NationStates Jolt Archive

This is in its beginning stages so don't be surprised if it is not terribly comprehensive. Here is the basic outline:
Every lgovernment belongs to a power web. On the outer rim of the web lies the least powerful and then as it progresses to the center, the layers represent a higher level of power than the previous one, not necessarily coercion.
Power, as defined for this theory, will mean the ability to limit ones own liberty or that of another. Those governments with little power are on the outer rim, those with more are close to the center. Not will this "web" cover governments, but also humans. Government's are comprised of individuals whose freedom they may have power over, but to varying the degrees. The individiual is the most basic unit, therefore it is on the out rim. If the individual gains a bit of power over another, that moves person A a bit nearer to the center.
There is a constant movement of power from the center to the outer rim and vice versa. Revolutions occur when there are violent fluctuations in the amount of power going from the one area to another.

What do you think?

bump

So I have to cut this powerweb to get rid of authority? Hmm, sounds good to me.

So I have to cut this powerweb to get rid of authority? Hmm, sounds good to me.
You never leave the power web, you are born into it. Power also means governing yourself. You would be on the outer rim of it, but you would still be in it.

You never leave the power web, you are born into it. Power also means governing yourself. You would be on the outer rim of it, but you would still be in it.

Then I'll reshape it.

Then I'll reshape it.
Yeah, you and your vast army of loyal anarchists. Oh, wait a second…

So the web isn't like a simple system where you can take out one piece and bring down the whole, instead if you take down one piece, the entire web will shift and change, but there is always a backup for every component?

*Random gibberish I just made up*

Sounds good. But I'm not a socialologist.

So the web isn't like a simple system where you can take out one piece and bring down the whole, instead if you take down one piece, the entire web will shift and change, but there is always a backup for every component?

*Random gibberish I just made up*
You can shift the amount of power from one area to another, but you can't destroy it, unless the world explodes we all die. There are usually fluctuations from A to B, what causes revolution is if there is rapid fluctuations. So, you could say by these changes that there is a backup, I suppose.

Sounds like a justification for government "it can't be gotten rid of, anyway". Not that impressive to me.

Sounds like a justification for government "it can't be gotten rid of, anyway". Not that impressive to me.
No, government has the most power because it can control the liberty of other people. It is possible to destroy that core of power and bring it back to the individual or commune, however you cannot destroy the web itself because individuals possess power over themselves.

But is it even possible to bring down the core, because at all times there is going to be someone more influential in decisions than someone else.

ex. America/China/everyone with nukes destroys the world, only a few humans are left, they form a small, Greek Democracy type of government, where everyone has a say in the government. There is always, always someone who can influence the entire process, it can be by any random mean, but someone always has more influence than the rest of their government peers.

Revolutions occur when there are violent fluctuations in the amount of power going from the one area to another.

What do you think?


This is an entirely descriptive theory, more a model than a theory, so I'd say 'revolutions are described by power shifting &c &c.

Sounds like a justification for government "it can't be gotten rid of, anyway". Not that impressive to me.


The theory of gravity is not terribly impressive, either.

Gravity however is most pointedly manifest in its effects.

But is it even possible to bring down the core, because at all times there is going to be someone more influential in decisions than someone else.

ex. America/China/everyone with nukes destroys the world, only a few humans are left, they form a small, Greek Democracy type of government, where everyone has a say in the government. There is always, always someone who can influence the entire process, it can be by any random mean, but someone always has more influence than the rest of their government peers.
Theoreticaly, it is possible. In practice, I would say no.

New Granada, thanks for that bit of help. :)

But would that mean the strongest aspect of the societal web is the part that exerts the most power over others?

However, it makes sense because what affects one individual, government, or group often has a ripple effect outward throughout all of the various degrees of government and power over others. That's why the French Revolution, or the American, or any other freedom movement is threatening because it could result in the destabilization of those closest to the center and with the most power.

But would that mean the strongest aspect of the societal web is the part that exerts the most power over others?

However, it makes sense because what affects one individual, government, or group often has a ripple effect outward throughout all of the various degrees of government and power over others. That's why the French Revolution, or the American, or any other freedom movement is threatening because it could result in the destabilization of those closest to the center and with the most power.
Precisely.

One question. Who is at the edge of the web?

The least influential of human society if I understand correctly.

This web model seems to me, and i am sure this was quite unwitting, a topographical map of a 'pyramid'.

The least influential of human society if I understand correctly.

I suppose. But who would be classed as "the least influential"? That's what I meant.

What do you think?

At the risk of being pedantic, isn't this a metaphor, rather than a theory? ... and expressed in its simplest terms - 'Web of Power' - one that is hardly new, seeing as how it triggers over 15,000 hits on Google?

I dunno, a pyramid doesn't seem to interconnect everything that interacts with each other, it seems like a series of octogons and squares to me, with shapes that have less interconnecting sections as it proceeds to the center, so slowly but surely the octogon becomes a pentagon-square-triangle-circle.

It just seems to make more sense that way, with each shape interconnected at each point by a set of lines

I suppose. But who would be classed as "the least influential"? That's what I meant.

Probably someone whos a banana vender in India, or some farming 2 year old in China. The older you get, the more power you hold, so I can guess that the least influential person on the planet is constantly changes every few seconds with each newborn child.

Probably someone whos a banana vender in India, or some farming 2 year old in China. The older you get, the more power you hold, so I can guess that the least influential person on the planet is constantly changes every few seconds with each newborn child.

Whilst the idea "The older you get, the more power you hold" is generally true, there are many exceptions i.e Prince William as a newborn had more power than an old and poor slave.

But all in all, it is a good answer, and thank you for settling my curiousity.

I dunno, a pyramid doesn't seem to interconnect everything that interacts with each other, it seems like a series of octogons and squares to me, with shapes that have less interconnecting sections as it proceeds to the center, so slowly but surely the octogon becomes a pentagon-square-triangle-circle.

It just seems to make more sense that way, with each shape interconnected at each point by a set of lines

A hill, a pyramid, whatever you'd like to call it.

Area varies inversely with altitude.

If it can't predict anything, it's neither a theory nor a model. It's a metaphor.

Your metaphor for power in society overlooks the fact that all power flows from the people up first. Considder, for example, the catholic church. Power flows from its parishoners to the local powerbase (the churches) which flow to the sectorial powerbase (the archbishops) which flow the the power hub (the Vatican) which disseminates power back to the clergy, who use that power to perpetuate the Vatican's powerbase.

At the same time, the Vatican channels its power through relevant pieces of its powerbase that are also part of the powerbase of other organisations, and extends its range of control into governments and public organisations.

Even beyond that, the Vatican draws from its "assumed power" (inventing a term)--wherein the world's organisations often grant it a certain degree of control because of its tradition and significance to world events, whether or not the Catholic Church is able to exert power directly on the organisations in question.


I would suggest modeling your power metaphor (or it may even become a model) on small groups of people--say, junior-high lunchroom politics, or office/church/club politics.

It won't be as pretty, though...

If it can't predict anything, it's neither a theory nor a model. It's a metaphor.
My mistaje.

Your metaphor for power in society overlooks the fact that all power flows from the people up first. Considder, for example, the catholic church. Power flows from its parishoners to the local powerbase (the churches) which flow to the sectorial powerbase (the archbishops) which flow the the power hub (the Vatican) which disseminates power back to the clergy, who use that power to perpetuate the Vatican's powerbase.
That would constitute a fluctuation in the amount of power from one area to another. The people are on the outer rim because they are the give, so to speak, power to another. Then it would flow accordingly as you said. My metaphor is moreabout those who hold power than anything else. The exchange between the Vatican and the clergy would constitute a fluctuation, even a slight one.
At the same time, the Vatican channels its power through relevant pieces of its powerbase that are also part of the powerbase of other organisations, and extends its range of control into governments and public organisations.
The Vatican has the power to channel so it is the distributor which would put it closer to the center than say a public organization. If you removed the Vatican, those public organization probably wouldn't receive as much power and an exchange of power would be made with another area, thus changing the position.

If you removed the Vatican, those public organization probably wouldn't receive as much power and an exchange of power would be made with another area, thus changing the position.

So are you claiming that at any time in global history there is the same amount of total power? Although this could be workable for some abstract definitions of power, it doesn't seem to sit well with your earlier definition that Power... will mean the ability to limit ones own liberty or that of another.

So are you claiming that at any time in global history there is the same amount of total power? Although this could be workable for some abstract definitions of power, it doesn't seem to sit well with your earlier definition that Power... will mean the ability to limit ones own liberty or that of another.
Hmm, I now noticed that. I want this to be practical and fairly accurate, what definition would you suggest?

Hmm, I now noticed that. I want this to be practical and fairly accurate, what definition would you suggest?

Just make up some fluff to state that 'This metaphor is a closed system as it is concerned solely with human power over other humans, and thus the total amount of power is always a constant within it: it measures power of the individuals within society in comparison with each other and as such power is a relative rather than an absolute or scalar value.'

Just make up some fluff to state that 'This metaphor is a closed system as it is concerned solely with human power over other humans, and thus the total amount of power is always a constant within it: it measures power of the individuals within society in comparison with each other and as such power is a relative rather than an absolute or scalar value.'
I can build on from that statement, or rather rebuild. I wish to turn this into an actual model, but do not know what it could predict.

I can build on from that statement, or rather rebuild. I wish to turn this into an actual model, but do not know what it could predict.

In order to predict anything it would require an ability to measure the amount of power at any particular location (ie. individual) - a neat trick if you can do it.

In order to predict anything it would require an ability to measure the amount of power at any particular location (ie. individual) - a neat trick if you can do it.


You would have to establish some unit as the core measure of power and then construct everything else proportionate to that core unit.

Mathematically, it will take a while to determine the best representation.

You would have to establish some unit as the core measure of power and then construct everything else proportionate to that core unit.

Mathematically, it will take a while to determine the best representation.

I would expect that to be about as successful as doing rigorous mathematics with hedons and dolors.

Here's a model I found on Google:

http://www.css.sfu.ca/update/vol14/CECM-ball-web.jpg

The center of the sphere would be the most powerful, while the smaller decahedrons would represent certain attributes associated with power (religious freedom, societal morality, economic liberalism, militarism, nationalism or patriotism etc.), and the webs emanating with them would contain various systems whose coordinates would be plotted proportionate to the core (or center of power) and their leaning towards the various attributes and their opposites.

Unfortunately, I haven't the time. I'll stick with this as a metaphor.

Unfortunately, I haven't the time. I'll stick with this as a metaphor.

Yes, it would be an incredibly rigorous and time consuming project, to say the least. Still, if you could make it and prove it workable, it would be an extremely influential work.

Here's a model I found on Google:

http://www.css.sfu.ca/update/vol14/CECM-ball-web.jpg

The center of the sphere would be the most powerful, while the smaller decahedrons would represent certain attributes associated with power (religious freedom, societal morality, economic liberalism, militarism, nationalism or patriotism etc.), and the webs emanating with them would contain various systems whose coordinates would be plotted proportionate to the core (or center of power) and their leaning towards the various attributes and their opposites.
That's a good idea, it facilitates my original idea dn your idea of connecting the various attributes associated with power, as you said. How would the flucuations in power be represented, however?