداری در اروپا به اوج خودش رسیده بود.
او پس از تعریف و تحلیل قدرت طبق نظریه پردازیای خودش به اثرات نوع قدرت بر نظام اقتصادی و اجتماعی میپردازه و نمونه های تاریخی رو در جهت اثبات صحبتاش مثال میزنه

[Muhammed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Son derece açık bir anlatım. İktidarı çeşitli açılardan incelemeye tabi tutan Russell'ın 'yalın' ve 'geleneksel' iktidar tanımlarını çok başarılı buldum. Cinsel iktidardan hiç bahsetmemiş olması ise bence eseri biraz zayıf kılmış.

[Baktash · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب در مورد نحوه ی به وجود اومدن،تاثیر و پیامدهای انواع قدرت است. کتاب تحلیلی همراه با مثالها و نمونه های تاریخی است. فصل های قدرت برهنه و قدرت انقلابی بسیار خواندنی بود و یه جورایی آینه ی انقلاب نور!! خودمون و نحوه ی حفظ و نگهداریش توسط سردمداران خودمون بود.
کتاب رو بسیار دوس داشتم و حس میکنم نکات زیادی زیر دستم سر خورده است. احتمالن یک سری از فصل هاش رو دوباره و دوباره خواهم خواند :-)

[Farah Irshad · Rating 4 out of 5]

- The right of free speech is nugatory unless it includes the right to say things that may have unpleasant consequences to certain individuals or classes.

- It is often said that men are ruled by their imagination; but it would be truer to say that they are governed by the weakness of their imaginations.

- And the more men have been made to live in a fool's paradise, the more they will be horrified and discouraged by the reality.

[Spicy T AKA Mr. Tea · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this up a few years ago, read the intro, and put it down. I admit, it's a bit slow and for more than half the book, he is simply describing different institutions and forms of power. I was glad when I picked it up the second time and didn't stop because as he goes on exploring power, he occasionally says something profound or least eye catching "The man who has vast mechanical power at his command is likely, if uncontrolled, to feel himself a god--not a Christian God of Love, but a pagan Thor or Vulcan," or "I call power naked when it results merely from the power-loving impulses of individuals or groups, and wins from its subjects only submission through fear, not active cooperation," or "The most successful democratic politicians are those who succeed in abolishing democracy and becoming dictators," or "Power over opinion, like all other forms of power, tends to coalescence and concentration, leading logically to a State monopoly," or "Where these conditions are absent, governments may seek to produce them by censorship and persecution, if they are severe, cause men to become out of touch with reality, and ignorant or oblivious of facts which it is important to know," and finally, though this isn't all of them, "The broad rule is that a State conquers what it can, and stops only when it reaches a frontier at which some other State or States can exert a pressure as strong as its own."

At the end of the book, in his chapter "The Taming of Power" is where I really appreciated his work. He talks about how minorities, throughout history, have not had the interests of majorities at hand. He discusses how the problem of power must be met by the taming or accountability of power by the majority. Because power coalesces and concentrates, it's vital to have checks and balances that redistribute that power for the good of all. He ends the chapter taking a hard look at education and how to develop a democratic populace that has the values of taming power through critical reflection inculcated in education.

Accessible, not verbose, a little bland at the start but progressively gets better. I recommend.

[Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book. It’s 20% profound, 40% off-the-wall weird, and 40% recycled political commentary. The good parts are so good I didn't even mind that last. Essentially, Russell, surveying with dismay Europe in the late 1930s, and with the probability of an apocalyptic European war firmly in mind, descends from the Olympian heights of mathematics to clear up the bothersome matters of culture and society. The basic idea is that we should understand society—and completely reinterpret history and social science—in terms of status and power relations. I happen to agree, and you can see a lot of future advances in social theory and social science taking shape in this book, often in a looser and more creative (if sometimes less accurate) form, so it works for me. Russell has an odd fascination with the Renaissance popes, and thinks the Reformation happened because they spent down the Church's accumulated social capital. Again, pretty much right, but with me he's preaching to the choir. He also, charmingly, expects the reader to follow his Victorian Oxbridge academic references—untranslated Greek, obscure historical personalities, &c.—completely without explanation, which earns points with me. Look this shit up. You'd probably be better off reading later and more rigorous work, but I enjoyed this immensely. There's something to watching a superlative mind work with new ideas. Even the mistakes are enlightening.

