and that the reviewer [Friedrich] found it "exasperating to try and follow arguments with the drift of which he definitely sympathized, except for their alleged novelty." In particular, Sharp does not relate [his view of power] to such classics as Charles Merriam's magisterial treatment of power, or even Bertrand Russell's journalistic book on the subject. He seems unaware of the reviewer's [Friedrich's] analysis of many years ago, in which the distinction between two views of power, and the dependence of power on the cooperation of those over whom it is wielded, was analytically developed, and its root in the classics was shown. Friedrich also stated that a "fundamental weakness" of Sharp's argument was his understanding of violence "as physical violence," since "some of the most vicious forms of coercion are psychic." Furthermore "According to Sharp, violence by definition excludes demolition and destruction of things, such as machinery, buildings and the like. Hence, according to him, much sabotage is not violent; clearly at this point Sharp deviates markedly from popular usage." Due to the "illusory" nature of the distinction based on physical violence alone, Sharp is often "confused," although "many thoughtful arguments are offered." Friedrich concluded that "the topic of how to avoid violence in political conflicts is an important one, the treatment given here is learned, but not very clear, and the results not conclusive," but that the book was a "timely one" that he hoped it will "lead to further more searching studies." In The Western Political Quarterly, H. L. Nieburg wrote that he "would like to see the work cut down to 125 pages and published in paperback as a token of new life for insurgency politics. But, this... should not deter one from the duty to welcome a monumental, competent, and sometimes exciting, work of scholarship." In Social Work, Harry Specht stated that "Sharp has performed a useful service for students of community organizing by producing an encyclopedic description of nonviolent action," and that "by shear weight of detail, the reader comes to recognize that nonviolent action has been far more pervasive than many assume." Specht stated that the books flaws included "repetition and excessive detail," and that the book "seems to imply that nonviolent action is usually undertaken by the oppressed against the state and that it is usually in the cause of positive social change. But... for example, I have just read of two massive