Mechanism of Politics

by Lee, Chang Hoo

Chapter 1. Basic Principles of Political Phenomena

A. General Principles of Political Phenomena

(2) The 2nd Law of Naturality: Law of Force

Second, "Law of Force" means that strong force always wins against weak force. When there is a force pushing an object to the right and a force pushing it to the left, if the force pushing it to the right is stronger, the object will be pushed in that direction. This physical law can be conceptually generalized and applied to political phenomena, meaning that the law of force is as follows:

If Peter and Kevin collide with full force, the person with stronger force wins. Also, if Kevin and Ben compete with economic power, the person with more assets achieves more of what they want. When Peter and Ben try to persuade Kevin, if Peter's persuasion logic is better than Ben''s, then Kevin is persuaded by Peter. This is what the law of power means. This applies consistently from physical phenomena to biological or human phenomena. Therefore, it is also the same in terms of mental power, cultural influence, and moral justice.

In 1794, the Poles rebelled against the division and annexation of Poland by Russia and Prussia, but they were crushed. During the Chinese Communist Party's struggle against the Chiang Kai-Shek army, the peasant guerillas in the countryside were united ideologically, but they still lost all battles because they were greatly outmatched in terms of manpower and weaponry. These examples demonstrate that the law of force dominates. The fact that more political actions on a larger scale follow the law of force is even clearer. At the end of the 19th century, during the African colonization, the Europeans who sat at the negotiating table drew straight lines on maps to determine the boundaries of their territories. Africa had 190 communities that were fragmented or on the other hand, 250 ethnic groups were bound together in Nigeria and 6,000 chiefdom societies were included in the Belgian Congo colony, among others. Europeans had strong military power, whereas the Africans were greatly weakened in comparison.

The point to be careful of is that even in mental strength or moral justifications, the law of force still operates. The Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had no difference in terms of massacring innocent people during World War II. However, while Nazi Germany became the symbol of evil in the 20th century, Imperial Japan did not. This is because the criticism and publicity capacity of the Jews who suffered from the Nazi was greater, while the criticism and publicity capacity of Korea and Taiwan, who suffered from Japan, was smaller than that of Japan.

Some people seem to find a disdain for morality in the law of force. In this case, the law they are trying to adopt instead of the law of force is the law of mental or moral strength. When Nazi Germany invaded and occupied France with its strong military power, or when the Japanese Empire dominated weak Joseon and massacred its population, it was clearly (no matter who sees it) that Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire were evil forces. The law of force gives the impression of positively endorsing such evil forces.

However, the law of force that I am referring to does not mean to positively endorse the dominant power (morally), nor does it disdain morality. When we say "Nazi Germany had power but was evil," we are only limiting our focus to the fact that "they had power." If we want to overcome the irrationality of chroniclers of the Western Middle Ages who sought only divine providence while ignoring military issues when recording the history of war, we must acknowledge the reality that strong powers conquer and dominate weak powers regardless of good and evil. In political theory, it is necessary to limit our interests there, just as we think about how a truck trying to hit a child operates.

Different Kinds of Forces

When applying the law of force to systematically understand complex political phenomena, it should be limited to the same kind of forces. The law of force does not work between different kinds of forces. In the same way that there are forces that move objects in natural phenomena, there are also different forces that corrode objects, similarly, there are also various forces that act differently in social phenomena.

First of all, undoubtedly, military power is an important force in political phenomena. The victory of the United States over Britain in the War of Independence was not due to issues of legitimacy but rather to the superiority of military power. Similarly, economic power is also an important force in social phenomena, and the law of force applies here, just as a local government or a large corporation may receive money under various names when choosing a main trading bank. The more powerful economic power will exert greater influence, just as the one who offers a higher price wins the auction item.

As a part of the truth, ideals or moral legitimacy are also clearly important factors that change the size and balance of power, just like other types of factors. Because of many misunderstandings, it should be emphasized again that the law of force with respect to ideals or morality is not about those who have power gaining honor or morality, rather it means that a force with stronger ideals or morality will dominate a force with weaker ideals and morality in that aspect.

Ideals and legitimacy as a fact generally appear as the power to persuade others, and it would be easier to understand this concept if one thinks that those with strong persuasion skills are winning in terms of persuasion against those with weak persuasion skills. In 1858, in the United States, Lincoln dominated the argument with Douglas over slavery in terms of persuasion, which was the power of ideals and legitimacy. As a more macro-level example, in the mid-1900s in Congo, ethnic conflicts had a greater impact than conflicts between imperialism and colonialism, which later influenced the political situation in Congo. This is also an example of the problem of legitimacy in ethnic conflicts being stronger than the problem of legitimacy in imperialism conflicts. As mentioned earlier, the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Japanese imperialism are known differently, which is also a phenomenon on the same dimension. This is similar to one side in a legal dispute leading their argument effectively while the other side cannot well apply favorable evidence to themselves. Here, the difference in the level of competence is directly the power of legitimacy as a fact. This is a different issue from the legitimacy as a value-based question of which side is right in pure moral terms.

To summarize, the law of force regarding different types of foce is simple, as stated in [Diag.1.?].

The meaning of this diagram is as follows. First, the laws of force apply between similar forces among various types of actions. The stronger economic power economically subjugates the weaker economic power. The stronger ideology or legitimacy also dominates the weaker ideology or legitimacy morally. Second, the laws of force do not apply between different types of actions. It is a misguided discussion to compare the military power of Peter and the economic power of Kevin, as if comparing which is stronger, like comparing the force pushing an object to the right and the object's resistance to corrosion.

Therefore, the results produced by the laws of force are not simple. For example, even if a person with strong power wins in a power struggle, they can be morally defeated and this can later cause changes in power or material benefits. Also, different types of power interact through their influence on people's choices, which leads to the complexity of political and social phenomena such as issues related to law and institutions. However, in general, each case can be simplified into the laws of foce in the same category. The case of Estevan who was sentenced to 16 years of imprisonment and had his sentence reduced to 7 years by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor, one day before his resignation, and the case of a South Korean lawyer, An Cheon-sik, who only graduated from high school, lost all 18 civil lawsuits over a period of 10 years, can be explained as the complex interaction of various factors affecting the operation of law, but can also be simply explained as a strong legal authority actor overpowering a weak authority actor. Separate from practical validity.

On the other hand, a detailed explanation of how political forces interact with each other will be presented later, based on the Samjae layer hierarchy of mutual interaction grounded in the concept of three survival threats[Tab.1.2].

<Every footnote was deleted from the book>