The power of trade unions is the converse of the power of the rich. Trade unions can keep out coloured labour, prevent their own extinction, secure heavy death duties and income tax, and preserve freedom for their own propaganda. But they have failed hitherto to bring about Socialism, or to keep in power governments which they liked but which a majority of the nation distrusted. Thus the power of economic organizations to influence political decisions in a democracy is limited by public opinion, which, on many important issues, refuses to be swayed even by very intensive propaganda. Democracy, where it exists, has more reality than many opponents of capitalism are willing to admit. 出典： Power, 1938. 詳細情報：https://russell-j.com/beginner/POWER08_090.HTM
Let us consider, for a moment, the power of the plutocracy in a democratic country. It has been unable to introduce Asiatic labour in California or Australia, except in early days in small numbers. It has been unable to destroy trade unionism. It has been unable, especially in Great Britain, to avoid heavy taxation of the rich. And it has been unable to prevent socialist propaganda. Per contra, it can prevent governments composed of Socialists from introducing Socialism, and if they are obstinate it can bring about their downfall by engineering a crisis and by propaganda. If these means were to fail, it could stir up a civil war to prevent the establishment of Socialism. That is to say, where the issue is simple and public opinion is definite, the plutocracy is powerless ; but where public opinion is undecided, or baffled by the complexity of the issue, the plutocracy can secure a desired political result. 出典： Power, 1938. 詳細情報：https://russell-j.com/beginner/POWER08_080.HTM
一国家内における経済力（経済的権力）は，究極的には，法と世論（の支持）に由来するが，それは容易に一定の自立性を獲得する。一国家内の経済力（経済的権力）（例：個々の大企業や経済団体）は，贈収賄（汚職）によって法に影響を及ぼすことができるし，宜伝によって世論に影響を及ぼすこともできる。(また）一国家内の経済力（経済的権力）は,政治家たちの自由を阻害する債務（obligations）を彼ら（政治家たち）に負わせることもできる(注：みすず書房刊の東宮訳では「政治家の自由に干渉する★義務を彼らに追わせることもできる」となっている／ここでは政治家を「借金漬けにして支配下に置くことを言っている)。それは，財政上の危機を引きおこすぞと威嚇することもできる。しかし，それ（一国家内における経済力（経済的権力））がやり遂げることができることにはきわめて明瞭な（力の）限界がある。シーザーは却って債権者（資金を提供してくれた人たち）に助けられて権力を得たが（was helped to power by），債権者たちはシーザーが（権力獲得に）成功しなければ返済の希望がないと思っていた。しかし，シーザーは（権力獲得に）成功すると，彼は債権者たちを無視するほど強力になった（強力になり債権者たちを無視した）。シャルル五世（フランス王）は皇帝の地位を買収するのに必要な金をフッガー家から借りたが，皇帝になるとフッガー家を無視して(snapped his fingers at)，フッガー家の人々は貸した金を失ってしまった(原注参照)。シティ・オブ・ロンドン（ロンドンの金融街）も，今日，（第一次世界大戦後の）ドイツの復興を援助してこれと似た経験をした。ティッセン（注：Fritz Thyssen, 1873-1951：ドイツ最大の鉄鋼トラストの会長で，国家社会主義ドイツ労働者党(ナチ党)の最大のパトロン）もヒットラーの政権獲得を援助して，同様の経験をしている。
(* 原注：フッガ一家（の人々）は，決してハプスブルク家の借り手に抵抗することができなかった。フッガー家が金を貸した相手は，シャルル五世だけでなく，彼に貸す前に皇帝マキシミリアンに，彼に貸した後にスペイン系ハプスブルク家の子孫に金を貸した。『フッガー（家）ニューズレター』の序文には，こう書かれている。「少なくとも四百万ダカット金貨を（ハプスブルク系の）スペインの王たちはフッガー家から借りたが，まったく返済しなかった。たとえ，西方と東方のハプスブルク家との商取引から生じる損失は八百万フローリンにのぼると見積もっても（注：accrue from 生じる／if = even if），過大評価ではない。・・・。もし彼ら（フッガー家）が存在しなければ，ドイツにおける宗教改革は，おそらく何の抵抗も受けずに勝利したであろう。このフッガー家の最も有能な人々は，一世紀に渡って努力した。しかし（それにもかかわらず），同家（注：貸し手）の多くの後継者たちに残されたものは，法外なほど高価な羊皮紙の山と，二重にも三重にも抵当に入った不動産だけであった)（注：つまり，抵当権がいっぱいついていたので、そんなものがいくらあっても処分できないのでどうしようもなかった，ということ）。
Chapter VIII: Economic Power, n.7
Economic power within a State, although ultimately derived from law and public opinion, easily acquires a certain independence. It can influence law by corruption and public opinion by propaganda. It can put politicians under obligations which interfere with their freedom. It can threaten to cause a financial crisis. But there are very definite limits to what it can achieve. Caesar was helped to power by his creditors, who saw no hope of repayment except through his success; but when he had succeeded he was powerful enough to defy them. Charles V borrowed from the Fuggers the money required to buy the position of Emperor, but when he had become Emperor he snapped his fingers at them and they lost what they had lent (* see note). The City of London, in our own day, has had a similar experience in helping German recovery ; and so has Thyssen in helping to put Hitler into power.
(note: The Fuggers never could resist a Habsburg borrower. They lent money, not only to Charles V, but to the Emperor Maximilian before him, and to his Spanish descendants after him. The Introduction to the Fugger News Letters says: “At least four million ducats had been borrowed from the Fuggers by the Spanish kings and never repaid, and it is not exaggeration if the losses accruing from their business transactions with the Hapsburgs (Habsburgs) in the west and east are estimated at eight million florins…. But for them (the Fuggers) the Reformation in Germany would probably have triumphed without opposition. The most capable members of this House strove for a century, but nothing remained to their innumerable heirs but an inordinately costly pile of parchments and heavily mortgaged landed property.) 出典： Power, 1938. 詳細情報：https://russell-j.com/beginner/POWER08_070.HTM
個人の場合において(も)，国家によって作られた諸規則が国法（the Law 定冠詞付きの大文字）の該当部分を構成している。法のこの部分も，他のあらゆる部分と同じように，世論によって支持されて初めて有効となる。世論は，モーゼの十戒の中の第八戒（汝盗むなかれ）に従って，窃盗を非難し，「窃盗」を法律によって有罪とされるやりかたで（他人の）財産を奪うことだと定義している。このようにして，個人の経済力（経済的権力)は，究極的には，世論，つまり，窃盗に対する（世論の）道徳的非難に依存している。そうして，それには，窃盗を法律によって定義することを認める感情が伴っているのである。 このような感情が弱いか（希薄か）あるいは全く無い場合には，財産は危険にさらされる。たとえば,スターリンは共産主義の利益のために天職（vocation 職業）を行う道徳的な山賊として自分の生涯のスタートを切った。我々は，第八戒の道徳的義務から人々を解放する教皇権（法王の権力）が如何にして13世紀イタリアの銀行家を彼（教皇）がコントロールすることを可能にしたか（これまで）見てきた。
Chapter VIII: Economic Power, n.6
In the case of private persons, the rules made by the State constitute the relevant part of the Law. This part of the Law, like every other, is only effective when it is supported by public opinion. Public opinion, in accordance with the eighth commandment, reprobates theft, and defines “theft” as taking property in a manner condemned by the law. Thus the economic power of private persons rests ultimately on opinion, namely on the moral condemnation of theft, together with the sentiment which allows theft to be defined by the law. Where this sentiment is weak or non-existent, property is endangered; Stalin, for instance, began his career as a virtuous bandit practising his vocation in the interests of communism. We have seen how the power of the Pope to release men from the moral obligation of the eighth commandment enabled him to control the Italian bankers in the thirteenth century. 出典： Power, 1938. 詳細情報：https://russell-j.com/beginner/POWER08_060.HTM
… and ownership of land can usually be traced back to some such conquest. In international economic relations, we have not yet reached the stage represented by the first formation of the committee of Vigilantes: the stronger nations, individually, each still extract money from the weaker by the threat of death. This is illustrated by recent British dealings with Mexico in the matter of oi1, or rather would be but for the Monroe Doctrine. A more forcible illustration was the Reparation Clauses of the Versailles Treaty. But in the internal economic systems of civilized countries the legal foundations are complex. The wealth of the Church depends upon tradition ; wage-earners have profited to some extent by trade unionism and by political action ; wives and children have rights which are based upon the moral sentiments of the community. But whatever the economic rules made by the State may be, military power in the b background is essential to their enforcement. 出典： Power, 1938. 詳細情報：https://russell-j.com/beginner/POWER08_050.HTM
たとえば，1849年のカリフォルニアやその数年後の（オーストラリアの）ヴィクトリア（州）における状況のような，ゴールドラッシュの時に広く行われた準無政府状態を考えてみるとよい。自分自身の所有権に基づいて合法的に獲得した金(きん)を所有する人も，その金(きん)を銀行に預けるまでは（預けないうちは），経済力をもっているとは言えなかった。金を預けるまで，盗まれたり殺されたりしがちであった。完全な無政府状態においては －万人の万人に対する闘争（注：トマス・ホッブスの言葉）も含めて－ その人があらゆる襲撃者から，リボルバー銃（連発銃）で自分の身を守れるほどの敏捷さと確実さをもっている者を除いて，金（きん）は無益（無用の長物）であろう。そういう者にとってさえ，金（きん）はじっと眺めて楽しむだけのもの（注：a pleasant object to contemplate）に過ぎなかった。というのは，何も払わずに殺すぞと脅かすだけで自分の必要を充たすことができたからである。そのような状態は，どうしても，きわめてわずかな人が食物を採集している場合を除いて，必然的に不安定であるだろう。農業は（も），土地侵入（自分の地所への無断侵入）及び収穫物の盗難を防止する手段がなくては不可能である。
The connection of economic power with government is to some extent reciprocal; that is to say, a group of men may, by combination, acquire military power, and, having acquired it, may possess economic power. The ultimate acquisition of economic power may, in fact, be their original motive in combining. Consider, for example, the semi-anarchic conditions prevailing in a gold-rush such as that in California in 1849, Or in Victoria a few years later. A man who possessed gold which he had acquired legally on his own holding could not be said to possess economic power until he had lodged his gold in a bank. Until then, he was liable to be robbed and murdered. In a state of complete anarchy, involving a war of all against all, gold would be useless except to a man so quick and sure with his revolver as to be able to defend himself against every assailant; and even to him, it could only be a pleasant object to contemplate, since he could satisfy his needs by the threat of murder, without having to make any payment. Such a state of affairs would necessarily be unstable, except possibly in a very sparse food-gathering population. Agriculture is impossible unless there are means of preventing trespass and the theft of crops. It is obvious that an anarchic community composed of more or less civilized individuals, like the men in a gold rush, will soon evolve a government of some kind, such as a committee of Vigilantes. Energetic men will combine to prevent others from plundering them ; if there is no outside authority to interfere, they may also plunder others, but they will do so with moderation, for fear of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. They may, for example, sell protection in return for a percentage of a man’s earnings. This is called income tax. As soon as there are rules determining the giving of protection, the reign of military force is disguised as the reign of law, and anarchy has ceased to exist. But the ultimate basis of law and of economic relations is still the military power of the Vigilantes. 出典： Power, 1938. 詳細情報：https://russell-j.com/beginner/POWER08_040.HTM
Credit is more abstract than other kinds of economic power, but is not essentially different; it depends upon the legal right to transfer a surplus of consumable commodities from those who have produced them to others who are engaged in work which is not immediately productive. In the case of a private person or corporation which borrows money, the obligations can be enforced by law, but in the case of a government the ultimate sanction is the military power of other governments. This sanction may fail, as in Russia after the Revolution ; when it fails, the borrower simply acquires the property of the lender. For example, it is the Soviet Government, not the pre-war shareholders, that has power to decide who shall have access to the Lena goldfields.