[Duong · Rating 3 out of 5]

Để mà nói về cuốn này thì quả là thất vọng, vì mình đọc xong mà mình ngu người luôn ấy, chưa đọc bản gốc, nhưng nếu bản dịch kiểu này thì hoảng quá. Mình có cảm giác mọi thứ đều được đề cập, mọi thứ đều được lôi ra để trên mặt giấy, nhưng chẳng đi sâu được bao nhiêu cả. Với tham vọng này thì phải cỡ 1 cuốn sách như "Súng vi trùng và thép" mới có thể viết hết, chứ cuốn này mỏng bằng cuốn Tàn ngày để lại thôi á, thì chỉ cưỡi ngựa xem hoa.

[Andrea Rodríguez Zavala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro muy interesante solamente que me tardé demasiado en terminarlo.

[Korhan Günsor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bertrand Russell'a Göre İktidar Sorunsalında Yol Gösteren Argümanlar:

Bertrand Russell'ın "İktidar" adlı eseri, sosyal-felsefe alanındaki önemli bir başyapıttır. Russell, bu eserde çeşitli yönetim yapılarını ve iktidar biçimlerini kapsamlı bir şekilde ele alır. Eser, oligarşiden demokrasiye, monarşiden sosyalizme kadar uzanan bir yelpazede farklı yönetim biçimlerini inceler ve bu biçimlerin toplum üzerindeki etkilerini araştırır.

Russell'ın çalışması, aristokrat, burjuva, elit ideolog gibi çeşitli azınlıkların iktidarlarını ve yönetimlerini analiz eder. Aynı zamanda demokrasi gibi kitlesel yönetim biçimlerini ve çoğulcu lider tiplerini de inceleyerek, bu farklı yönetim biçimlerinin toplumsal dinamikler üzerindeki etkilerini derinlemesine ele alır.

Eserde, Russell, iktidar istencini Karl Marx 'ın mülkiyette ve Sigmund Freud 'un cinsellikte bulduğunu savunur. İktidarın kökenlerini bu perspektiften ele alarak, toplumun iktidar olgusuna nasıl yaklaştığını açıklar.

Ayrıca, eser bağnazlık, hükümetsel dogma, çıkar grupları, sendikalaşma ve seçmen yorgunluğu gibi önemli konuları da ele alır. Russell, siyasal aydınlanmanın ve insan bilinçlenmesinin nasıl barış getirebileceğini vurgular. "İktidar," cahilce hemen politize olmadan en üst politik bilince ulaştıran anahtardır.

"İktidar", Bertrand Russell'ın 1938 tarihli Nobel ödülünün öne çıkan bir eseri olarak okunmalıdır. Russell, bu kitabında güç olgusunu tarihsel bir perspektiften ele alırken, iktidarın kökenlerini, biçimlerini ve etkilerini çözümlemektedir. Kitap, bir dizi başlık altında iktidarın farklı yönlerini inceler:

1. İktidar Nedenleri: Russell, güç edinme ve sürdürme nedenlerini analiz eder.
2. Liderler ve Takipçiler: Liderlik dinamiklerini ve takipçilerin rolünü tartışır.
3. Güç Biçimleri: Farklı güç türlerini sınıflandırır ve açıklar.
4. Rahip Gücü ve Kraliyet Gücü: Din ve krallık gibi geleneksel güç biçimlerini ele alır.
5. Gizlenmemiş Güç: Açıkça görünen ve gizlenen güç arasındaki farkları inceler.
6. Ekonomik Güç: Ekonomik faktörlerin güç üzerindeki etkisini analiz eder.
7. Kamuoyu Üzerindeki Güç: Toplumun düşünce ve davranışlarını etkileyen gücü açıklar.
8. Güç Kaynağı Olarak İnançlar: İnançların güç üzerindeki rolünü ele alır.
9. Yetkiler ve Hükümet Biçimleri: Hükümetlerin güç ilişkilerine etkisini değerlendirir.
10. Kuruluşlar ve Bireyler: Kurumların ve bireylerin güç mücadelesine katkısını inceler.
11. Yarışma: İktidarın rekabetçi doğasını açıklar.
12. Güç ve Ahlak: Güç ile ahlak arasındaki ilişkiyi ele alır.
13. Güç Felsefeleri ve Etik: Farklı güç felsefelerini ve etik konularını tartışır.
14. Evcilleştirme Gücü: Toplumu şekillendiren güç faktörlerini inceler.

