Blow for blow, which power is most fearsome?

Worry not, EP, for I have returned. I know you have all missed me dearly.

Humility aside, I had an interesting discussion today. It involved types of power, and our conversation encompassed five: physical power, financial power, political power, military might, and power over the mind. Which do you believe is the most dangerous power one can possess?

I err on the side of power over the mind; this is the sort of power that a psychologist or perhaps a popular icon would have, someone who is either in a position of power over a fragile psyche or has power over the populace such that they can influence them by example. The logic to my decision is such that if you can sway someone's thoughts, and influence their decisions, you have complete and utter control. They trust you, and won't be likely to abandon you for greener pastures. What's more, you could probably change their views on a subject such that they'll be inspired to do something about it. Perhaps my view stems from my studies of Psychology, but that's what I believe.

Not as sinister as it might sound; really, it was about the best method one could use to preside over something like a country, and how to gain the loyalty of your subjects and the flaws associated with each.

As always, your turn.

Financial,

you have the money, you have the power.

Sadly I agree with Warrior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takion Sun

Worry not, EP, for I have returned. I know you have all missed me dearly.

---

Im sorry you are?

Military, cant have a Military power without the money, so yeah.
Cant spend money if your nuked bro.

power over the mind (in the most extreme case):

- you make your subjects give you all their money and possessions and they still venerate you... and you obtained monetary power
- you can turn them into fanatical warriors, use their money for research/obtaining weapons and you gain military power
- no need for political power since you're like a God for them... absolute rulership
- physical power... don't need it if you have guns, tanks and nukes. and if corporal punishment is needed, you have your underlings for this...

I would chose physical power if it gave me the strength of a super saiyan. Good bye nuke, hello spirit bomb.:wacko:

If it must be realistic then I would go with military might as well. Though I must say this. If you depend too much on one of those powers alone, then you are prone to absolute failure.

I believe Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito all failed as an Axis power because they were to dependent on certain things and didn't care about the people's best interest, just their personal goals. I would say human nature was stronger than all these leaders "strengths" here because unlike them the Americans and British stood upright and had an ideal goal that all the people could embrace and when that happens there is little to no secrecy or fear in the general public to stand for their freedoms and beliefs. Those that were in fear of their leaders were having to hide those feelings and it only took one spark of hope for them to unite and cause an uprising. "United we stand, divided we fall."

Sorry for the WWII history lecture, I suddenly felt compelled to share my feelings about this topic in that way. To me all of these things can be quite fearsome but the people may rise against you for using it in such a way and that's something none of those powers can truly accomplish in instilling fear and thats will power.

I think you're overestimating the effect of good PR. Confusing influence for control is a good way to lose both. Maintaining a cult of personality on a larger scale than a single small community generally requires greater power, or extraordinary charisma. That is not to say that propaganda is not a powerful force, but it in isolation is insufficient. I have to agree with Jase; military power, ultimately, can be translated most effectively to everything else. There is, after all, a reason that most established powers throughout history, particularly at their most repressive, have maintained a significant standing army and police force, no matter how pervasive any cult of personality established around the ruler may be. Economic powers is not necessary beyond the ability to fund that army, and political power is distinct only insofar as it can be classified as the application of the other four powers described to political ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Electrona

I would chose physical power if it gave me the strength of a super saiyan. Good bye nuke, hello spirit bomb.:wacko:

If it must be realistic then I would go with military might as well. Though I must say this. If you depend too much on one of those powers alone, then you are prone to absolute failure.

I believe Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Hirohito all failed as an Axis power because they were to dependent on certain things and didn't care about the people's best interest, just their personal goals. I would say human nature was stronger than all these leaders "strengths" here because unlike them the Americans and British stood upright and had an ideal goal that all the people could embrace and when that happens there is little to no secrecy or fear in the general public to stand for their freedoms and beliefs. Those that were in fear of their leaders were having to hide those feelings and it only took one spark of hope for them to unite and cause an uprising. "United we stand, divided we fall."

Sorry for the WWII history lecture, I suddenly felt compelled to share my feelings about this topic in that way. To me all of these things can be quite fearsome but the people may rise against you for using it in such a way and that's something none of those powers can truly accomplish in instilling fear and thats will power.

