War And Peace

The answers to historical questions provided by this theory are like those of a man observing the movements of a flock of sheep who ignores the variable quality of the pasturage in different parts of the field and the shepherd coming up behind, and thinks that the reasons why the flock takes one direction or another depend on which animal happens to be out in front.

‘The flock is moving in that direction because it is being led by the animal in front, and the collective will of all the other animals has been transferred to the leader of the flock.’ This is the answer we can expect from the first category of historians, the ones who believe in the unconditional transfer of power.

‘If the animals at the head of the flock change from time to time, this is due to the transfer of all the animals’ collective will from one leader to another, and everything depends on whether the leader follows the direction chosen by the whole flock.’ This is the answer we can expect from historians who assume that the collective popular will gets transferred to leaders on conditions which they regard as known and understood. (With this technique of observation it happens all too often that the observer, looking on things from his own chosen direction, identifies leaders who end up, when the direction of the masses changes, not in front, but off to one side and sometimes even at the back.)

‘If the animals at the front are changing all the time, and the whole flock keeps changing direction all the time, this is because in order to move in a given direction the animals transfer their will to others that are particularly prominent, so if we wish to study the movements of the flock we need to observe all the prominent animals on every side of the flock.’ This is the answer we can expect from the third category of historians, the ones who identify all historical personages, from monarchs down to journalists, as expressions of their age.

The theory of the transfer of popular will to historical persons is nothing but a paraphrase, a rephrasing of the question.

What is the cause of historical events? Power.

What is power? Power is the collective will of the masses transferred to a single person.

On what terms is the will of the masses transferred to a single person? On condition that he expresses the will of the whole people. In other words, power is power. Which is to say that power is a word with a meaning we cannot understand.

If the realm of human knowledge was restricted to abstract thinking, then humanity, after a critical examination of power as explained by juridical science, would come to the conclusion that power is only a word, with no existence in reality. But for a cognitive inquiry into real-life phenomena, man has another instrument besides abstract reasoning – experience – which enables him to verify the results of his reasoning. And experience tells him that power is not just a word; it is something that actually exists.

We can ignore the fact that no account of concerted action by men can get by without the concept of power; the actual existence of power is demonstrated for us not only by history, but by observation of contemporary events.

Whenever an event takes place, a man or men appear whose will is said to have determined the deed. Napoleon III says the word, and off go the French to Mexico.¹¹ The King of Prussia and Bismarck say the word, and off go the troops to Bohemia.¹² At the bidding of Napoleon I, his soldiers march into Russia. At the bidding of Alexander I, the French submit to the Bourbons. Experience shows that whenever an event takes place it is always connected with the will of one person, or several people, who decreed it.

Historians, steeped in the old habit of acknowledging divine intervention in human affairs, tend to look for the cause of events in the will exercised by a person invested with power, though this conclusion is never confirmed by reason or experience.

On the one hand, reason shows that a person’s will – the power of his word – forms only a part of the generalized activity that finds expression in an event, say a revolution or a war, and therefore unless we fall back on some incomprehensible, supernatural force – a miracle – it is not arguable that words alone could be the direct cause of the movements of millions of men.

On the other hand, even if we argued that they could, history shows that in most cases an expression of will by historical personages leads absolutely nowhere – their orders are often ignored, and sometimes what occurs is the exact opposite of what they have ordered.

Without allowing for divine intervention in human affairs, we cannot accept power as an actual cause of events.

And when it comes to real-life experience, power is nothing more or less than the dependent relationship that exists between an expression of will and its execution by other people.