Russell'ın bu kitabı, II. Dünya Savaşı öncesi dönemin acımasız güç kullanımını anlamaya çalışırken, gücün doğasını felsefi ve siyaset sosyolojisi açısından detaylı bir şekilde inceler. Kitap, farklı başlıklarda gücü ele alır, din adamları ve kralların perspektifinden iktidar biçimlerini tartışır, ardından "çıplak iktidar" ve "devrimci iktidar"ı açıklar ve ideolojinin iktidarın kökeni üzerindeki etkisini araştırır.

Russell'ın iktidar hakkındaki görüşleri oldukça derindir. Kitapta, ekonomik gücün analizi de yer alır. Russell, ekonomik gücün insan yaşamındaki etkisini tartışır ve Marx 'ın görüşlerinden farklı bir perspektif sunar.

Gücün tanımı konusunda Russell, istenen etkilerin yaratılması olarak tanımlar. Ayrıca, gücü çeşitli kategorilere ayırır, insanlar ve cansız madde üzerindeki güç olarak iki ana türü ele alır.

☠️ Russell, "Ölüm Kültü" ve "Tanrı'nın Ölümü" kavramlarını, insanlığın karşı karşıya olduğu en büyük tehlikelerden biri olarak görmektedir. Bu kavramlar, kitleleri şiddete ve totaliterizme yöneltebilir. Kitapta "Ölüm Kültü" sonucu diye bahsedilen; dini veya ideolojik aşırı köktenci şehitlik merakının pervasızca kitleleri şiddete meyil ettirmesi ve Nietzsche'nin Tanrı'yı öldürmesiyle Hitler gibi insan tanrıların yükselmesinin önünü açması da şöyle işleniyor:
🛠️Komünizmde, ölüm, sınıf mücadelesinin bir sonucu olarak görülür ve şehitlik, devrimin yolunu açan bir eylem olarak kabul edilir. Bu anlayış tarihte, intihar saldırısı içerikli kanlı silahlı propaganda eylemlerine sebeb olmuştur.
💣Bazı kökten-dinci yorumlarda ölüm sıkça inancın bir sınavı olarak görülür ve şehitlik, cennete ulaşmanın yolu olarak kabul edilir. Bu anlayış, Yahudi-Hristiyanlık 'tan İslam'a kadar birçok dini geleneğin içinde bulunur. Ancak, bu tür radikal yorumlar, mezhep kavgaları, intihar saldırıları ve Ortadoğu başta olmak üzere dünya genelinde yaşanan savaşlardaki şiddete yol açmıştır.
🤯Bertrand Russell'in dikkat çektiği gibi, bu radikal din yorumları, inancın aşırı bir biçimde yorumlanmasından kaynaklanan bir olgudur. İnanç, umut, barış ve toplumsal düzen sağlayabilirken, aşırı yorumlanması insanları şiddet ve ayrışmaya sürükleyebilir. Özellikle tek tanrılı dinlerdeki soyut Tanrı kavramı diktatörler gibi yaşayan tanrıların yükselmesine geçit vermez. Bu yüzden aslında din; dünya barışı için kesinlikle ana unsurlardan biridir.
🕊️Bu tür radikalizm, tarih boyunca birçok felakete neden olmuş ve dünya üzerindeki toplumlar arasında anlayışsızlığa yol açmıştır. Bu nedenle, dinin barışçıl ve insan haklarına saygılı bir şekilde yorumlanması ve uygulanması, toplumsal uyumun ve dünya barışının korunması açısından kritik bir öneme sahiptir.
🎌Nietzsche'nin "Tanrı öldü" sözü ise, modern dünyanın inanç krizini ifade eder. Bu kriz, insanların bir anlam ve amaç arayışına girmelerine neden olmuştur. Bu arayış, bazen, Hitler gibi insan tanrıların yükselmesine yol açabilir. Hitler, kendi otoritesini, Tanrı'nın yerine koymuş ve Almanya'yı bir imparatorluğa dönüştürme hayaliyle hareket etmiştir. Bu hayal, milyonlarca insanın ölümüne neden olmuştur.

