As mentioned on the theme page of Power and Inequality, power has to do with the means needed to effect one’s choices or decisions. If a person has no means whatsoever to give consequences to his or her choices, those choices remain simply figments of the mind. However, most people do have at least some means (forms of power) at their disposal that they can use to advance their choices and/or implement their decisions. Yet, there are large differences between the kinds and amounts of means that people have available to them, making for (often highly) unequal distributions of power.
The inclusion of the terms choices or decisions in the definition of power implies that there is someone who makes choices or decisions. In a human (societal) context, power is attached to people – it does not exist independently. Its exercise depends on people and the choices they make. Agency is the ability of people to make choices or decisions. But for those choices to have an effect, they need power. So, power presumes the existence of agency (someone who makes choices), and agency needs power (means) to give effect to these choices. Hence, power and agency are inextricably connected.
Here, I will first elaborate on the notion of power, given the many different interpretations of that concept, and explain my definition. Second, I will distinguish between six forms or varieties of power and discuss the linkages between them. Third, a section on power structures explains how the distribution of power (of various forms) in societies is consolidated and systemically entrenched. The final section elaborates on the importance of agency in consolidating or changing power structures.
What is power?
Power is an elusive concept interpreted and defined in many ways (Russell 1938; Wrong 1979).[1] One view that has been quite influential, advocated by Robert Dahl and other pluralists, is that it is a relational concept.[2] In this view, power exists only as a dimension of the relationships between people. Its existence can only be demonstrated by empirically studying people and groups’ interactions, decisions and behaviour. Many political analysts have proposed various interpretations of power, which raises the question of whether other forms or kinds of power should be distinguished, such as the power to keep issues off the political agenda [3] and the power to influence or shape people’s values or thinking.[4] Given this spill-over tendency, I focus here on the broadest and most general definitions of power as they are found in dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
It is notable that, in fact, a broad agreement can be found between various dictionaries on the most general meaning of the concept of power, such as the “ability to act or produce an effect” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power), or the “ability or capacity to act or do something effectively” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/power), or as the “ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/power). Linked to the way power is often conceived in the social sciences, other definitions provided are the “possession of control, authority, or influence over others” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power), the “ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/power), and the “capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events” https://www.open.edu/). Similarly, Wikipedia states that “In social science and politics, power is the capacity of an individual to influence the conduct (behaviour) of others” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28social_and_political%29).
A few things are worth noting about these definitions. First, in the most general sense, power is commonly seen as an ability or capacity. This suggests that the power holder(s) must have some means to achieve something and/or to get others to do (or not do) something. Second, the exercise of power is not necessarily directed at other people; it may be exercised over oneself and/or things rather than over other people. In other words, power is not always relational in the sense of involving, being aimed at or affecting other people. Third, power is commonly associated with the capacity to act to produce an effect.
Based on these general definitions and observations, I broadly define power as the capacity to effectuate one’s choices or decisions. This definition applies to the power that individuals exercise to advance personal goals, more or less in isolation from others (the second point made above), and to the power exercised to influence others, as commonly discussed and analysed in the social sciences. Thus, power is both enabling and empowering, but it may also entail imposing restrictions on or dominating others, one potential effect of its exercise. In other words, this definition encompasses the two forms of power (“power to” and “power over”) that some regard as the two main categories.[5]
The expression “giving effect to one’s choices” leaves open what kind of effect and how much effect is (or can be) given to the choices or decisions of an individual or group, and on what. This can vary from positive or negative (in the eyes of the beholder), material or non-material, and from very little, confined to a small part of reality and/or to very few other people, to an effect on many things or people. In this definition, “effect” can imply different degrees of effectiveness in achieving the aims or intentions of those who exercise power. Exercising power does not necessarily mean that goals are achieved or that its effects are precisely what is intended; it may have unintended effects. Nonetheless, such effects would not have been produced without the capacity to give effect to a choice or decision, so power has still been exercised. They highlight the limitations of human power, which is far from God-like, even if some rulers may want people to believe it is.
