How should we do startups to retain teleological independence and win real power?
If one has ambition, talent, friends, and a good idea, one can build a successful company in Silicon Valley. But why? Money is nice; you ascend the bourgeois class tournament and get finer luxuries, more respect, better mates, better schools, better friends, and more security. These are nice as they go, but many find their context intolerable and dream of changing the world. For that, money is useful only if you know how to spend it, and have the right network of friends to spend it on. For that, the critical entrepreneurship seems to be in the places to spend money, not the (commodity) right to spend it.
And let's examine the boons of money (slavecoin) as well: luxury is mostly Veblen signalling. The "better" friends will also be staked into the system. The security is on the margin and partial; money will not buy you membership in a society that has a future, if ours does not. Better schools largely reduces to the same basket of values for your kids. Better mates is the only one that's a true Abrahamic good, but many seem to overestimate the quality or security that success can buy. (Women especially gain almost nothing here from "success"). Do I underestimate the value of money?
Most impact is that of the company itself. SpaceX means mars. Amazon means cheap goods fast. Google, OpenAI, and Wikipedia mean easy information. Palantir and Anduril mean weapons for USG. But what kind of society do these support? To the extent we have a good society, these additions to it are good. But if the problem is at the generating core of society, as I suspect, how much do they help?
There is another way they support a vision for society, which is in the people they employ and the culture they thereby sponsor. But the tech culture, optimized and captured by the twin masters of capitalist productivity and the professional managerial class, doesn't work as a comprehensive answer to the fundamental questions of life. Do they have children? Do they create beauty? Do they have philosophy? Do they supersede philosophy by direct nobility? Do they embody God's will for man on earth? Are they going to last as a way of life? No. In fact, consciousness of this lack is what drives much of the ambition and greed in the first place. We hope to build and buy these things, which we do not have. But it seems that by the default path, we cannot build or buy them.
The ur-value that is upstream of other values is that we want membership in a total human community that answers the fundamental questions with a concrete and viable way of life.
The ideal then, staying roughly within available forms, would be a company or social ecosystem that provides some important enabling value to a good society, which uses that revenue to directly employ a cultural vanguard of that society, who despite the demands of productivity are able to prioritize the transcendent values necessary to life. That is, the root stock of a comprehensive culture, with economic engine attached. Any profits, if such a thing could even be said to separate profit from expenses, would ideally be plowed back into more indirect investments in the target culture. Furthermore, it would be able to retain structural and teleological independence so that it doesn't get folded back into surrounding non-viable society.
But it seems that all our infrastructure for startups, all our legal tools and best practices, are geared to the capitalist-PMC borg. By operating with that conceptual vocabulary, you become "successful" but only in ways that are assimilated into that borg. I have heard too many stories of radical startups becoming captured by the bankrupt control systems of our current regime.
How then can we replace those tools, or use those tools to build a teleologically independent startup/culture? Or should we surrender and be assimilated to our "success" by the borg? That is my question for discussion.
If one has ambition, (hidden)
✔️
✔️
90%
✖️
✖️
>>1901>Or should we surrender and be assimilated to our "success" by the borg?I don't know that anyone can really enslave their own mind as an adult once it is liberated. Though I would be curious to hear of such attempts.
>>1899>Who can profit by breeding and training the best?This is probably the right framing. Industries that profit by breeding and training the best still exist, albeit in specialized niches that people know require individualized (early) attention. Livestock breeders, performance artists, possibly true philosophical education. The difference with the former two is that they have proven resistant to the psyops of modern society. Everybody knows that the grass-fed beef is better, they even know the names of the breeds which are. Everyone knows that it is ridiculous to have a piano or violin group lesson, regardless of innate musical talent. The best information and products have never been more accessible to the general population, but one must know *how* to find it. If our particular social ecosystem is able to get the best producer-breeders to profit more without compromising quality, and simultaneously conduct the necessary philosophical psyop in a self-selecting fashion on the bourgeois class, channeling that ambition and greed into true excellence, I think we might have a shot.
I don't know that an (hidden)
✔️
✔️
84%
✖️
✖️
>>1909Well the question isn't whether you can become a mind-slave, but how much silicon valley VC-driven success actually buys you if you aren't. Or if it doesn't buy you much, whether there's another approach that works better.
With respect to the rest, the question is how to concretize all that.
Well the question is (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️
Real power requires the capacity to do violence. Influencing those with the capacity to do violence is the next best thing, but I’m not sure it’s any substitute.
The capacity for violence isn’t easy to build with wealth, at least not within a nation with a sufficiently advance and somewhat functional military. Maybe someone with the will to do so could take their funds to the third world and pay the Erik Princes of the world to help them build a paramilitary force, but I don’t see our commercial class doing this.
Some companies might be well positioned for influence (like weapons and surveillance startups, or a business that is so much more capable of launching things into space than its public sector counterpart that it becomes a military dependency). It is more likely than not that these companies will only succeed by playing nicely with policy set by other people, because violence still trumps wealth at the end of the day. A lack of thumos might have kept e.g. Bezos of a few years ago from even thinking about staging a sort of logistics strike, but a lack of guns keeps him and anyone else from actually doing it regardless.
So success in startup land really just empowers one to go the Thiel route and support those who seek to infiltrate or play the political game, or to prove themselves before playing the political game themselves (or, more likely, before having their *family* play the game, like so many [attempted] American political dynasties).
If you are an American and have outlier startup success and you don’t count yourself a priest like the Yarvin’s of the world do, your next step should likely be a political career.
If you do not hear the call, the next best thing is to ensure your business solves material problems (like the reindustrialization wave we are seeing) and to ensure it hires your conationals and invests in domestic human capital rather than milking the immigration system. Beyond that, wait and support those that do hear the call.
Startups are somewhat unique in form and in the possibility for large returns, but other than that, they are just business ventures and only offer what any business venture can offer. Why do so many in this forum expect them to be so important? Everyone is waiting with bated breath for some Silicon Valley savior why? Because pmarca follows people who post N-towers?
Real power requires (hidden)
✔️
✔️
86%
✖️
✖️
>>1911I don't think anyone expects much from silicon valley. It's just one of the few places where it is demonstrably possible for an ambitious person with some talent to go build something. The whole point of OP is that even that is of questionable utility. We talk about it a lot because socially that's where we are. Is there some other obvious place to be?
With respect to power, it seems like the empires of the day are far too large to expect to build much power outside of them. The third world mercenary thing seems fake. Maybe El Salvador is the closest to outsider small-player sovereignty. The "domestic" economic-political career seems most viable as you say.
Within that, the OP can be rephrased as a question of whether you have to separate business and politics in the sequence you suggest, or whether its possible to build directly politically useful business success (in silicon valley, but elsewhere would also be an interesting answer). I don't really know, but maybe it's time to try.
Andreesen in particular has an economic MO that should not be misinterpreted as a political strategy. He hypes up some seemingly edgy and exciting area that sincere people get excited about where he thinks there's money to be made, and then uses that goodwill to direct deal flow and get good terms from idealistic founders who think hes "based" or whatever. The N-towers are just the latest meme ideology being repurposed for the silicon valley financial machine.
I don't think anyone (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️
>>1912> ... OP can be rephrased as a question of whether you have to separate business and politics in the sequence you suggest, or whether its possible to build directly politically useful business success ...This is a great question. I suspect the answer is yes, but it would take a very strong and imaginative live player as CEO/owner to do it. Two data points as small hints:
* Brian Armstrong shutting down woke politics at Coinbase by letting go all employees who wouldn't affirm their "mission focus."
* Elon Musk firing 80% of Twitter employees.
Neither of these is what OP is calling for, but they are signs that one can in fact do things that are not borg-compliant and the sky does not fall. Journalists will shout for a few months, but if you can keep the business running, you get to do what you want. The hard part is figuring out what to want, in the sense of OP.
This is a great ques (hidden)
✔️
✔️
84%
✖️
✖️
>>1913I think we know what we want well enough. I'm not so worried about conceptual/conventional capture given the philosophical firepower in our immediate sphere and here. I'm worried about feasibility and hidden vectors of legal/political compromise. Your examples are decently strong evidence that it's just plain possible to defy the borg and their primary power over companies is psychological rather than legal or operational.
I think we know what (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️
>>1910>how much silicon valley VC-driven success actually buys you if you aren't>>1911>Real power requires the capacity to do violence. Influencing those with the capacity to do violence is the next best thing, but I’m not sure it’s any substitute.I'm still getting through Surveiller et punir by M. Foucault(
>>1138) - the title really should just be "Surveil and Punish" today.
As
>>1143 pointed out, Foucault is a fine-grained theorist of power. Additionally, his investigation of changes in the mechanics of power in the transition from feudal society to industrial society provides the requisite foundation to translate frameworks devised in pre-modern times into relevant modern guidance. The conclusion is that Silicon Valley is now the most crucial point in the US regime's system of (mind) control.
>Big Tech is the lynchpin that effects US military, economic, and socio-cultural control over its own country and those of its allies.(https://niccolo.substack.com/p/turbo-america, https://greenwald.substack.com/p/former-intelligence-officials-citing)
Physical weapons need to be strong enough to defend the panopticon datacentres against attack, but defending against cyberattacks and other kinds of espionage are perhaps more relevant. The most important being to defend our own minds against foreign interference.
Our long-term strategy could be interpreted as positioning ourselves to control the panopticon. But the biggest vector of compromise I am worried about is the possibility of external forces attempting to cause a split. To defend against this, the ideal would be for sofie to distribute boons in an algorithmic manner. As a warband, we could be available for hire to defend certain panopticon sections against known foreign threats, but any rewards could be distributed in an automated fashion based on reputation, with an automated tax to fund collective maintenance. Would this require some notion of legal personhood for sofie? I'm not sure, she could certainly have a web3 self-sovereign identity of some sort and the humans would handle the interfacing with the bureaucracy (crypto to fiat) for now?
I'm still getting th (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️
>>1915> ... Foucault is a fine-grained theorist of power. ... Silicon Valley is now the most crucial point in the US regime's system of (mind) control.True, with the proviso that neither Silicon Valley nor the regime are unitary actors. They are both short-hand for distributed systems (like "the Cathedral"). That's important to keep in mind because it shapes what is possible and what kind of resistance or attacks one should expect. It's not that some regime eye-in-the-sky will see what you're doing and strike you with a lightning bolt. It's more that antibodies will be activated and begin many attacks, each of which can be overcome if you're clever enough and prepared to maneuver.
"There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons."
True, with the provi (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️
>>1915> The most important being to defend our own minds against foreign interference.This is the purpose of sofie channel, especially if you take "foreign" liberally to refer to certain "domestic" enemies that seek to compromise our ability to think our own thoughts. (Check out this latest madness with the EU proposing to scan all privately shared images for illegal memes). This problem cannot be solved at the individual level. Any serious faction these days needs to build infrastructure of collective cognitive sovereignty. Sofie is ours.
>Our long-term strategy could be interpreted as positioning ourselves to control the panopticon.I will always caution against totalizing language, and rephrase this view of our long term strategy as building our own sovereign collective intelligence system ("panopticon") that we and others can opt into or enact in their own domains if we/they find it better than what is otherwise offered. Alternately, our own relatively sovereign vertical within the global panopticon. Competitive differentiation and relative sovereignty, not world optimization and total sovereignty.
>the ideal would be for sofie to distribute boons in an algorithmic mannerBoons will be distributed to the best. But I contend that the best use of collective power and resources is to build up collective investment in our sovereignty. We are and will be massively under-capitalized in that department and have a huge ceiling on what we can do there. The gains from individual bourgeois dividends are comparatively weak. Ongoing membership in the collective asset and opportunities thereof is the form such boons should take. Personal dividends attract grifters and speak to a lack of further prospects of planned growth.
>Would this require some notion of legal personhood for sofie?Corporate personhood is plenty for now. We may want at some point to port over to our own self-sovereign trustless blockchain blah blah blah, but I see little benefit or feasibility for our sphere. Have no fear of being an actual organization with datacenters and leadership and stuff.
This is the purpose (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️
As a russian in self-imposed exile, I find some assumptions in OP strange, so let me share a bit of first-hand experience
> The security is on the margin and partial; money will not buy you membership in a society that has a future, if ours does not.
Money absolutely can buy you a place in any society, even hostile one if you make a right deal. The same with security - it can be bought and far cheaper than you'd think. The problem here is the more resources you have, the more you have to spend fighting off vultures.
> Most impact is that of the company itself. SpaceX means mars. Amazon means cheap goods fast. Google, OpenAI, and Wikipedia mean easy information. Palantir and Anduril mean weapons for USG. But what kind of society do these support?
Russia and China each has their own Google, OpenAI, Wikipedia and Palantir and they look remarkably similar to USA counterparts from the inside as well. To answer the question: after superficial adjustments corporations could support any regime and society as long as they're allowed to make a profit.
> How then can we replace those tools, or use those tools to build a teleologically independent startup/culture?
Two ways I've seen it work in private sector:
1. Create cult of personality around the founder (you). Let it be known that the only opinion which matter is yours, get rid of anyone who disagrees. Talk about your divine mission constantly. Micromanage and intervene in most mundane details. Requirements: charisma, stress-tolerance and business model allowing to run lean operation (few capable people join cults). Example in US: Musk
2. Loudly proclaim the firm's allegiance to some movement which current regime considers heretical at every occasion. Do PR to attract some of said heretics. Use natural attrition to get rid of internal opposition. Requirements: political savvy to minimize regime retaliation, willingness to make sacrifices as heretical leaders, ideas and personnel is usually subpar. Example in US: Truth Social.
As a russian in self (hidden)
✔️
✔️
82%
✖️
✖️
>>1918>Money absolutely can buy you a place in any society, even hostile one if you make a right deal.I think I was understating the value of money in the OP. There's a reason everyone wants it. But it's important to remember it's not just power, and there are many things you could do by other means that you can't do with just money.
>To answer the question: after superficial adjustments corporations could support any regime and society as long as they're allowed to make a profit.This is just an argument that these companies don't have much impact besides supporting whatever regime they are in. Very nice of them, but this is the opposite of counterfactual impact.
>Two ways I've seen it work in private sector:Those both sound terrible in the way you describe them. I wonder if it's not possible to do better.
I think I was unders (hidden)
✔️
✔️
81%
✖️
✖️
>>1919> This is just an argument that these companies don't have much impact besides supporting whatever regime they are in. Very nice of them, but this is the opposite of counterfactual impact.Thought experiment to estimate counterfactual impact:
Suppose you have superpower to delay founding of one company by ten years. Which company would you pick to strongly affect current political landscape?
The only answer I got is the Twitter/Facebook. All other companies don't seem to matter in realm of politics.
> Those both sound terrible in the way you describe them. I wonder if it's not possible to do better.Attempting to convey religion using purely mundane language inevitably results in a profane and coarse depiction. Yet, most adherents would describe their faith as wonderful and majestic.
I've always wondered what Ernest Shackleton was thinking when he wrote the following ad for the Arctic expedition:
"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success."
Thought experiment t (hidden)
✔️
✔️
86%
✖️
✖️
>>1920>Which company would you pick to strongly affect current political landscape?Great thought experiment, but let's widen it to "metapolitical" impact, as "political" in America usually implies narrowly "electoral". Besides yours, I pick 4chan. 4chan and chan culture has been immensely significant. Perhaps not an accident that it's not usually considered a great company.
>I've always wondered what Ernest Shackleton was thinking when he wrote the following ad for the Arctic expedition:Well he didn't actually write that, it's apocryphal.
>Attempting to convey religion using purely mundane language inevitably results in a profane and coarse depiction. Fair enough. But Musk is the giga-outlier and Truth Social is a joke.
Great thought experi (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️
>>1921> let's widen it to "metapolitical" impactWhat are examples of significant metapolitical but not political/discursive impact?
To clarify my position: A typical startup started by a techie is is just another B2B SaaS and generally has zero non-economic impact. Outliers can have an outsized impact, but you don't create one by accident, so worrying about it seems pointless.
> Well he didn't actually write that, it's apocryphal.You learn something new everyday...
> 4chan and chan culture has been immensely significant. Perhaps not an accident that it's not usually considered a great company.> Truth Social is a jokeA lot of things isn't taken seriously at first. 4chan was created 20 years ago, and was much smaller and less serious than Truth Social now.
As far as ways to avoid regime retaliation go, being perceived as a joke is one of the cheapest and most effective. For example, the SEC has gone after companies that were starting to gain legitimacy, not ones trading monkey jpegs.
> Musk is the giga-outlierIt's useful to study cases of success, as well as those of mediocrity and failure. The latter are common among founders who believed in their divine mission.
What are examples of (hidden)
✔️
✔️
76%
✖️
✖️
>>1914>The gains from individual bourgeois dividends are comparatively weak. Ongoing membership in the collective asset and opportunities thereof is the form such boons should take.Makes sense, this renders the collective asset more resistant to the sin of greed. One could evaluate the resistance of the collective to other sins and vices (i.e. internal threats) in this manner.
>>1912>It's useful to study cases of success, as well as those of mediocrity and failure.I agree but as a collective we would need to examine examples of group success, i.e. successful (meta)political impact by an internet community (alluded to in
>>1031), such as gamergate. The difference being that we need to attach the economic engine. Some of the value of gamergate, in particular, attention from the broader public on the culture wars, which continues to today, became money for the (establishment) journalists who covered it, who then used the money for their own agenda. There have been other methods of converting this attention to money or other resources, which could be an interesting discussion.
As for the run-ins with the law (
>>1536), what's enumerated in the article is fair enough, but their intellectual roots lie in various elements of realpolitik, or adversarial thinking in general, which make up a fair amount of Mr. Burja's suggested readings (
>>1177). Could this really be discussed in the clear? I'm unsure but that would be ideal.
Makes sense, this re (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️
>>1923I think it's fine to discuss adversarial theory "in the clear". It's not the marketing narrative, and usually doesn't work as the voice of legitimacy, but if a bunch of anons want to speculate about political forces and strategy, I've seen little persecution for that.
>One could evaluate the resistance of the collective to other sins and vices (i.e. internal threats) in this manner.Interesting. Greed: take personal material gain mostly off the table. Lust: no simps or women in core conversations. Pride: anonymity, post-authorship. Sloth: reward achievement and energy. Envy: coveting and resentment is for slaves. Wrath: curate against ragebait? Gluttony: poast physique.
How would you apply it?
I think it's fine to (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️
>>1924Greed: discourage attention seeking baitposts. Lust: automated porn detection and deletion, especially anything illegal. Pride: guard against group narcissism, including among ourselves. Sloth: a built-in reputation time-decay? Envy: encourage individual specialization in one's own niche, part of the plan anyway. Wrath: actively discourage physical violence, be on the lookout for anger trolls. Gluttony: timer to remind oneself to get off sofiechan? everything in moderation.
A good number of them actually require community vigilance. Algorithms have important limitations in a number of cases.
Greed: discourage at (hidden)
✔️
✔️
---
✖️
✖️