Devlet gücünü ele aldığında, Russell monarşiye eleştiriler getirir ve iç savaşın kalıtsal olmayan monarşi sistemlerinde daha muhtemel olduğunu savunur. Ayrıca, demokrasiye olan eleştirilerini sunar ve gücün ahlaki ve politik mücadelede bir araç olarak kullanılmasını vurgular.

Kitap aynı zamanda bilim ve sanatta rekabetin önemini vurgular ve kamuoyu duyarlılığının bu alanlardaki anlaşmazlıklara hoşgörülü bir şekilde yaklaşması gerektiğini ifade eder.

Bertrand Russell'ın "İktidar"ı, sosyal ve politik düşünce tarihine önemli katkılarda bulunan bir eser olarak kabul edilir. Russell'ın açık fikirli ve eleştirel yaklaşımı, bu kitabın okuyuculara güç ve iktidar konularında derinlemesine düşünme fırsatı sunar. Bu eser, toplumun farklı yönlerini ve yönetim biçimlerini anlamak isteyenler için vazgeçilmez bir kaynaktır.

Bertrand Russell, sadece iktidar ve siyaset konularında değil, aynı zamanda insan hakları, düşünce özgürlüğü, savaş karşıtlığı ve toplumsal adalet konularında da etkili bir figürdü. Nobel Edebiyat Ödülü'nü kazanması, yazılarındaki derin düşüncelerin ve ileri görüşlülüğünün bir yansıması olarak kabul edilebilir.

Russell'ın savaş karşıtlığı, onun insanlığın acı veren yüzüne duyduğu derin kaygıdan kaynaklanıyordu. I. Dünya Savaşı sırasında hükümet tarafından hapsedilmesine rağmen, savaşın vahşetini ve mantıksızlığını eleştirmekten vazgeçmedi. Aynı zamanda, Adolf Hitler'in yükselişi sırasında ona karşı kampanyalar düzenlemesi, Russell'ın demokratik değerlere ve insan haklarına olan bağlılığını gösterir.

Russell, emperyalizme ve serbest ticaretin olumsuz etkilerine karşı çıkarak toplumsal adaletin savunucusu olarak bilinir. Ayrıca nükleer silahsızlanma konusundaki açık ve cesur pozisyonları, dünya barışının korunması için önemli bir katkıydı. Russell'ın İsrail'in Orta Doğu politikalarını eleştirmesi, onun insan hakları ve özgürlükleri konusundaki tutarlı duruşunu yansıtır.

Bertrand Russell, dünya çapında bilim, felsefe ve siyaset alanında önemli bir etki yaratmış bir düşünürdü. Nobel Edebiyat Ödülü kazanması, bu etkisinin ve düşünsel derinliğinin resmi bir onayıdır ve onun özgürlük, barış ve insan hakları için verdiği mücadeleyi takdir eden bir jesttir.

[Ali · Rating 5 out of 5]

