Power in the era of world-view liberalism has an exceptionally bad streak. She is stigmatized and even this concept is better not to use. This does not mean, however, that she went down to the underground, wandering around various corners, being in deep hiding.
It has always been a real component of human life, in its individual and collective dimensions. We inactive see things. This would mean that in the lives of individuals and groups something can truly be changed, and that there is evolution, due to the fact that good comes and bad goes away. The proportions between 1 component and the another are, in general, always constant and only, from time to time, something changes – most frequently for the worse – to yet return to the old railways.
The theatre stops, reality returns. And you can say the Lithuanian saying “I am the master, you are the master, and who will the pigs feed?” If that is the case, then it must be, due to the fact that in the event of questioning this universal correctness the triumph of the utopia saints. Which, at the end, means more and more blood and violence, which means the action of the debauched force: anarchical, trivial, and in the apocalyptic sense of definitely destructive. However, an appropriately dosed compulsion plays a affirmative role. It strengthens the community, preventing it from falling. Even sometimes it is said that state structures are the office of forces. In this case, it is mainly personalized by the police and the army. So we're dealing with a uniformed state. And there's no another one.
In reading the above comments, 1 might say that this is simply a typical Marxist analysis, since you defined these as a coercion factor. Yes, it is true, but there is simply a fundamental difference. The Marxists powerfully condemned the state structures, and erstwhile here and there they began to regulation themselves, they were forced to claim that an organized force apparatus was a temporary thing and yet would disappear. If so, possibly the above praise of state force is akin to that of fascists, Iberian corporations, or German national socialists? Only to a certain degree and in a marked range. If political power is liable for forces, then an crucial problem arises: the limits of its acceptable use.
So are there any limitations? And if so, who marks this line and makes certain it's not violated? It seems that there is simply a golden rule, even it can be described and named. As much force as is essential to reconstruct or prevent the lost order. In both interior and external relations. Neither a pinch more, for an act of force is simply a cure that is poorly dosed to poison; another criterion: effectiveness. The force misdirected, at the incorrect time utilized unskilled turns against who uses it.
This is not a cynicism or moral relativism, but a political clue, for all others are simply flawed. Looking at these matters, we see that the Nazi dictatorship was besides much of a belief in absolute power of force, which is simply a false thesis. It is simply a tool whose effectiveness depends on the skill of the 1 who wields it. National socialists should so be accused of triviality and deficiency of political imagination. They besides lost...
Antoni Koniuszewski
Think Poland, No. 39-40 (24.09-110.2023)