There is no need to have different definitions of power for the general and private, and for the public and political realms. Fundamentally, all people possess some form of power, albeit to varying degrees, but some individuals have significantly more power than others, which can manifest in different ways. Some people’s power may be confined mainly to their private realm (personal relationships, children, and meagre possessions), while others have and exercise various forms of power within an organisation. Some, notably at higher levels of politics and business, can or do make decisions that affect the lives of millions of people. However, all power entails the capacity to give consequences to choices or decisions, albeit to varying degrees. Power based on personal abilities is also exercised (and can be very significant in its effects) in the public or business realm at the highest levels, in addition to other forms of power. As discussed below, different forms of power are seldom exercised in isolation.
Because power involves agency (the capacity to make choices), it is important to note that agency can pertain to individuals and groups (collective agency). Hence, power is essential for individuals seeking to pursue or advance their values, goals, or interests, as well as for groups. However, the exercise of power by groups will be influenced by the varying degrees of power held by the group members. We should be careful not to reify the choices and actions of a group or organisation as if they were an individual or unitary actor. The choices and decisions made on behalf of a group or organisation may conceal critical differences in members’ views regarding what is deemed important and the degrees and kinds of power they hold and exercise.
A key element of this definition of power is the assumption of access to resources. Ability implies that a power holder has access to some means or other to give effect to a choice or decision (and to make a choice or decision in the first place). Although ability could be interpreted more narrowly as the skill with which people use resources, here ability is interpreted as comprising all resources people have, including personal attributes, knowledge and skills. Although almost everyone has access to some resources, the nature, range, and quantity of those resources differ significantly, and thus the degree of power they can exercise. Below, I elaborate on the kinds of resources and how these can be classified. The primary point to be made here is that power has a resource dimension or capacity that enables its actual exercise. The exercise of power presumes the existence and availability of resources, without which its exercise would not be possible. While some analysts of power link power foremost or even exclusively to its empirically demonstrable exercise, the interpretation of power advanced here emphasises the crucial importance of resources and their distribution for the different degrees of power that people exercise and can exercise.
In the literature, the resource dimension of power has received scant attention. Although some analysts have recognised the importance of resources to power,[6] the discussion of power in mainstream political science, as well as in the media, tends to be preoccupied with the actual exercise of power (for instance, by politicians, interest groups, NGOs, the media) and/or with the power attached to formal political institutions. There is still a tendency to neglect or ignore the structural aspects of power related to the distribution of various kinds of power resources. Yet, although analysing power as exercised by individuals and groups may shed light on why and how particular choices and decisions have (had) significant effects, this does not reveal the power structures in societies (and the world). The way power (resources) is distributed conditions (influences, enables and constrains) the exercise of power by individuals and groups.
Forms of power
Power can be exercised only through specific resources or capacities. These resources or capacities can take very different forms. Here, I distinguish six forms of power that correspond to the resources people can use to give effect to their choices and decisions. I label these physical power, cognitive power, personal power, social power, material or economic power, and institutional power.
Physical power, as the term suggests, resides in physical entities or capacities like physical (bodily) strength, tools that can be used to move or manipulate objects or people (like automotive power, machines), and arms, armies and police forces. The exercise of physical force, commonly referred to as coercion, may be regarded as the crudest form of power. Compelling others to do or refrain from doing what one wants by physical force is blunt and often generates resentment, opposition, hatred, and vengeance. Therefore, coercion is probably the least effective form of power, as it fails to get others to accept and internalise what one wants them to do or not do. It will likely lose much of its potency once it is no longer exercised. However, the threat of using physical force, especially once it has been demonstrated, may be more effective over a longer period. However, using this threat and instilling a fear of its implementation is not a form of physical power, but rather a form of cognitive power.
