Steven Lukes's "Power: A Radical View" (2005) is a concise and bold analysis of power, originally published in 1974, reprinted with two additional chapters. Lukes argues that power requires a non-behavioral dimension, as it shapes perceptions, cognitions, and preferences, enabling the powerful to secure compliance. He challenges liberal orthodoxies in American political science, proposing a more comprehensive view of power as value-laden and identifying its mechanisms. Although Lukes makes some concessions to critics, he maintains a 'radical', non-Marxist view of power, drawing on concepts like 'real interests' and 'false consciousness'. He distinguishes himself from structural Marxism, affirming a Marxist (and Aristotelian) view of an 'objective' human nature. Lukes updates his 'radical' perspective, offering insights on thinkers like Jon Elster, James Scott, and Foucault, as well as classical figures like John Stuart Mill and Spinoza. He acknowledges his original definition of power was inadequate, suggesting power should be seen as a 'dispositional' capacity. While Lukes's work is admired, some critics argue his linkage of power and responsibility may be too indebted to C. Wright Mills, potentially oversimplifying the role of systemic factors in capitalist societies. Chantal Mouffe's "On the Political" (2005) presents a distinctive interpretation of late modern politics, emphasizing the ineradicable problem of 'antagonism'. Mouffe defends value pluralism, distinguishing 'the political' as the possibility of violent conflict from 'politics' as the creation of order. She argues that democratic politics should transform 'antagonism' into 'agonism', allowing ideological conflicts to be expressed within a shared symbolic space. Mouffe highlights the value of the Left/Right distinction and the role of 'libidinal investment' in partisan conflicts. Her work is both accessible and provocative, offering a clear account of her political philosophy.Steven Lukes's "Power: A Radical View" (2005) is a concise and bold analysis of power, originally published in 1974, reprinted with two additional chapters. Lukes argues that power requires a non-behavioral dimension, as it shapes perceptions, cognitions, and preferences, enabling the powerful to secure compliance. He challenges liberal orthodoxies in American political science, proposing a more comprehensive view of power as value-laden and identifying its mechanisms. Although Lukes makes some concessions to critics, he maintains a 'radical', non-Marxist view of power, drawing on concepts like 'real interests' and 'false consciousness'. He distinguishes himself from structural Marxism, affirming a Marxist (and Aristotelian) view of an 'objective' human nature. Lukes updates his 'radical' perspective, offering insights on thinkers like Jon Elster, James Scott, and Foucault, as well as classical figures like John Stuart Mill and Spinoza. He acknowledges his original definition of power was inadequate, suggesting power should be seen as a 'dispositional' capacity. While Lukes's work is admired, some critics argue his linkage of power and responsibility may be too indebted to C. Wright Mills, potentially oversimplifying the role of systemic factors in capitalist societies. Chantal Mouffe's "On the Political" (2005) presents a distinctive interpretation of late modern politics, emphasizing the ineradicable problem of 'antagonism'. Mouffe defends value pluralism, distinguishing 'the political' as the possibility of violent conflict from 'politics' as the creation of order. She argues that democratic politics should transform 'antagonism' into 'agonism', allowing ideological conflicts to be expressed within a shared symbolic space. Mouffe highlights the value of the Left/Right distinction and the role of 'libidinal investment' in partisan conflicts. Her work is both accessible and provocative, offering a clear account of her political philosophy.