HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Power of the Powerles...

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:46 PM

The Power of the Powerless (1978) -- Vaclav Havel (1936-2011)

Simply the most inspirational piece for those facing irrational, irresponsible govt power.


ASPECETR is haunting Eastern Europe: the specter of what in the West is called "dissent" This secter has not appeared out of thin air. It is a natural and inevitable consequence of the present historical phase of the system it is haunting. It was born at a time when this system, for a thousand reasons, can no longer base itself on the unadulterated, brutal, and arbitrary application of power, eliminating all expressions of nonconformity. What is more, the system has become so ossified politically that there is practically no way for such nonconformity to be implemented within its official structures.

Who are these so-called dissidents? Where does their point of view come from, and what. importance does it have? What is the significance of the "independent initiatives" in which "dissidents" collaborate, and what real chances do such initiatives have of success? Is it appropriate to refer to "dissidents" as an opposition? If so, what exactly is such an opposition within the framework of this system? What does it do? What role does it play in society? What are its hopes and on what are they based? Is it within the power of the "dissidents"-as a category of subcitizen outside the power establishment-to have any influence at all on society and the social system? Can they actually change anything?

I think that an examination of these questions-an examination of the potential of the "powerless"-can only begin with an examination of the nature of power in the circumstances in which these powerless people operate.


Our system is most frequently characterized as a dictatorship or, more precisely, as the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy over a society which has undergone economic and social leveling. I am afraid that the term "dictatorship," regardless of how intelligible it may otherwise be, tends to obscure rather than clarify the real nature of power in this system. We usually associate the term with the notion of a small group of people who take over the government of a given country by force; their power is wielded openly, using the direct instruments of power at their disposal, and they are easily distinguished socially from the majority over whom they rule. One of the essential aspects of this traditional or classical notion of dictatorship is the assumption that it is temporary, ephemeral, lacking historical roots. Its existence seems to be bound up with the lives of those who established it. It is usually local in extent and significance, and regardless of the ideology it utilizes to grant itself legitimacy, its power derives ultimately from the numbers and the armed might of its soldiers and police. The principal threat to its existence is felt to be the possibility that someone better equipped in this sense might appear and overthrow it.

Even this very superficial overview should make it clear that the system in which we live has very little in common with a classical dictatorship. In the first place, our system is not limited in a local, geographical sense; rather, it holds sway over a huge power bloc controlled by one of the two superpowers. And although it quite naturally exhibits a number of local and historical variations, the range of these variations is fundamentally circumscribed by a single, unifying framework throughout the power bloc. Not only is the dictatorship everywhere based on the same principles and structured in the same way (that is, in the way evolved by the ruling super power), but each country has been completely penetrated by a network of manipulatory instruments controlled by the superpower center and totally subordinated to its interests. In the stalemated world of nuclear parity, of course, that circumstance endows the system with an unprecedented degree of external stability compared with classical dictatorships. Many local crises which, in an isolated state, would lead to a change in the system, can be resolved through direct intervention by the armed forces of the rest of the bloc.

In the second place, if a feature of classical dictatorships is their lack of historical roots (frequently they appear to be no more than historical freaks, the fortuitous consequence of fortuitous social processes or of human and mob tendencies), the same cannot be said so facilely about our system. For even though our dictatorship has long since alienated itself completely from the social movements that give birth to it, the authenticity of these movements (and I am thinking of the proletarian and socialist movements of the nineteenth century) gives it undeniable historicity. These origins provided a solid foundation of sorts on which it could build until it became the utterly new social and political reality it is today, which has become so inextricably a part of the structure of the modern world. A feature of those historical origins was the "correct" understanding of social conflicts in the period from which those original movements emerged. The fact that at the very core of this "correct" understanding there was a genetic disposition toward the monstrous alienation characteristic of its subsequence development is not essential here. And in any case, this element also grew organically from the climate of that time and therefore can be said to have its origin there as well.

One legacy of that original "correct" understanding is a third peculiarity that makes our systems different from other modern dictatorships: it commands an incomparably more precise, logically structured, generally comprehensible and, in essence, extremely flexible ideology that, in its elaborateness and completeness, is almost a secularized religion. It of fears a ready answer to any question whatsoever; it can scarcely be accepted only in part, and accepting it has profound implications for human life. In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one’ s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority. The principle involved here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth. (In our case, the connection with Byzantine theocracy is direct: the highest secular authority is identical with the highest spiritual authority.) It is true of course that, all this aside, ideology no longer has any great influence on people, at least within our bloc (with the possible exception of Russia, where the serf mentality, with its blind, fatalistic respect for rulers and its automatic acceptance of all their claims, is still dominant and combined with a superpower patriotism which traditionally places the interests of empire higher than the interests of humanity). But this is not important, because ideology plays its role in our system very well (an issue to which I will return) precisely because it is what it is.

Fourth, the technique of exercising power in traditional dictatorships contains a necessary element of improvisation. The mechanisms for wielding power are for the most part not established firmly, and there is considerable room for accident and for the arbitrary and unregulated application of power. Socially, psychologically, and physically, conditions still exist for the expression of some form of opposition. In short, there are many seams on the surface which can split apart before the entire power structure has managed to stabilize. Our system, on the other hand, has been developing in the Soviet Union for over sixty years, and for approximately thirty years in Eastern Europe; moreover, several of its long-established structural features are derived from Czarist absolutism. In terms of the physical aspects of power, this has led to the creation of such intricate and well-developed mechanisms for the direct and indirect manipulation of the entire population that, as a physical power base, it represents something radically new. At the same time, let us not forget that the system is made significantly more effective by state ownership and central direction of all the means of productionThis gives the power structure an unprecedented and uncontrollable capacity to invest in itself (in the areas of the bureaucracy and the police, for example) and makes it easier for that structure, as the sole employer, to manipulate the day-to-day existence of all citizens.

Finally, if an atmosphere of revolutionary excitement, heroism, dedication, and boisterous violence on all sides characterizes classical dictatorships, then the last traces of such an atmosphere have vanished from the Soviet bloc. For, some time now this bloc has ceased to be a kind of enclave, isolated from the rest of the developed world and immune to processes occurring in it. To the contrary, the Soviet bloc is an integral part of that larger world, and it shares and shapes the world's destiny. This means in concrete terms that the hierarchy of values existing in the developed countries of the West has, in essence, appeared in our society (the long period of co-existence with the West has only hastened this process)In other words, what we have here is simply another form of the consumer and industrial society, with all its concomitant social, intellectual, and psychological consequences. It is impossible to understand the nature of power in our system properly without taking this into account.

The profound difference between our system-in terms of the nature of power-and what we traditionally understand by dictatorship, a difference I hope is clear even from this quite superficial comparison, has caused me to search for some term appropriate for our system, purely for the pur poses of this essay. If I refer to it henceforth as a "posttotalitarian" system, I am fully aware that this is perhaps not the most precise term, but I am unable to think of a better one. I do not wish to imply by the prefix "poso" that the system is no longer totalitarian; on the contrary, I mean that it is totalitarian in a way fundamentally different from classical dictatorships, different from totalitarianism as we usually understand it.

The circumstances I have mentioned, however, form only a circle of conditional factors and a kind of phenomenal framework for the actual composition of power in the posttotalitarian system, several aspects of which I shall now attempt to identify.


5 replies, 3318 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Power of the Powerless (1978) -- Vaclav Havel (1936-2011) (Original post)
Viking12 Dec 2011 OP
frazzled Dec 2011 #1
Viking12 Dec 2011 #5
Taunto Dec 2011 #2
snagglepuss Dec 2011 #3
cemaphonic Dec 2011 #4

Response to Viking12 (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:14 PM

1. I read this essay (along with a lot of other Czech literature)

before a stay in the Czech Republic four or five years ago. He was a beautiful writer. We had a friend who participated in the Prague Spring take us to the site of the Russian tanks near Wenceslas Square and tell us the whole story of the uprising and his escape, with friends. They managed to hide in a building off the square. We saw where Jan Palach set himself on fire. We learned about the Plastic People of the Universe, and drank a lot of bad Czech alcohol. Fascinating stuff.

I most admire Havel for having been a playwright and involved in the avant-garde art scene (most notably, in Fluxus) ... and then going on to transform the artist's creativity and intellect into governance.

My only proviso when reading this piece is not to think that we are somehow facing a similar situation. The Soviet dictatorship was truly repressive; we live in paradise by comparison to the long decades they suffered under Soviet rule. One good friend of ours (a crazy artist) escaped in the 60s and came to this country, embittered and firmly anti-Communist, when we were still wearing our Mao buttons and thinking that Communism was very cool. Since that time, while staying in the CR, we met the Czech wife of a colleague of my husband, for a dinner at their home. It had been her grandmother's, a famous dancer in the 30s. The home had been confiscated, and it was only after 1989 that the granddaughter was able to go through the long process of reclaiming it, in a shambles and occupied by a number of people whom, by law, they had to keep there for more than a decade. Our friends occupied a tiny portion of it while waiting for the attrition of the tenants. Recently, they've been able to reclaim it for themselves.

I'm just rambling and reminiscing about all things Czech right now. Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to frazzled (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:43 AM

5. I agree that we shouldn't draw parallels concerning the levels of oppression.

Nevertheless, the lessons for resistance from the green grocer are something to which we can aspire. It puts a whole new meaning to the phrase, "just say no!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Viking12 (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:33 PM

2. Zappa and Havel

For some fun reading, google these two names. Am a big Zappa fan, but, it seems I forgot a few facts. Am on phone, or else I would copy/paste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Viking12 (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:10 PM

3. To read later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Viking12 (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:31 PM

4. I've always been impressed with the speech he gave in 1990 soon after he became president.


I have few true heroes in the political arena, but Havel was one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread