[msutherl]

Pardon the diatribe, but the older I get, the more I feel this book has done incredible damage to political thinking in the States (where it is often a high school reading requirement.)

What's problematic is that it focuses on one interpretation of power at the exclusion of others and leads one to believe (at a young, impressionable age) that it is a canonical account.

The above statements are true in a way, but governments are also established to provide order, and have done so very successfully in general. The book is obviously a response to European nationalism, but we mustn't forget that nationalist dictatorships arise, with deep public support, from specific conditions. Instead of the constant "never again" and automatic insistence on the precise values of the post-war European welfare state, we should leave space for new political thinking, of which some components may appear to be heresy.

Obviously thinking here of anti-state-surveillance – Snowden has apparently read one book in his life: 1984 – but here the "power [...] is an end" meme, presented without any nuance, appears to make sense in this context, but only highlights one side of the matter in a way that distorts the issue.

Yes, power may be abused. It's good to have safeguards.

[arethuza]

Well, I'm not from the States and I didn't read any Orwell until I was in my 20s, but the point I was making is that there are people, fortunately not many - but I have met some, who very much see power as an end in itself. So when someone asked why people would want to dominate others when there was no economic need that quote came to mind as to describe those who desire power for its own sake.

[hugh4]

I think it missed the broader point that there's many reasons you'd want to endlave others apart from economic reasons or "power for its own sake". Altruism, for instance.

Who among us doesn't want to make the works a better place? Who among us doesn't have our own personal view of what a better place would look like, which might not be exactly in line with someone else's view? Congratulations, there's your dictatorial urge right there.

Most of the worst people in history, from Hitler to Marx to Pot to ISIS were all motivated by the desire to make the world a better place. Ascribing bad outcomes to bad intentions is a classic mistake.

[eloff]

How does Marx end up on that list? Sure, the communist systems which spring from his thinking were a failure, but you can't compare him to Hitler. Stalin would be a more appropriate choice.