Introduction
Power is not merely political theater, but a fundamental mechanism that organizes social relations. Leszek Kołakowski viewed it as a tool to keep human aggression in check—without it, what follows is not brotherhood, but chaos. In the age of digital algorithms and global capital, understanding the anatomy of dominion becomes crucial for preserving freedom. This article analyzes the evolution of power: from classic definitions of violence and sacred sources of legitimacy to contemporary mechanisms of civic control.
Kołakowski, Weber, and Arendt: From the Monopoly on Violence to the Strength of Community
According to Leszek Kołakowski, power is irremovable because human interests are inherently at odds. We can only exchange it for a better or worse version. Max Weber defined the state by its claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force—the one who punishes sets the rules of the game. However, Hannah Arendt made a vital distinction: violence appears where true power, based on collective action and consent, begins to crumble.
Modern political thought offers solutions to limit tyranny. Robert Dahl’s polyarchy assumes the dispersal of power and the multiplication of nodes of representation to ensure the system remains responsive to citizens. Meanwhile, Elinor Ostrom points to polycentricity—complex common goods are best protected by diverse, layered institutional arrangements rather than central control. This is a key lesson: less faith in a single "ministerial button," and more in local competencies.
Religion, Psychology, and Symbols: The Cultural Frameworks of Order
Power has always sought sacred legitimacy. In China, it was the Mandate of Heaven; in Islam, justice (adl); and in Christianity, the ruler’s role as a servant of order. These traditions share one thing: the mandate of power is conditional and depends on adherence to moral norms. Psychology explains the drive for power (Alfred Adler) as a compensation for weakness, while Friedrich Nietzsche saw the "will to power" as a force permeating every relationship. Research on power intoxication shows, however, that exercising control drastically reduces empathy and increases risk-taking tendencies.
These mechanisms are reinforced by symbols and rituals. Flags, anthems, and parades build community, but they can also serve manipulation, obscuring real problems with spectacle. George Orwell warned that controlling language is controlling thought—power uses euphemisms to normalize abuse. Therefore, a mature citizen must be able to distinguish authentic authority from cynical political theater.
Money, Algorithms, and Surveillance: The Digital Dimension of Power in the 21st Century
Modern dominion has both economic and technological faces. Money and resources shape life with no less force than legislation. The concentration of capital leads to post-democracy, where real decisions are made in corporate boardrooms. Today, code has joined violence and money. Social media algorithms manage our attention and emotions, creating a biopolitics of data. Technocracy, while promising the rule of experts, often turns into a tyranny of procedure, reducing the human being to a variable in the system.
The internal erosion of democracy also poses a threat to freedom. As Levitsky and Ziblatt argue, systems today perish through "constitutional hardball" and the breaking of unwritten norms. The only effective antidote is civic oversight: independent media, NGOs, and transparency in public finances. Civic apathy is fuel for populism, which promises order at the expense of freedom. Democracy requires a daily exercise in vigilance and the "reasonable complaining" called for by Kołakowski.
Conclusion
Power must have its axiological limit, which is the dignity of the human person, freedom of conscience, and equality before the law. Without being rooted in values, the state becomes merely a technical machine for domination. In the pursuit of security, will we not lose what is most precious—the capacity to question? True wisdom lies in a constant readiness to be the guardian of one's own freedom. Power is for the citizens, never the other way around.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF