[1] Some researchers believe that it was first used in Lucretius’ famous poem On the Nature of the Univers as “progredientis.” See: TITVS LVCRETIVS CARVS. DE RERVM NATVRA. Liber V.
[2] Hegel. Lectures on the History of Philosophy, book 1, p. 78. Subsequently translated quotes from the Lectures: Hegel. Lectures on the History of Philosophy (Selections).
[3] Jaspers. The Origin and Goal of History, p. 93.
[4] I, for example, solved this problem in the context consciousness/thought without resorting to mysticism or “quail.” See Dialectics of Force.
[5] Nisbet. The Idea of Progress, р. 35.
[6] Nisbet wrote: “Marx may have repudiated all manifest religions, but his Dialectic is Augustinian in ultimate origin, and the concept has a providential role in the Marxian theory of progress.” (Nisbet, History of the Idea of Progress, р. 353). If Marx had heard this, he would likely have said at once: “Then I am not a Marxist.”
[7] Nisbet. The Idea of Progress, р. 36.
[8] Eisenach. The Future of Progress.
[9] Quote from Luke 14:23. The essence of the idea – to force someone to do something against his will – is presented in expanded form in Matthew 22:1-14.
[10] Murray, The Idea of Progress: Once Again, with Feeling.
[11] Neuhaus. The idea of moral progress.
[12] Bierstedt, Power and Progress.
[13] This phrase is noteworthy indeed. It became clear to me now why the bourgeois and their “scientist” lackeys are so dumb. They have no need to think; they have lots of money.
[14] Patrick Quinn. Knowledge, Power and Control.
[15] See Aliev [Battler], Might of the State and Global Correlation of Forces.
[16] American National Security, p. 9.
[17] For example, see Weltpolitik. Strukturen – Akteure - Perspektiven; Ward, Structural Power - A Contradiction in Terms?
[18] See Hanai, Kokusai kankeiron, p. 40.
[19] The foreign policy оf modern Japan, р. 368.
[20] Hanai, ibid., p. 49.
[21] Сline. World power assessment, р. 174.
[22] Aron. “La notion de rарроrt de forces - а-t-е11е еnсоге un sеns, а l’ere nucleaiге?» Defence nationale, N 1 (1976), р. 11
[23] Quoted after: Поздняков. Философия политики в 2-х частях, т. 2, с. 194.
[24] The Economist, 13th July 1996, p.29.
[25] Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, р. 103.
[26] Brown, Understanding International Relations, р. 89.
[27] Russell, Power.
[28] Bierstedt, Power and Progress, p. 220.
[29] Spinoza, 2, p. 295. Translated from: Spinoza, Benedict. Political Treatise.
[30] Spinoza, 2, p. 291, 294.
[31] Wrong, Power, р. 2.
[32] By the way, he makes a comment which will be useful to us from the perspective of understanding this term in different languages. Wrong writes: Raymond Aron pointed out that in the English and German languages the same term - power and Macht, respectively – is used to mean ‘capacity to do something’ and ‘the actual exercise of the capacity.’ Whereas in the French language two different words are used: puissance, indicating potential or capacity, and pouvoir, indicating the act. I think that Wrong is not quite correct here, since the German word Macht corresponds rather to the English word might, even though it is translated sometimes as power, but more often as force.
[33] Maruyama. Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics.
[34] Arendt, On Violence, p. 44.
[35] Measuring National Power in the Postindustrial Age.