مترجم در مقدمه به سختی از کتاب انتقاد کرده که من فکر میکنم در این موارد حق با مترجم باشه: راسل معتقده که دموکراسی بهترین راه حل مساله قدرته. منتهی کاستی بزرگ کتاب اینجا به چشم میاد که هیچ راهکار و توصیه ای برای گذار از اشکال دیگه حکومت به دموکراسی ارائه نشده. در واقع توصیه های راسل برای رام کردن قدرت به کار جامعه ای میاد که حکومتی تا حدی دموکراتیک در اون حاکم باشه. ولی در این که این توصیه ها میتونن دموکراسی رو مثمر ثمرتر و حکومت دموکراتیک رو پایدارتر بکنن بسختی میشه شک کرد. این عقیده ی مترجم هم که قدرت مدیریت در واقع امتداد قدرت سرمایست به نظر بیشتر از عقیده راسل که قدرت مدیریت رو متفاوت با قدرت سرمایه میدونه به حقیقت نزدیکتره. البته انتقادات مترجم به طرز شگفت انگیزی سخت و کوبنده مطرح شده و همون ایراد اولی که ذکر کردم رو در هر توصیه راسل جداگانه مطرح کرده و هر بار به این دور رسیده که : باید دموکراسی باشد تا دموکراسی برقرار بماند! به هر حال شاید مترجم سعی کرده با این انتقاد تند تصمیم غیرحرفه ای خودش مبنی بر ترجمه نکردن دو فصل آخر و حذف اون در چاپ اول رو موجه تر جلوه بده. به نظرم بهتره که مقدمه ی مترجم پس از مطالعه ی کامل کتاب خونده بشه تا احیانا خواننده رو دلسرد نکنه. از ایرادات کتاب که بگذریم، راسل مفهوم قدرت و اشکال مختلف اون چه فردی و چه سازمانی رو به صورت عمیق و گسترده بررسی کرده. این کتاب واقعا ارزش وقت گذاشتن رو داره و مطالبی درش ذکر شده که مطمئنا برای هر فردی (حداقل هر فرد جامعه ما) مفید خواهد بود.

[Minh Quân · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cuốn này được dịch bằng thứ văn phong rất khó hiểu, nhiều chỗ đọc lủng củng. Có thể do đây là bản dịch năm 1972 nên cách dùng câu từ của dịch giả sẽ không được thân thiện với người đọc sau này. Về nội dung thì tác giả đề cập tới nhiều khía cạnh xung quanh quyền lực khá là bài bản và khoa học tuy nhiên thì mỗi khía cạnh lại không có chiều sâu của riêng nó. Đọng lại trong mình thì có vài điều như sau:
- Chiến tranh hoặc những tình cảnh khó khăn là một cách gia tăng quyền lực, khi mà quần chúng cần có một người dẫn dắt giúp họ vượt lên gian khó.
- Trí năng thì rất cần thiết cho người lãnh đạo nhưng cảm xúc mới là yếu tố có tính dẫn dắt, lôi kéo đươc quần chúng, đội ngũ.
- Giáo dục trẻ em cần tránh sự áp đặt quan điểm ngay từ đầu mà hãy để bỏ ngỏ quan điểm khác cho trẻ sau này tư duy lựa chọn. Ví dụ người cha có thể nói với con mình là theo cha biết thì trái đất hình cầu nhưng đã có người nghĩ nó là mặt phẳng, vậy cầu hay phẳng thì con hãy tự mình quan sát, kiểm nghiệm nhé.

[Pierre Franckx · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is strange to read a 20th century book with only a few foot notes and no bibliography. Russell's writing style is entertaining and funny, but the general argumentation of the book is rather unconvincing, except the last chapter which happens to be very convincing. This can happen. Apparently Russell didn't like economists (or rather their idea's) which means he probably didn't know their idea's, or at least didn't understand them. Too bad. First time I'm looking forward to reading some books of an author while not being convinced by the book's message. Some people can be extremely interesting even when one thinks they're wrong. Russell is one of them.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Took me forever to read this. Picked up an old hardback copy in a charity shop for next to nothing as I was keen to get into Russell, but I might have made the wrong choice in this one as a first read!

Some great philosophical nuggets to be found in amongst very very dry historical text. I did like his writing style but this took me far longer to read than most other books as it felt like a massive effort to even pick up the damn thing let alone engage with it!

If anyone has any Russell which they think I should read please don't hesitate to recommend, I am very keen to try again!

[Catherine Oughtibridge]

After two years of reading a chapter every now and again I have finally finished. It's a slow book. The concepts are big, and trying to get your head around them requires you to read, stop, slow down, think, reread. But once you learn to accept that this is going to take a while, its magic really does start to show.

As does it's magical humour, which amazingly had me laughing loudly and scribbling down quotes to share.

[Dara Janelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I used this book as a reference for a paper I have written as a requirement in my Pol Sci 100 class. I like how Russell explained power in various settings in the most compelling manner.

[Farzan · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب خوبی بود ، ولی ترجمه ی ناروانش یکم سختش کرد برام .

[Gerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting work complementing other similar works of the period

[Amna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most excellent. Needs to be read again.

