Competition for power unfolds over a strategic landscape.
As I explained in Empire Theory Part I, we can split this landscape into three power classes: high, mid, and low. In Part II, I illustrate how these classes vie for power:
Even those aligned on overall ends may choose to compete over power.
But with competition comes coordination; the dance between the two defines the landscape. Even unaligned actors may be induced to coordinate against others.
2/n
I go into detail about each interaction in the piece, but the tense interaction between mid and high is the most important part of the analysis.
The main variable is resources. High must incentivize mid not to raid the resources concentrated at the top.
3/n
Resources change over time. In order to maintain control, high must continuously introduce new resources into its empire. Growth leads to imperial health, and scarcity to decay.
Growth and decay play out differently depending onthe degree of centralization:
4/n
An empire might be centralized or decentralized depends on if high can buy off and coordinate mid with resources, or is too weak to control mid’s own expansion. Each type of empire also contracts differently.
Read the piece for details as well as historical examples!
5/n
These types of empires then have interesting consequences for bureaucracies as well as coordination among live players. To see how they fit the bigger picture, read Great Founder Theory.
Institutions are full of automated systems—bureaucratic procedures—which dominate outward institutional appearance. More often than not, these systems persist far longer than their designers do. Focusing on them obscures the true, underlying sources of institutional health.
2/n
Moreover, institutions often lean on outside institutions. That a bank branch is able to pay a utility to keep its lights on tells us nothing about the bank’s own functionality; we should generalize this observation to a broad range of core features that may be outsourced.
3/n
The flip-side of the Internet being a surveillance technology is that the Internet is also a communications technology.
In 2020, it is obvious how much personal, social, and political life has been thoroughly subsumed into the Internet. At scale, we have a new social world.
In this essay, I argue that the most impactful individuals in history all did so by founding functional institutions. Great Founder Theory proceeds from this:
Most institutions are non-functional. This does not necessarily mean that the buildings are on fire or that layoffs are expected. Rather, most non-functional institutions are merely inadequately imitating functional institutions.
2/n
In a non-functional institution, everyone works towards the same socially-rewarded goals, rather than doing specialized work that combines to achieve the institution’s nominal function, such as winning wars or generating profits.
3/n
My research focuses on the people who have had the most impact on society and history.
We call those people Great Founders, those who founded exceptionally functional and long-lived institutions, affecting society long after they are gone: samoburja.com/great-founder-…
3/n