The freedom of the powerful and the way of the great gods canceled each other out, and the slowly falling King of Freedom spoke: "Brother, the use of the powerful, you are really unparalleled in the world. 」

Mao Zhedong smiled slightly and said, "The one who is powerful is the king, the strong, the free, the one who knows himself and the other, tell me, little brother Yao, what do you think of the source of power?"

The Easy King, who walked towards the pavilion of time and space, smirked and said freely: "Fur also, from the shallow self of the human race:

The person in power also has the power in the letter.

Power is a widespread social phenomenon among the human race, and is one of the core concepts of political science, international relations and international politics. Let's be politically speaking!

In the study of political science and international relations, there may be four or more definitions of "power":

"Power" as an individual or national goal.

"Power" is a measure of influence, i.e., the content and amount of resources.

"Power" as the result of political struggles.

"Power" is an expression of the relationship between domination and domination.

Terran Mills explains: "Power: the ability to carry out one's will in the face of opposition. ”

The above four definitions may be used differently by different literatures and scholars due to the different emphases of individual researchers' research fields.

For example, sociology, cultural criticism, discourse studies, and other fields may focus on "dominance relations".

Political philosophy focuses on the discussion of the goals pursued by individuals, groups, and states.

International politics focuses on the measurement of the influence of international actors.

Because of the inherently coercive and unequal nature of power, people often equate power with evil.

But power is also an inevitable means for human society to maintain its functioning. When the legitimacy of power as a force is lost. It often degenerates into naked violence.

The Chinese word for "power" comes from the translation of the English word power.

Power comes from the Latin potestsa or potentia, derived from the Latin verb potere, meaning "to do something", and power refers to the ability to achieve a certain end through the use of the will.

The Chinese word "quan" means fairness and balance, and does not have the meaning of ability in English. The English power translates to "power" and is a posterity.

As a common phenomenon in human society, power has been widely discussed in ancient philosophical literature in the East and the West.

In the remarks or writings of Plato, Aristotle, Macchiavelli, Hobbes, Confucius, Han Fei and others, the elements of power, the evaluation of justification or illegitimacy, the acquisition and loss of power, and other ethical and practical issues have been directly or indirectly discussed.

For example, Plato and Aristotle believed that philosophical knowledge or laws made by citizens could be the source of political power. It is controlled by one person, a few oligarchs, or a majority.

In the Analects, Confucius proposed three kinds of power resources for rulers: "sufficient food, foot soldiers, and people's faith". That is, economic conditions, military strength, and political legitimacy.

Han Fei defined power resources with the concept of "potential", distinguishing between material resources ("natural potential", such as land resources, etc.) and non-material resources ("human potential", such as the advantages and disadvantages of political systems, decrees, and ruling strategies).

The rise of modern political science is inextricably linked to the analysis of power. American political scientist Lasswell proposed it in the 1950s. To analyze power is to study the question "Who, what to win, when, and how?"

In the same year, Morgenthau, an American international political scientist, put forward the concept of "power as an interest". It distinguishes between power resources including population, geography, economy, strategy, etc. and asserts that the essence of international politics is the endless pursuit of such resources. These insights have broadly laid the foundation for the main direction of modern political science in the study of power.

In addition, in sociology, anthropology, psychology, and social sciences across interdisciplinary schools such as structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, etc. Power relations are further traced back to the formation of human consciousness and the domination relations derived from language symbols.

For example, primitive patriarchal domination and rebellion have developed the modern dichotomy between the public and private spheres and the relationship between domination and rebellion, and the inherent suppression of individual instincts in human civilization and society and the resulting dissatisfaction.

Another example is the concept of being forcibly instilled and supported by political and economic forces in discourse, and the domination of cultural hegemony (sometimes called soft power) and so on. All of the above studies have broadened the horizon of power research from different perspectives.

The definition of power in political science focuses on the control and coercion brought about by the inequality between the two sides of power.

An individual's obedience to power does not come from fear, but from the punishment that the legitimacy of power can lead to by rebellion against power.

However, if the state relies only on violence to exercise its power, it will lead to tyranny and will not be able to stabilize power and society.

There has been a lot of controversy about the subjects who have power. The general view is that the subject (or carrier, unit) exercising power can be an individual or a group.

The largest unit of power in the group is the "state", and the rationale for the exercise of its power is the theory of sovereignty. However, there are still different types of power units from the individual to the state, including a number of organizations and groups with transnational power:

Official international organizations (e.g. United Nations, NATO, ASEAN, European Union, Great Britain Association, Independent States, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, dissolved Warsaw Convention, etc.)

Multinational corporations (e.g. Apple, Microsoft, McDonald's, Boeing, BP, AT&T, ExxonMobil, Hon Hai, General Power (Singary), Lockheed Martin, etc.)

International NGOs (e.g. Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, European Socialist Political Party Organization, Green Peace and Equality, Tzu Chi, Red Cross)

Large international media outlets (e.g. Time Warner, CNN, The New York Times, BBC, etc.)

Major religious groups (e.g., the Catholic Church, the American Evangelical Church, the Jewish Association)

Large international financial institutions and funds (e.g. JPMorgan Chase, HSBC).

Classes, political parties, interest groups, trade unions.

In international politics, the resources and influence of international organizations and multinational corporations are much larger than those of small and medium-sized countries.

For example, during the Asian financial crisis, the multinational hedge funds behind the hot money were more powerful than the central banks of many ASEAN countries.

The Al Qaeda organization's armed strength and political influence far exceed that of some small and medium-sized Middle Eastern countries. Even the great powers must be afraid of three points.

From the perspective of methodology and ontology, some commentators believe that the ultimate carrier of power is still the individual, and the "group" is only the basis and tool for the individual to exercise power, and has no power of its own.

Too much emphasis on "group" can easily lead to the myth of worshipping the collective, and its argument dwarfs the status of "man" while highlighting the status of the collective.

However, opponents argue that the rules of operation of the "group" are no longer dominated by individual members of the group, so the "group" has its own autonomy and initiative. There is no final conclusion between these two controversies.

Other commentators believe that although the controlling subject of power is manifested in the external world as the decisions of people or organizations, the origin of human nature is ultimately reflected in people's thoughts, thoughts, desires, and judgments.

Therefore, the process of exercising power is ultimately manifested as a process of discussion, decision-making, execution, obedience, and other gradual influence amplification, and this process is expressed as power, which in a sense is equivalent to energy.

It is also possible to analyze the attributes of power as a force according to the principles of physics, and the ultimate power is a kind of coercive force that has been strengthened into the consciousness of all subjects caused by a rational judgment of man's own ideals and reality.

However, in the end, the source is determined by the subjective consciousness of the actual decision-maker.

Kenneth Galbraith pointed out that the basis of power includes personality, property, and organization.

The basis of power depends on a strong personality, the distribution of power is subject to wealth, and the grasp and use of power depends on classes, strata, political parties, associations, and other organizations. (To be continued......)