[Dinh Quoc Bao · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bản năng con người ở Freud được thể hiện dưới nhãn quan tâm tính dục, Marx dưới sự mâu thuẫn giai cấp xoay quanh tư hữu, còn với Bertrand Russell thì là sự thèm khát và thôi thúc tranh giành quyền lực ở nhiều mức độ.

Cuốn sách mở đầu với kết luận như vậy. Những ước muốn vật chất, mà những kinh tế gia chính thống Marxist cho là nguồn cơn thoả mãn cũng như động lực căn bản trong xã hội, theo Russell, chỉ mang một khả năng vừa phải, nếu bị tách khỏi quyền lực và danh vọng. Tiếp đến, sự xác quyết rằng quyền lực như một ý niệm căn bản và nền tảng trong khoa học xã hội, đưa chúng ta đến những phân tích về 2 hình thức quyền lực - cổ truyền (vương quyền, tu sĩ) và bạo lực (được hiểu là mọi hình thái quyền lực không đặt nền tảng ở sự thuận tình của đa số).

Sau đó là hàng loạt các phân tích về quyền lực dưới nhiều nhãn quan như hình thái xã hội, chế độ chính trị, luân lý, đạo đức, kinh tế, và triết học, trong đó nổi bật với tôi (một cách khá dễ đoán) là triết học và đạo đức học.

Russell đưa ra nhận định rằng niềm tin thường ngày bắt nguồn từ khát vọng kết hợp với nhận định về tính khả thi của khát vọng, ở nhiều mức độ. Với các triết thuyết, hệ thống này còn chặt chẽ hơn, do sự cô đọng của một hoặc một số ít khát vọng mãnh liệt nào đó, mang đến tính hợp nhất cho hệ thống tư tưởng. Có một số mẫu hình tư tưởng nổi bật được nêu ra. Đầu tiên, với nền triết học duy ngã của Fichte hay duy tâm của Hegel, Russell nhận định chúng đang che giấu lòng yêu quyền lực dưới lớp áo siêu hình. Chủ nghĩa thực dụng cũng bị cho là có liên đới, khi ngây thơ kết luận rằng niềm tin chỉ có giá trị chân lý nếu nó có hậu quả tốt. Trớ trêu thay, nó lại mang đến quyền lực vô hạn cho kẻ cầm quyền (nếu bạn tin vào tài của một tên độc tài, đời bạn sẽ tốt hơn là không tin khi đang là con dân của ổng). Ngoài ra còn có thuyết tiến hoá sáng tạo của Bergson, khởi đầu với những lập luận thiên lệch, nhưng lại hay ho kết luận về tính thức thời, tràn đầy đam mê cũng như vô lí của con người.

Thôi thúc quyền lực còn có thể chế ngự phần đạo đức học, tiêu biểu là Nietzsche cùng nỗ lực gạt bỏ đạo đức nô lệ của Kito giáo mà thay bằng “đạo đức anh hùng” - hoàn hảo cho quý tộc và những kẻ thống trị. Nhưng nếu ai cũng đọc Nietzsche và thấy khoái, thì còn cách nào biết ai mới là anh hùng, ngoài những cuộc tranh đấu quyền lực, mà những anh hùng thắng cuộc sẽ tiếp tục phải chứng tỏ quyền uy bằng cách lì lợm nắm giữ quyền lực ấy. “Mọi triết học quyền lực đều mang tính tự bác”, Russell nói vậy. Do đó, với ông, mục đích tối hậu là phải đặt nền tảng xã hội trên một hệ thống không đặt căn bản ở lòng yêu quyền lực.

Tới đây, ta đi tới bốn phương thế của sự thuần hoá quyền lực. Khổng Tử xưa tin rằng việc giáo huấn kẻ cầm quyền sẽ cảm hoá được tính ham mê quyền lực. Giống vậy, Plato muốn có một chính quyền khôn ngoan, đặt dân chủ làm nòng cốt, nhưng luôn thất bại do một vài chính khách mị dân khéo ăn khéo nói. Russell, nhận thức rõ những giải pháp dân chủ đưa ra là chưa thoả đáng, vẫn đặt hình thái chính trị này là phần chính yếu của chiến lược thuần hoá, với 4 mũi nhọn cần được quan tâm đến: chính trị, kinh tế, tuyên truyền, cùng tâm lý & giáo dục.

