There are those who find no difference between the egoism of the will to power and the altruism of the will to fellowship.  They assert that if egoism is given a wider range, so that the ego includes others, you have altruism, which therefore is only an egoism of a larger ego.  However true this may be logically, for all practical purposes we may separate these two trends in human nature.

In each individual there goes on from cradle to grave a struggle between the will to power and the will to fellowship.  The teaching of morality is largely the government, the subordination of the will to power; the teaching of success and achievement is largely the discovery of means by which it is to be gained.  However we may disguise it to ourselves, power is what we mainly seek, though we may call our goal knowledge, science, benevolence, invention, government, money.

Without the will to fellowship the will to power is tyranny, harshness, cruelty, autocracy, and men hate the possessor of such a character.  Without the will to power, the will to fellowship is sterile, futile, and the owner becomes lost in a world of striving people who brush him aside.  The two must mingle.  And a curious thing becomes evident in the life of men, which in itself is simple enough to understand.  When men who have been ruthless, concentrated on success, specialists in the will to power, reach their goal, they often turn to the thwarted will to fellowship for real satisfaction in life, become philanthropists, world benefactors, etc.  On the other hand those who start out with ideals of altruism and service, specialists in the will to fellowship, generally lose enthusiasm for this and turn slowly, half reluctantly, to the will for power.  In life’s cycle it is common to see the egotist turn philanthropist, and the altruist, the idealist, lose faith and become an egotist.

How does this apply to the nervous housewife?  Simply this, that there are various ways of seeking power, of gaining one’s ends.

There is first the method of force, directly applied.  The strong man disdains subtlety, persuasion, sweeps opposition aside.  “Might is right” is his motto; he beats down opposition by fist, by sword, by thundering voice, or look.  Men who use this method are little troubled by codes; they follow the primitive line of direct attack.

There is second the method of strategy, the disguise of purpose, the disguise of means.  The effort is to shift the attention of the opponent to another place and then to walk off with the prize.  “Possession is nine points of the law” say these folk.  And a straight line is not the shortest way for strategy.  Or exchange with your opponent, give what seems valuable for what is valuable and then fall back on the adage, “A fair exchange is no robbery.”

Third, there is persuasion.  Here, by stirring your opponent into friendliness, he talks matters over, he aligns his interest with yours.  Compromise is the keynote, cooeperation the watchword. “’Tis folly to fight, we both lose by battle; whose is the gain?”