I think that most communities (but specifically utopian communities, as the article discusses), like startups, aim for a "non-zero-sum" ideal -- that is, a way

I think that most communities (but specifically utopian communities, as the article discusses), like startups, aim for a "non-zero-sum" ideal -- that is, a way of making everybody happy. But there's something about our existence that screams "zero-sum": there's scarcity in the universe, for one (a lot more hydrogen than lead, for example); there's scarcity in the Earth (a lot more iron than gold); there's scarcity in nature (mates are hard to find, not finding a mate means your genetic material doesn't propagate), heck there's even scarcity in our own lives (if I spend time studying math I won't have time to study music). IMO failure is driven by this facade of non-zero-sum-ness crumbling and people becoming disillusioned. So I've tried to change my mentality recently when building (or thinking about) social things. In a zero-sum universe, if someone has a lot of followers, someone else won't have any. If someone gets some benefit, someone else won't. Socialism vs capitalism is a very weak analogy (the idea of scarcity and winners and losers goes far beyond economics), but I think there's some merit to it.