Cognitive power, as the term suggests, is grounded in knowledge. Knowledge, understanding, and information enable a person or group to figure out what is needed to give effect to one’s choice(s) and what works or is likely to work. This can apply to both the physical and human or social worlds. It can be based on experience, intelligence (in its different meanings), science and research, but also on intuition, an understanding of what makes people tick, of their emotions, values, needs, (social) relationships, bonds and networks, and any other aspects of the social, cultural, economic and political world. Cognitive power can enable the holder to gain insight into others’ thoughts and emotions, making it potentially one of the most effective forms of power. Knowledge and understanding can be improved, increasing the potential effectiveness of this resource. However, as knowledge will always be incomplete, tentative, and uncertain, there is scope for the unexpected to occur, for errors to be made, and for counterproductive consequences to be produced. Hence, like all power sources, cognitive power enables the holder to give effect to his/her choice(s), but it does not necessarily imply control or a guarantee that objectives will be achieved. Additionally, knowledge is a source of power and is not exercised in isolation. It must be used by individuals or groups. Whether and how knowledge is applied depends, among other factors, on personal resources.
Personal power or the power of personal resources is used here, for lack of a better term, to describe the power of an individual related to their personality, charisma, talents, skills (including social, leadership, and communication skills), and any other personal characteristics or qualities that an individual can use to give consequence to his or her choices. Some of these qualities may be innate or genetic, but many talents and skills must be developed before they can be exercised effectively. In this respect, considerable differences exist or emerge between people that have significant implications for the (kind of) power they can exercise, such as in the physical realm (like sports), arts (talents), or politics. While Max Weber identified charisma as one of the primary forms of political power, other personal qualities can be regarded as equally important in this respect, such as the ability to persuade, cunning, and talents for organisation, scheming or plotting. Again, these sources of power must be exercised to have an effect, and, to a large extent, their effectiveness depends on the availability of other power sources. For instance, the power to persuade or plot (effectively) can be enhanced significantly by knowledge (cognitive power). In contrast, a highly knowledgeable scientist who lacks practical communication skills may struggle to convince others.
Social power is the ability to mobilise and invoke the support of other people (and their resources) based on social ties and/or (perceived) common interests or characteristics. Individuals may draw on the support of family members (“blood ties”) and their partners, a practice that remains prevalent even in modern societies, as reflected in the phenomenon of nepotism at the highest levels (e.g., U.S. President Trump’s use of family ties). Friends, colleagues or acquaintances may exchange favours based on mutual expectations of reciprocity (quid pro quo). On a larger scale, leaders of groups may call upon the support of people who are perceived to have a shared basis or interest in their ethnicity, identity, gender, profession or trade, employment positions, class, social status, nationality or any other common characteristics such as a love for dogs, guns, or nature. This form of power is the bedrock of interest group politics. In some schools of thought in political science (pluralism, neo-pluralism, and elitism), exercising social power is considered central to politics. But, as pluralists often point out, an individual may mobilise or be mobilised by different groups for different purposes. Again, social ties or group membership do not constitute power but are a potential source of power that can be mobilised or activated by individuals or groups to give consequence to their choice(s).
Material or economic power is based on ownership and/or control over material resources. This includes ownership and/or control over natural/physical resources (including land, water, houses and other buildings, tools and means of production). Money constitutes the ability to lay claim to resources and is, therefore, a source of economic power. Economic power is crucial to human survival, as access to essential material goods (such as food, water, clothing, and housing) is necessary to meet basic needs. But in modern capitalist societies, most people don’t own or control the resources and means (of production) needed for survival; they depend on selling their labour power, knowledge and skills to earn money to buy the necessities of life. Hence, wealth provides not only control over material resources but, indirectly, also over people who are dependent on someone else’s economic power. Accumulated economic power also enables the holder(s) to acquire other forms of power, including the labour and services of those with physical, cognitive, and personal power, and may be of great help in mobilising social power and in influencing and accessing institutional power. Hence, the system through which economic power is allocated and distributed, which produces a power structure, lies at the heart of politics. Given that material power is the most easily accumulated form of power, especially if a certain threshold or critical level has been achieved, and that it is arguably also the most convertible (fungible) form of power that can be used to acquire and accumulate other forms of power, putting limits on its accumulation and concentration is crucial to democracy.
