Today, we are going to touch about the legitimation of power where it resides, to what is it owed to, and what does totalitarianism really mean.

An introduction into power, individual and collective.

A couple of weeks ago, we uploaded this excerpt of Max Weber into our web, it touches on the basis by which a state or sovereign draw its legitimacy, it is important to understand then that in «lesser» modes of govenance, which predate the flourishing cultural ethos of a society, power, and it’s legitimization resides in an individual or groups of individuals, while, in a more advanced mode of governance while power resides still in a group of individuals, it is understood that this power is placed by the interest of a state.

Now, why do we think that power resides in a group of individuals and not in the state in of itself? the answer to this question is easy, will, will is an element which resides in the individual in of itself, not given to the collective as a resource, this will then, is used by the individual acording to his values, thus power over a society according to the complexity of it must reside in individuals which impose their will over the apparatus of governance.

Of course, one could (wrongly) come to the conclusion then, that history is built upon the imposition of will by a series of particular men (great men theory of history), the particular of this is that society, requires the sum of wills of the whole collective, in order for the apparatus of governance to manifest itself to it’s fullest potential, or to survive, requires the supeditation of wills of every single individual to push to this end, in a sense, the state can only be totalitarian.

Why is the state totalitarian? what does totalitarianism even mean?

The state, is not an apparatus akin of a machinery, which pieces are greased everday by the hands of the everyman, and buttons pushed by the fingers of it’s beaurocratic class. The state as anything made out of man, is organic, it wreathes and coughs with us, in every sense of the word, the state is a living being, constructed by the summum of the collective’s will, unlike what the libertarian says, the state is something which is ingrained in us. Liberty, a collective thing, something which only another man can bestow unto you, when he recognizes you as an equal.

In a sense then is the element of recognization of not only the material being, but also of something greater which he is called to, the state, or the collective, the sort of difference between the «I» (individual) and «Self» (identity granted by the whole of the collective). Now why is the I and self separated from itself? As Carl Jung exposed there is a difference between the «I» which is the individuals response upon the imposition of societies will upon itself, its culture, traditions and goals, infront of the frugality of the individuals life, in a sense it forces the individual to come to terms with it’s own death, and how he could act in kind, futile rebellion towards society, or heroic servitude to the state.

Totalitarianism then could be explained as the attunement of the individual to the self, the single man, to the state, in which both are forever tied into «Self», the individual changes, supeditating itself to the interest of the whole, but it’s sense of individuality also changes the state, this mutual symbiosis, in which liberty is granted to the individual, not in order for him to do as he egotistically pleases (negative sense of liberty) but in order for him to be the best version he can be, the man who is born a poet, should have the liberty then, to exploit this facet of itself, while also heeding to the needs of the collective as a whole, but also free from the tyranny of another individual’s interest (capital’s free market).

What is power, then?

Power could be explained as we have said, will, or it’s imposition upon the world, this power a priori could be explained as an individual thing, but one would be wrong, as the hegelian dialectics come to terms that every man is a subject in it of itself, which measures the world thanks to the capacity of thought, which means that existance itself it’s supeditated upon the individual itself, Man is the center of its own creation, and the world, which can only be understood throught our own though, is our own creation as well. This truth cuts both ways, because another subject, or man, also supeditates existance (ergo us) to its own thought.

«Reality is conceivable only insofar as the reality conceived is in relation to the activity which conceives it, and in that relation it is not only a possible object of knowledge, it is a present and actual one. To conceive reality is to conceive, at the same time and as one  with it, the mind in which that reality is represented; and therefore the concept of a material reality is absurd» – Giovanni Gentile.

«The spirit … is never really that pure theoretical activity that is imagined to stand in opposition to practical activity: there is no theory or contemplation of reality that is not also action and thus the creation of reality. Indeed, there is no cognitive act that does not have a value, or rather, that is not judged, precisely so far as it is a cognitive act, according to its exact conformity to its own law and whether or not it is recognized as being what it ought to be … If we were not the authors of our ideas, or rather, if our ideas were not purely our own actions, they would not be ours, we would be unable to judge them, they would have no value: they would be neither true nor false.» – Giovanni Gentile.

This quotes by Giovanni Gentile, then understand, the social relations which humans are predisposed to, we recognize ourselves with our fellow man, thus we grant unto them freedoms and responsabilies. Liberty, responsability, power are all things which are granted to us, individual power then, can only be attained thanks to the approval of our fellow man, other wise it is fought, impeded, like the criminal, which trying to impose itself in a way not legitimate, is brought down by the will of justice.

Legitimation of power, when is power legitimate

We understand that power is legitimate then, when accertains itself to at least one of this points;

• By tradition; a belief in the legitimacy of what has always existed;
• By virtue of affectual attitudes, especially emotional, legitimizing the validity of what is newly revealed or a model to imitate;
• By virtue of a rational belief in its absolute value, thus lending it the validity of an absolute and final commitment;
• Because it has been established in a manner which is recognised to be legal. This legality may be treated as legitimate in either of two ways: on the one hand, it may derive from a voluntary agreement of the interested parties on the relevant terms. On the other hand, it may be imposed on the basis of what is held to be a legitimate authority over the relevant persons and a corresponding claim to their obedience

We come to the conclusion, that when a society becomes more complex, this bonds of interpersonal affection, are not strong enough to tie a large society together, and while anarchism exposes that communal life would be the best form of governship, we need to understand that wether true or not, this form of organization is still a state, with laws, customs, needs and goals, that by virtue of the collective being greater than the individual, it is still a state, there is not a true anarchic society, because the collective will always be a state.

Out of all of this points we can come to the conclusion that it is either tradition or legality, which are the principles capable of governing a complex society, so we must understand today which one of these express the current basis by which power legitimates itself.

Legality, shortcomings of modern law

Back in the times of the Roman republic law vertebrated itself on the twelve tables, these series of laws were ancient by the times of the republic, treated as something sacred inherited by the ancestors, one must recognize that ancestor worship was among the most important religious aspects of Roman society, with «gens» or «familias» having a shrine consecrated to their own ancestors.

The twelve tables, while not the whole body of law, was suflamed with a certain air of tradition and religion, in a sense this laws were adhere to, or legitimized by faith, and tradition on top of it being law.

In front of this sacralization of law, stands modern secular concepts of law, which proposes, the Lockian concept of the «social contract» these contract suposedly signs the individual into a collective system, «limiting» (as in the sense that recognizes that an individual’s freedom ends when encroaches on another) the individual’s freedom, one can see the seed of totalitarian thought, within liberal principle, but the liberal concept of the collective is a «necessary evil» instead of an organism with goals of it’s own.

What should law be?

Law today however, does not abide by lockian liberal principle, no matter how many times states the contrary. Law today, is nothing but an empty husk used selfisly by our dirigents, often changed with a pen stroke, signaling that is nothing more than a straw man in order to legitimized exploitation, and in the more agrigious cases, disregarded all together, law, which should be something consecrated by the spirit of a nation, must give way in order for crude imposition of singular will, to cannibalize the state for a singular mans gain.

Law then, when not consecrated to something sacred or spiritual, is exploited, is nothing but an excuse, law should not be scientific, law cannot be international, law is the frame by which culture, tradition and religion is expressed in a material manner, law does not command materialist in crude displais of force, but hints at the spiritual nature of the state.