3 ms·

On the flipside of this: To understand how to establish, retain, and fail in running your authoritarian regime, I found The Dictator's Handbook by Alastair Smit

On the flipside of this: To understand how to establish, retain, and fail in running your authoritarian regime, I found The Dictator's Handbook by Alastair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita a very fun read. Although repetitive at times (as history often does so itself), it gives a systems-oriented framework of how power concentrates as it does, and various outcomes we get out of it. Definitely in line with the way of thinking most HNers appreciate.

hayst4ck 2y ago
CGP Grey did a video on this that is very much worth watching for anyone interested in politics: https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/rules-for-rulers https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/rules-for-rulers On youtube there is also another video where he talks about making this video that I found more interesting than the video itself. One of the more interesting points he made is that in order to get into power you generally have to be given that power, but to be given that power, you must show loyalty to the power structure. Loyality is corruption and corruption is loyalty, at least when that loyalty is to a person. So corruptibility/loyalty is intrinsically related to being in a position of power. The summary of all of that is the only time good things happen is when you yourself get into a position of power and choose to use it for good, rather than for purely selfish reasons.
- disqard 2y ago
  > to be given that power, you must show loyalty to the power structure. This is a gem! Thank you for sharing it. It also ties in with Venkatesh's "Gervais Principle", where, as we ascend the corporate hierarchy, we see "losers" --> "clueless" --> "sociopaths". The highest echelons of corporate structure are indeed occupied by the kinds of people who are comfortable swearing allegiance to the corporation itself, not to its customers, its employees, its founding values, or some "greater good for society". Thus do we arrive at a world where these corps are headed by people who truly believe in "maximizing shareholder value".
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    If you like that, you will also like Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy: https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    > The highest echelons of corporate structure are indeed occupied by the kinds of people who are comfortable swearing allegiance to the corporation itself, not to its customers, its employees, its founding values, or some "greater good for society". Thus do we arrive at a world where these corps are headed by people who truly believe in "maximizing shareholder value". I think you're misreading his interpretation. The Sociopaths enter and exit at will by feigning loyalty and interest to the corporation but ultimately they're not loyal to the corporation -- just loyal enough to maneuver around the power structures. once those structures are no longer useful they either break them, or jump ship, as evidenced by one of the minor-character managers in The Office. those actually loyal to the company itself are the Clueless, who stick around even when it is clear the company isn't looking out for them, the customers, or much of anything.
    - disqard 2y ago
      Thank you for adding that nuance.

hayst4ck 2y ago

CGP Grey did a video on this that is very much worth watching for anyone interested in politics: https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/rules-for-rulers https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/rules-for-rulers On youtube there is also another video where he talks about making this video that I found more interesting than the video itself. One of the more interesting points he made is that in order to get into power you generally have to be given that power, but to be given that power, you must show loyalty to the power structure. Loyality is corruption and corruption is loyalty, at least when that loyalty is to a person. So corruptibility/loyalty is intrinsically related to being in a position of power. The summary of all of that is the only time good things happen is when you yourself get into a position of power and choose to use it for good, rather than for purely selfish reasons.

disqard 2y ago
> to be given that power, you must show loyalty to the power structure. This is a gem! Thank you for sharing it. It also ties in with Venkatesh's "Gervais Principle", where, as we ascend the corporate hierarchy, we see "losers" --> "clueless" --> "sociopaths". The highest echelons of corporate structure are indeed occupied by the kinds of people who are comfortable swearing allegiance to the corporation itself, not to its customers, its employees, its founding values, or some "greater good for society". Thus do we arrive at a world where these corps are headed by people who truly believe in "maximizing shareholder value".
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  If you like that, you will also like Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy: https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  > The highest echelons of corporate structure are indeed occupied by the kinds of people who are comfortable swearing allegiance to the corporation itself, not to its customers, its employees, its founding values, or some "greater good for society". Thus do we arrive at a world where these corps are headed by people who truly believe in "maximizing shareholder value". I think you're misreading his interpretation. The Sociopaths enter and exit at will by feigning loyalty and interest to the corporation but ultimately they're not loyal to the corporation -- just loyal enough to maneuver around the power structures. once those structures are no longer useful they either break them, or jump ship, as evidenced by one of the minor-character managers in The Office. those actually loyal to the company itself are the Clueless, who stick around even when it is clear the company isn't looking out for them, the customers, or much of anything.
  - disqard 2y ago
    Thank you for adding that nuance.