Institutional power resides in positions within formal and non-formal organisations that carry the right or capacity to make or participate in decisions that set or change rules and affect other people and/or the mobilisation, allocation, and use of resources. Thus, institutional power often opens the door to other sources of power and can involve decisions that have a profound impact on many people. Political institutions, notably those associated with the state, have traditionally been the focus of the study of power. However, since the 1950s, attention has shifted toward behavioural analyses grounded in a relational interpretation of power. In the 1980s, interest in institutional power, including that associated with the state, experienced a revival, and its importance is now widely recognised, particularly in the political-economic sphere. But arguably, at least as important is the institutional power linked to (big) business institutions (such as TNCs). One should be wary, however, of ascribing institutional power to organisations or rules in isolation. Again, institutional power should be understood as a source of power that depends on individuals or groups to be exercised, potentially in quite different ways by different officeholders.
Political institutions, notably those commonly associated with the state, have traditionally been the focus of comparative politics and policy analyses mainly because of the formal (binding) powers associated with these institutions and the assumption that this makes them essential for explaining decisions, policies, and policy performance. One aspect of state power that has been (and still is) crucial in the distribution of power within and between societies is control over the military and the police force. Although military and police power are forms of physical power, the control and distribution of this power were formally monopolised by the state when the international state system was established in the 17th century. Thus, they were converted into political-institutional power, even though non-state holders of physical power (criminal organisations, private security forces or armies, and terrorist groups) continue to play a role in exercising this type of power.
As the observations above indicate, the different forms of power are closely linked. Moreover, they are seldom exercised in isolation. Most people have some degree of personal, physical, cognitive, social, and economic power, and often use these in combination. Although not everyone has (access to) institutional power, institutional power almost always comes with economic, cognitive and social power. Moreover, the exercise of one form of power may increase other forms of power; for instance, when money (economic power) is used to purchase and enhance cognitive power (e.g., PR services) or political influence (access to decision-makers in high positions). The exercise of social power, too, is often combined with cognitive power (propaganda, nationalism, ethnic or identity-based discourses), economic power (funding these communications), and physical power (“ethnic cleansing” being an extreme example). These interactions among the various forms of power, and their distribution, accumulation, and concentration in societies (and the world), necessitate examining the structural dimensions of power.
Power structures
Focusing on the resource dimension of power opens the door to considering issues like the (re-) distribution, accumulation and/or concentration of power resources and the analysis of power structure(s). Although this has been a focus in some streams of the literature (notably elite theory and the Marxist school of thought), the study of structural power has been relegated to the fringes of post-WWII social science. Mainstream (relational) analyses of power have been dismissive of power as involving (accumulated) resources and of generalisations about the distribution of power in society, beyond that associated with formal political institutions. Recognising that power has a resource dimension takes this topic out of the closet. Although it may be neither feasible nor necessary to quantify power precisely, analysing power resources enables the assessment of significant differences in the types and degrees of power held by individuals and groups, and the meaningful discussion of power structures beyond formal political institutions or systems.
All forms of power are distributed unequally, but the nature and extent of inequalities vary for each form within and across societies. For instance, across various measures, countries differ significantly in the extent to which material power, linked to wealth and income, is distributed. Although these differences may change over time, the extent to which such changes constitute a shift in the economic or material power structure remains debatable. If material inequality moves from being highly unequal to much more equal (or less unequal), it can be plausibly argued that the distribution of material power has changed. However, to assess whether such a change amounts to a structural change, other things need to be considered, such as whether/how this change has come from changes in ownership patterns and/or rights (in other words, institutional changes) or is the result of ad hoc decisions (such as a decision to increase the minimum wage). To answer this question, one needs to examine the mechanisms by which income and wealth are generated and distributed.
First, this requires examining the economic system and the dominant institutions (rules and organisations) that provide the basis for production and distribution, and facilitate their functioning in society. These include, among others, rules governing the ownership of the means of production, the rights and obligations of workers and employers, and the government’s role and responsibilities in determining or regulating such matters, as well as institutions that regulate the allocation of resources and the distribution of income and wealth. Closely linked to these is the system of political-institutional power which defines the formal role and powers of government agencies (departments), as well as the rules (including constitutions) that specify and regulate the principal state institutions (such as Parliament, the executive, the courts, elections and appointments, army and police). Similarly, the distribution of ownership and control over the mass media, scientific organisations, and educational institutions affects the distribution of cognitive resources and, thus, is a constitutive element of the cognitive power structure. The social power structure encompasses the institutions of civil society (classes, stratification, ethnic composition, the homogeneity or diversity of interests, values, beliefs and norms) and the rights and capacity of groups to organise themselves to advance their views and demands. These affect their ability to mobilise support for or against decisions and policies based on shared or perceived common values, interests or identities. These four power structures are interconnected and mutually impact one another. The overall power structure of a society or country is a combination of interrelated distribution patterns of various forms of power and the systems that regulate how power is generated, exercised, controlled, accumulated, and concentrated.