Thus the economic power of private persons depends upon the decision of their government to employ its armed forces, if necessary, in accordance with a set of rules as to who shall be allowed access to land; while the economic power of governments depends in part upon their armed forces, and in part upon the respect of other governments 出典： Power, 1938. 詳細情報：https://russell-j.com/beginner/POWER08_030.HTM
しかし，同様の分析は，もっと不明瞭な事例（場合）にもあてはまる。小作人はなぜ農地の地代を払わなければならないのか？小作人はなぜ収穫物を売ってもよいのか（売ることができるのか）？ 小作人が地代を払わなければならないのは，その土地が地主「のもの」（の所有物）だからである。地主がこの土地を所有しているのは，彼が誰か他の人からその土地を購入または相続によって入手したからである。（だが）その地主がこの財産所有権を得るに至った歴史を過去に遡ると，最後には，この土地を力で －王が廷臣の誰かを寵愛して恣意的にふるった権力によって，あるいは，サクソン人やノルマン人による征服のような大規模な征服によって－ 獲得した誰かに行き当たる（注：○○家初代など／天皇家初代；徳川家初代など）。そのような暴力行為の合間においては（注：大戦争によって体制が変わるまでは），（時の）国家権力は所有権が法に従うこと（ownership shall pass according to law 所有権が法律に従って通用すること）を保証するように利用されるのである（注：徳川幕府の時代には，諸法度という法に従って所有権は管理された。なお，東宮氏はこの一文を「このような暴力行為のあいまあいまをつなぐために､国家の権力が利用されて，これが★所有権の法による譲渡を保証する★のである」と訳されている。）。また，土地の所有権とは，（要するに）誰にその土地に立ち入ることを許すかを決定する権力である。（即ち）この許可を得るために小作人は地代を払うのであり，この許可のおかげで，彼は収穫物を売ることができるのである。
But the same analysis applies in less obvious cases. Why must a tenant farmer pay rent for his farm, and why can he sell his crop? He must pay rent because the land “belongs” to the landowner. The landowner owns the land because he has acquired it by purchase or inheritance from some one else. Pursuing the history of his title backwards, we come ultimately to some man who acquired the land by force — either the arbitrary power of a king exercised in favour of some courtier, or a large-scale conquest such as those of the Saxons and Normans. In the intervals between such acts of violence, the power of the State is used to insure that ownership shall pass according to law. And ownership of land is power to decide who shall be permitted to be on the land. For this permission the farmer pays rent, and in virtue of it he can sell his crop.
The power of the industrialist is of the same sort; it rests, in the last analysis, upon the lock-out, that is to say, upon the fact that the owner of a factory can call upon the forces of the State to prevent unauthorized persons from entering it. In certain states of public opinion, the State may be reluctant to do the bidding of the owner in this respect; the consequence is that stay-in strikes become possible. As soon as they are tolerated by the State, ownership ceases to be vested wholly in the employer, and begins to be shared, in some degree, with the employees. 出典： Power, 1938. 詳細情報：https://russell-j.com/beginner/POWER08_020.HTM
Economic power, unlike military power, is not primary, but derivative. Within one State, it depends on law; in international dealings it is only on minor issues that it depends on law, but when large issues are involved it depends upon war or the threat of war. It has been customary to accept economic power without analysis, and this has led, in modern times, to an undue emphasis upon economics, as opposed to war and propaganda, in the causal interpretation of history. Apart from the economic power of labour, all other economic power, in its ultimate analysis, consists in being able to decide, by the use of armed force if necessary, who shall be allowed to stand upon a given piece of land and to put things into it and take things from it. In some cases this is obvious. The oil of Southern Persia belongs to the Anglo Persian Oil Company, because the British Government has decreed that no one else shall have access to it, and has hitherto been strong enough to enforce its will; but if Great Britain were defeated in a serious war, the ownership would probably change. Rhodesian goldfields belong to certain rich men because the British democracy thought it worth while to make these men rich by going to war with Lobengula. The oil of the United States belongs to certain companies because they have a legal title to it, and the armed forces of the United States are prepared to enforce the law; the Indians, to whom the oil regions originally belonged, have no legal title, because they were defeated in war. The iron ore of Lorraine belongs to the citizens of France or Germany according to which has been victor in the most recent war between those two countries. And so on. 出典： Power, 1938. 詳細情報：https://russell-j.com/beginner/POWER08_010.HTM