The passage discusses Steven Lukes's classic work on power, originally published in 1974 and reprinted with additional chapters. Lukes argues that power requires a non-behavioural third dimension, focusing on how the powerful secure willing compliance through shaping perceptions and preferences. His "radical" view, influenced by C. Wright Mills, emphasizes the role of ideas and human nature in understanding power. Lukes criticizes empirical political scientists for underestimating the power of ideas and offers sharp observations on contemporary scholars. He acknowledges some limitations in his original definition of power but maintains his stance against structural determinism. The review also raises questions about the potential limits of his analysis, suggesting that power might involve a fourth dimension in capitalist societies. The second part of the passage reviews Chantal Mouffe's book *On the Political*. Mouffe emphasizes the ineradicable problem of 'antagonism' in late modern politics, advocating for a realist defense of value pluralism. She combines post-structuralist insights with Carl Schmitt's 'friend/enemy' relation to understand 'the political' as the constant possibility of violent conflict. Mouffe suggests that democratic politics aims to transform antagonism into agonism, allowing ideological conflicts to be expressed within a shared symbolic space. The review highlights Mouffe's critique of Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens and her positive view of the parliamentary system in facilitating partisan conflict.The passage discusses Steven Lukes's classic work on power, originally published in 1974 and reprinted with additional chapters. Lukes argues that power requires a non-behavioural third dimension, focusing on how the powerful secure willing compliance through shaping perceptions and preferences. His "radical" view, influenced by C. Wright Mills, emphasizes the role of ideas and human nature in understanding power. Lukes criticizes empirical political scientists for underestimating the power of ideas and offers sharp observations on contemporary scholars. He acknowledges some limitations in his original definition of power but maintains his stance against structural determinism. The review also raises questions about the potential limits of his analysis, suggesting that power might involve a fourth dimension in capitalist societies. The second part of the passage reviews Chantal Mouffe's book *On the Political*. Mouffe emphasizes the ineradicable problem of 'antagonism' in late modern politics, advocating for a realist defense of value pluralism. She combines post-structuralist insights with Carl Schmitt's 'friend/enemy' relation to understand 'the political' as the constant possibility of violent conflict. Mouffe suggests that democratic politics aims to transform antagonism into agonism, allowing ideological conflicts to be expressed within a shared symbolic space. The review highlights Mouffe's critique of Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens and her positive view of the parliamentary system in facilitating partisan conflict.