Power structures tend to be relatively enduring. While the power of individuals and groups may grow, wane and change rapidly, the interwoven power structure of a society or country does not change fundamentally very often, mainly because it reproduces itself. Much material power is inherited and passed on to the children of the powerful, usually assisted by the advantages they also acquire in cognitive power (for instance, by education) and social (class) connections, and/or because of easier access to institutional positions of power, as exemplified in the families or dynasties of politicians that keep on producing leaders, even in western democracies.
Thus, power structures tend to reproduce themselves even if the fortunes of individuals and particular groups or factions (within a class or elite) may rise and fall. Some individuals from modest social backgrounds may become millionaires or even billionaires, but this does not fundamentally alter a society’s power structure. Toppling or replacing a political leader is often viewed as a significant event; however, it may have little to no impact on a society’s power structure. Changes in formal political institutions (and power) may not fundamentally affect the economic system and economic power structures. Nonetheless, leadership changes can signal or bring about a redistribution of power, depending on the political orientation and the effectiveness with which a leader exercises power resources (personal and otherwise). Occasionally, significant changes in the distribution of power resources have been achieved through revolutions, in which individuals have often played a leading role. This brings us back to the role of agency.
Agency
Power and agency are inextricably linked. Agency is defined here as the capacity of individuals to make choices. All people have agency, although they differ in how they choose to exercise it across various contexts. In other words, people decide to choose (strictly speaking, not choosing is also a choice). While some people may frequently change their preferences, others prefer to stick to their choices in some or many areas.
Although all people have agency and usually exercise it daily, this does not mean that they can give consequences to those choices in the sense of following them with actions, let alone actions that effectively translate their choices into reality. More often than not, converting choices into action is not straightforward and encounters hurdles. This is where power becomes relevant. Sometimes, little power is required to effect a choice, such as opening or closing a window – all it takes is modest physical effort. But even that may be problematic for some people. To give effect to many other choices, substantially more power (in various forms) is required. Thus, agency and power are intertwined. The agency needs power to give consequences to choices, while exercising power implies making choices.
While much of what people do is influenced by rules, roles, norms, and expectations, often upheld and enforced by groups and organisations (not least those in which people work), people still have a choice in their actions. Human behaviour and action are not determined, as some would like us to believe. People continually make individual and group choices within the (often considerable) scope of interpreting rules and norms and of fulfilling roles, obligations, and expectations in various ways. While human agency can be interpreted as the manifestation of the philosophical idea of human will or freedom, it can also help explain institutional or structural change. As institutions (including organisations) usually allow some scope for interpretation and choice, the cumulative effects of individual decisions can bring about change, even if slowly and incrementally. This explains why systems and institutions are often dynamic (even if mildly so) rather than entirely static.[7] Also, people, organisations, and governments sometimes make “big” decisions, such as changing careers, having children, making significant investments, or involving major policy and/or institutional change. While this does not imply that people or societies control their destinies, it reflects a desire to shape their lives or futures.
Agency can be exercised individually and collectively. On many personal matters, people make their own choices, even if influenced by others. In some situations, such as between friends or partners, people may voluntarily agree to make joint decisions (collective agency) following more or less discussion. Collectively making choices (or decisions) is also common in organisations such as clubs, companies, and political organisations. However, this does not mean that all people have an equal say in making such choices or even participate in decision-making. Often, the number of members involved in collective decision-making is (very) small. Hence, collective agency should not be confused with democratic decision-making. Collective choices do not simply emerge; they are based on and influenced by individual choices. While the decisions of some collective actors (such as banks or corporations) may be influenced or constrained by formal rules, expectations, and objectives (“bottom lines”), these factors do not, by themselves, determine the specific choices made by CEOs or other officeholders. Even in highly rigid institutional contexts, decision-makers still have choices, which often become apparent when there is a change in CEO or officials, or when policies pursued by competing companies operating in the same market differ.
