Coordination in activist networks

Building on Lorenzo Warby

Lorenzo Warby

wrote an excellent essay arguing that the modern western state is not a Party-state but rather an activist network state. Go read it, it’s good.

Then, comeback here and read my follow up, an attempt to explain that it seems like there is coordination in the activist network despite there being no obvious source of coordination because there is coordination, it is simply the kind of coordination that flows from selection effects in a distributed network with a central node that directs resources to the lower levels.

distributed network with a red central node

Regarding the directive aspect of the network, it is worth noting that there are not antipodes, that is equal and opposite networks competing on the edges. If we liken the spread of the activist state to the spread of religion, we note that there is not an Islam rising to compete with a dominant Christianity, no activist state that isn't leftist woke or within the activist state no network that functions in the same manner but competes with the leftist woke network. One can reasonably respond "Yet," but I think the near monopoly on the activist network process suggests that there is indeed a coordinating function, and probably either one single one or a small group with similar interests.

I propose that the coordinating center is in fact the state, specifically in our time the US federal government. The state holds this coordinating place in the network because it holds a unique capability: coercive power. Those with coercive power to punish behaviors they disapprove of (through various means) and coercively collect resources to distribute to supporters get to coordinate the narrative, both by deciding what is heresy to be punished and by selecting the network actors that please them for resource allocation. In this way they can decide what the rules are and adopt/promote network participants who support their goals.

One level out from the centralized coordinators, there is less coercive power, if any, but a great deal of resource allocation, and so these nodes get to adopt the next level nodes that support their interests, which are very close to the interests of the centralized nodes due to the upper level adoption process. And on it goes down, with the local goals and interests of each later level selected for by the level prior; you get some loss over time with strange bedfellows and inconvenient allies gathered that might get purged later, but still a remarkable amount of coordination despite the fact that direct communication between disparate levels is approximately zero. Throw in the effects of media to communicate high level rules between nodes, as well as old style enforcement mechanisms through higher state capacity, and you have a great deal of coordination despite a lack of obvious coordinators.

That's the mechanism, but it itself doesn't explain why it works one way. The answer to that lies in "What makes the coordination node dominant over competing coordination nodes?" The question to answer that question is: What types of philosophies emphatically place the state, the coordination node, as the central function of society? Totalitarianism, the belief that total state power is necessary to reshape society into its proper form. In modern days that typically takes the form of the Marxist/Leftist social justice state, although it also manifests as the theocratic state; arguably those are one and the same, with only the claims about why the leaders have special knowledge differing.

The dominant activist-network philosophy will always be the one that says "No matter the problem, move state power is the answer" because that is the philosophy that increases the resources of the coordination node the most and allows it to grow and coordinate more effectively, all else equal.

But things are rarely equal. The great failing of that philosophy is that it doesn't work, being merely rule by parasitism. Eventually enough resources are taken by the central node that the society ceases to function, falling to foreign conquest or internal rot and disintegration. Whether those foreign conquerors or subsequent new rulers are any better or simply not as far along the path to destruction yet is an open question.

The key consideration to long term success for a society, from the state down to the private organization, is how well it can manage to resist the unending parasitic hunger of the centralized coercion node. All eventually succumb as all things must, but many can correct the problems before they become overwhelming.