---

Hmmm, pretty idealistic. Not that that's a bad thing by any measure, but I don't think the Axis lost because they didn't care about the people's best interests. They lost because their nations were incapable of handling the stresses placed upon them. All three powers lacked the industrial capacity to sustain extended warfare, either through choice or by physical limitations, and both Japan and Italy had severe doctrinal and organizational defects at the strategic level that significantly limited their carrying capacity. They didn't lose because of their ideals; they merely lacked the means to enforce their ideals on the world as they desired. As far as uprisings, there were none. The only comparable event was the King of Italy dissolving the government in accordance with parliamentary procedure and asking the opposition parties to form a government, and that only happened while the Allies were marching to Rome. In Japan, it's even worse; there was an uprising, but it was *against* the peace process. In Germany, Operation WERWOLF embodied one of the greatest fears of Allied planners, that of a generalized German insurgency against them, though it didn't quite deliver in reality due to organizational issues (classic Nazi problems, in other words).
The factual mistakes, on the other hand, are a bad thing. Calling Stalin an "Axis power" is all kinds of absolute silliness, and a good way to get punched in the face if you said it to a Russian. Not for nothing did the USSR lose something like 23 million people, civilian and military, in the Great Patriotic War AGAINST the Axis powers. Proportionately, only Poland took worse losses, and in absolute numbers, no one comes close. It was a national trauma on the level of what France took after the First World War, and has affected their international relationships even to the modern day.

My reply.

Spoiler warning:

I didn't notice that I put Stalin as a reference to the Axis power, I know that's not right but I think at the time I was posting I was thinking about how Stalin used forced collectivization to meet his rapid industrial plans which looked good on paper but was really problematic and so I accidentally added his name. I know I sometimes get too idealistic about my views but I was trying to say that everything starts with a plan, the thing is though how one goes about in accomplishing it and that can sometimes lead to drastic things like war. I know that there was many other things that happened throughout that time and the rest of history that I just haven't brushed up on and fully learned and understood yet but I strongly believe history repeats itself if you don't learn from your past mistakes.

So in my fairytale like theory, bad guys should lose because they force people to act in a way that goes against their beliefs which should cause defiance and good guys should win because they raise everyone's will and gather everyone to fight for what they believe in and the people would all have a strong motif of righteousness to overcome evil. I know this isn't always the case and especially now as it's getting rarer and rarer to see things as such with all the corruption today. Though I still find complicated things like government and international negotiations practical in the right and wrong sense since were all human in the end. Like you said I can be a quite idealistic sometime but I think that's also apart of a good leadership quality in me and that's to follow through with what I believe and to never give up in my ideals.

I must of mixed up my time periods a bit. I haven't had history class in a long time. Still no excuse I will try harder from now on double check my statements that are based on actual events. Sry.
Now I need to get some sleep, I'm glad I shared my opinion with you Mistral.:)

Interesting thoughts on the early 20th century there! But I always thought that the Axis (or at least Nazi Germany) gained control not by military means, but by propaganda and support of the masses. More like mind power, I suppose. The Germans were still very bitter about WWI and felt that their country should regain it's former glory, and Hitler kind of manipulated that.

Another example would be Mao Zedong. He made communism appealing to the peasants of China. Military power (if you consider a mass peasant army one) came after, but I'm sure he gained it through mind power.

Correct me if I'm wrong. :wacko:

They gained control through propaganda and support of the masses INSIDE their own land. Those who didn't support them got eliminated (physical power) That gave them economic power to make their massive armies. Now when they went beyond their borders... that's where military power came in.

In conclusion, they're all useful in their own way.

I'd like to have physical power like Johnxfire said, but I wouldn't be shooting Ki blasts all around. I'd get myself a Katana and start slashing about like Mitsurugi in Soul Calibur. :wacko:

This whole thread is based on the childish, obsolete ideogram that might makes right. The truth is the truth. Killing people to protect some sort of infantile delusion may have worked during the thousands of years that half retarded troglodyte degenerates have tried to halt the natural evolution of humanity, but it's starting to look ridiculous now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarianoRyu

They gained control through propaganda and support of the masses INSIDE their own land. Those who didn't support them got eliminated (physical power) That gave them economic power to make their massive armies. Now when they went beyond their borders... that's where military power came in.

In conclusion, they're all useful in their own way.

---

Agreed. Although mind power did come first. :wacko: They all play a big part. But I still fear manipulative people the most. They can turn that manipulation into anything they wish.