This applies even more so to political officeholders. Although politics is about much more than the choices made by powerful people, one should not deny that individual agency can significantly influence the course of organisations, politics, societies, and history. While accounts of politics and history based on the doing (and undoing) of “great men” (and sometimes women) are highly simplistic and reductionist, it would be foolish to dismiss the role and importance of the agency of individuals and their ability to give effect to their choices, sometimes with implications for millions of people. World War II arguably would not have occurred without Hitler, notwithstanding the structural (socio-cultural, political-institutional, and political-economic) factors that predisposed Germany toward war. As we cannot change history, only revisit it (by writing revisionist accounts), this is nothing more than speculation. But we should not underestimate, let alone deny, the importance of individuals’ roles and actions in shaping the world as it unfolds.
This is not to downplay the crucial importance of systems and (power) structures. The debate about the relative importance of structure and agency has been rather sterile. Trying to reduce history mainly to the role of structures (as “structuralists” do) is highly unsatisfactory as it leaves little or no scope for explaining change, including structural change, as a result of human (especially collective) choices. This would imply, for instance, that the neoliberal turn in government policies and institutions during the 1970s and 1980s primarily arose as a structural necessity associated with the development of capitalism, thereby overlooking the significant role of individuals and groups in shaping the newly dominant ideology and policies.[8] At the same time, the opportunity to effect such changes was conditioned by the economic developments of the 1970s, which enabled their proponents to advance their ideas and policies as solutions to the problem of stagflation. Many analysts now recognise that both agency and structure need to be invoked in efforts to explain history,[9] as stated in this famous quote of Marx: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”[10] The notion that human behaviour and action are conditioned but not wholly determined by structures, systems, and institutions is a view that makes sense from both a historical and philosophical perspective. If it did not matter what humans think and do, why bother about anything?
References
[1] Russell, Bertrand (1938), Power: A New Social Analysis. London: Allen; Wrong, Dennis H. (1979), Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses. Oxford: Blackwell.
[2] Dahl, Robert Alan (1961), Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press; Dahl, Robert A. (1963), Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall; Ellis, J. (2001), “Understanding Global Environmental Politics: Domination, Accumulation, Resistance”, Millennium-Journal of International Studies, Vol . 30, No.2, pp.458-460.
[3] Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz (1962), “Two Faces of Power”, The American Political Science Review, Vol.56, No.4, pp.947-952; Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz (1963), “Decisions and Non-Decisions: An Analytical Framework”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.57, No.52, pp.632-642.
[4] Lukes, Steven (1974), Power: A Radical View. London; New York: Macmillan; Swartz, D. L. (2007), “Recasting Power in Its Third Dimension”, Theory and Society, Vol . 36, No.1, pp.103-109.
[5] Haugaard, Mark (2012), “Rethinking the Four Dimensions of Power: Domination and Empowerment”, Journal of Political Power, Vol . 5, No.1, pp.33-54.
[6] Korpi, Walter (1985), “Developments in the Theory of Power and Exchange”, Sociological Theory, Vol.3, No.2, pp.31-45; Wikipedia (2018), Power Resource Theory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_resource_theory (Accessed: 8 January 2019); Winters, Jeffrey A. (2011), Oligarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Sewell, William H., Jr. (1992), “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol . 98, No.1, pp.1-29.
[8] MacLean, Nancy (2017, e-book ed.), Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. Scribe Publications.
[9] Callinicos, Alex (2004, 2nd rev. ed.), Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory. Leiden; Boston: Brill; Giddens, Anthony (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan; Lukes, Steven (2007), “Power”, Contexts, Vol . 6, 3, Summer, pp.59-61.
[10] Marx, Karl. 1969. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. In Karl Marx. Selected Works, edited by Moscow: Progress Publishers, 394-487, p.398.