Power and might are very important oppositions. We often tend to associate both, while, in my opinion, they might be opposed.
A symbol of this opposition is the dialectic of the master and the slave of Hegel. The master has the power, but the slave, thanks to his skills, has the ability in the long run to be mighty and to be the real master. To this extend it is necessary to say that might is learned by skills and life experiences, while power is a matter of position. It is really different.
This opposition is also, in my opinion, noticeable in the contest between politics and economics. As Kant said, “money is the first measure of power”: it is noticeable to say that the first measure of power, along history, is the economy. To this extend Englahd succeeded to defeat Napoleon in Waterloo thanks to the development of its financial markets, which allowed to mobilize a large amount of money very quickly. Focusing of economical development, as England and later the United States did, is detrimental to build its power later. To this extend the economy is the first measure of might.
This approach is illustrated by the difference between the Soviet Union and China. The Soviets focused on the politics and on the military power. But at the end of the course they became a lot less powerful than China, who focused a lot more on the economy. China focused first on its economical development before concentrating on its military. This approach was in my opinion very efficient. To the same extend, in the United States, in the 2O1O’s, prosperity came back when Obama decided to focus on the economic development and didn’t want anymore to intervene all over the world.
The power of politics, to this extend, is an illusion and looks secondary. Marx stroke strategically capitalism when he focused on the economical system a lot more than on politics. He decided to focus on this point and to strike internationally. Focusing on the economy and on an international expansion was a lot more powerful than focusing on politics and having power. Lenin made the mistake to fucus too much on politics and not enough on the economy. He didn’t respect the Marxist approach which promoted to pass by capitalism before leaning towards socialism ; he preferred to do a revolution in a feudal society and implement directly the proletarian dictature.
To this extend the might is different from the power. A formal position will never replace skills. That is the reason why focusing on education is so important to ensure the future of a society. The Western world is forgetting that too much, and it can be very dangerous in the long run. The period we live in promotes too much the dictature of appearance and communication, and is not focusing enough on education and deepened knowledge. Today only Asia kept old fashioned education, which is one of the first factors of social ascension. To this extend the Western world tends too much to promote power over might, and this approach should change.
The observer 