Giá trị nhất với người đọc, có lẽ là phương cách giáo dục và tự giáo dục sao cho phải phép. Ở đây, có lẽ trích nỗi lo âu của Fichte khi nhìn đám trẻ thơ sẽ phù hợp.

“Đây là chất liệu tôi có thể uốn nắn, và tôi có thể dạy dỗ khiến nó cư xử như máy móc để phục vụ cho mục đích của tôi; bây giờ tôi có thể bị ngăn trở bởi lòng yêu sống, bản tính ham chơi, ước vọng cho những mục đích tâm linh của đứa trẻ, nhưng sau những năm tôi dạy dỗ, những trở ngại này sẽ mất đi; khi đó sự vâng lời sẽ giết chết trí tưởng tượng, nghệ thuật và khả năng tư duy; khi không còn ham vui đứa trẻ sẽ trở thành con mồi của lòng cuồng tín; và kết cục đứa trẻ của tôi sẽ chẳng khác chi gỗ đá.”

Với lo ngại trên, đứa trẻ trước hết phải hiểu được những giá trị khác hơn sự chinh phục. Giáo dục tự do có trách nhiệm phát triển nếp độc lập tư tưởng, tinh thần nghi ngờ và khoa học, nhưng cũng phải tu dưỡng lòng yêu đời tự nhiên. Nó phải giúp được mọi người sống một cuộc đời đáng sống:

“Tầm mắt hướng lên cao, trái tim đầy nhân ái.”

[Daniel Clemence · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book to rate because I have mixed feelings about it. Russell sets out arguments about power in how power is the most important element of humankind. Russell asserts throughout the book that power has shaped human history. The book is separated into different chapters with each chapter setting out exactly how power impacts humanity.

The first chapters set out how power is formed. From chapters 2 to 9, power is looked at through the different types of power. These include religious power (priestly power), monarchical power (tradition), violent power (naked power, defined in political science as hard power), revolutionary power, economic power and ideological power. The second half of the book sets out how power is structured, how organisations are structured and what ethics does power have. Finally, the last chapter sets out how power should be controlled. In this chapter, Russell argues for a socialist government to be the best way of controlling power.

I think the book sets out how power is structured in the world by understanding what makes up different power relations and how these impact people. The analysis is cogent to an extent. Most of all, I enjoyed the prose. The historical interpretation has been enjoyable, with multiple references to events throughout history.

I reluctantly gave this book a three star review for various reasons. I find his analysis of power to be incorrect on multiple accounts. Russell seems to not identify power from when it is material power and when it is cultural power. He asserts religious power as being the most important. From the perspective of the book Homo Sapiens, this is correct to a certain extent in that religion was the first way of tying society together. However, religious power has waned in the last 300 years. I am not sure as to whether religion is the most important part of power, but I expect that due to Russell's atheism and humanist views, religion was considered the most important power source.

Russell heavily overlooks hard power or violence as a means to coercion. His focus on organisational power and the fact only one chapter was dedicated to hard power ignores a heavy part to how power is distributed. Russell seems to think that ideological power is most important and I am not underplaying its importance on a domestic role. What Russell ignores is violence particularly within how it has shaped power relations in the centralisation of power and how violence through the lens of Clausewitz, is the "continuation of politics by other means".

Material causes of power is also downplayed. One chapter is dedicated to economics as being a shape of power. Perhaps I am too Marxist in my philosophical reasoning but economics is a central part of power projection. Without control of the means of production, there is no power projection. Russell at times seems think military strength is unrelated to economics which I find to be naive and laughable. There have been some examples of militarily successful groups without an economic base behind them but they have usually been cavalry based (Arabs, Huns and Mongols as examples). Economics is in my view the most important source of power because it allows material power in production and soft power in ideology. Perhaps I am too Marxist. I just do not think Russell is correct in underplaying economics.

The other problems with the book is that the sources are rather inadequate. Referencing is rather modern in its usage and I have to take it into account. However, this book has few references. With a subject that is studied empirically, there is many books and sources that could have been referenced. But they aren't.

Overall, I found this book to be an enjoyable albeit flawed analysis of power.

[· · Rating 2 out of 5]

(30 September, 2024)

I feel kinda bad for giving this only 2 stars but it is fully deserved. Demagogues have already been elected in Russell's day, horrifying acts have been enacted by governments in democratic countries, good ideas have been dismissed and terrible ones enthusiastically adopted. How can the great Bertrand Russell sound so naïve? In Chapter 1, he begins with:

"One of the chief emotional differences is that some human desires, unlike those of animals, are essentially boundless and incapable of complete satisfaction."

, strong evidence of his grasp of human frailties. Conversely, in the last few chapters, he almost exhibits a child-like understanding of how power, in a democracy no less, can be ‘good’ (or not horribly, terrifyingly ‘bad’). If voters can be duped by rudimentary 1930s propaganda, could he not guess at the state of affairs of his future, our present? As an aside, how ‘social’ media affects today’s would-be voters escapes me, most have a fucking computer with them at all times (they call it a ‘phone’), can they not look up the issues important to them and become informed on their own?

Some chapters hold my interest. There’s one with the chimera of outside pressure or internal strife, both deemed indispensable for cohesion in large groups (never mind that the former is often manufactured and the latter, may or may not be justified). Here and there, an interesting paragraph or two on freedom of thought, the hold of tradition in any society and persons who withdraw from Groupthink and Newspeak. The chapters on ‘Priestly Power’, ‘Economic Power’ and ‘The Biology Of Organisations’ are just boring.

‘Power’ is mostly exhaustive exegesis, in dry prose, of kinds of power, their provenance and effects. Long, long, explanations of events giving rise to naked power (among others); medieval theocracies; which type of person craves power, on its own merit or as a means to an end; beliefs and reasoning… and on and on. Good points and solid reasoning make this OK but barely more.

[Robert Jere · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an ambitious project. Before reading it i thought that if one man could pull it off, it was the undisputed genius that was Bertrand Russell.
Russell begins with a historical account of power relations between human beings. Then he talks about the kinds of power that have dominated human civilisation. In all this, his unique mind is at it's finest. It is when he gets to the kinds of ways in which power is exercised that it becomes clear that he has a huge task. Russell seems to believe that persuading someone to believe something is somehow similar to forcing views on them.
The most interesting parts of the book are where he talks about governmental power and how to make sure it is not oppressive. Russell admits that this is a very difficult task and there is no analytical solution to it. He does however point out that democracy is a necessary condition for taming power, although not a sufficient one. He proposes that the education system should be changed so as not to produce people who are easily carried away by propaganda.
There are some unbearably naive ideas like having only one newspaper where all political views are represented. This is perharps the lowest point of the book.
It is highly readable and the prose style is captivating. I do not think it can be enjoyed by everyone. Perhaps people who are interested in politics, psychology and philosophy.

[فيصل · Rating 3 out of 5]

الترجمة رديئة بالإضافة لقليل من الأخطاء المطبعية. أما بالنسبة لموضوع الكتاب فهو دقيق ومهم خصوصاً لمن يرغب بالإطلاع على الفلسفات الوجودية والاشتراكية. راسل يبحث عن القوة في كل شيء ويتحدث هنا عن السيطرة على الناس وليس على المادة.


تكمن فكرة الكتاب الأساسية عن القوة والدور التي تلعبه والتي لعبته سابقًاً وهي كالطاقة لديها أشكال كثيرة. ولكل شكل فصل خاص به يتتبعه راسل تاريخياً والشكل التي انتهى عليه. مثلا: لرجال الدين سابقاً قوة تحولت للعلماء التجريبين ولكن بشكل آخر فالعلماء التجريبين مثلا لا تحاط بهم هالة ميتافيزيقية مثل تلك التي كان يتمتع بها رجال الدين في السابق.

راسل ذكي وحذر جداً تعجبني تحليلاته وتطربني تعليقاته. من ذلك قوله- بتصرف- " تؤدي تجربة القسوة والاعتداء إلى أحد اتجاهين؛ الخوف من عدم الظهور أو القسوة بالغير بدلاً من أن يعانوها". راسل ليس لديه هوس في طرح رأيه بكل موضوع فكثير من المواضع يفصل بها ويستطرد ثم يمشي دون الادلاء بأي شيء.