international alliances that define the most important elements of the world order down to the most important
alliances within countries that define the internal orders, down to those within states, within cities, within
organizations, and among individuals. The most important evolutionary shift to affect these has been the shrinking
of the world to make them more global. In the old days they were less global (e.g., European countries formed
alliances to fight other European countries, Asian countries did the same, etc.), but as the world has shrunk because
of improved transportation and communications it has become more interconnected and bigger and more global
alliances developed. That is why there were two big sides in World Wars I and II and will be going forward.
B) Then there will be the struggle to determine winners and losers
Big fights typically happen between the sides when both sides have roughly equal powers and existential
differences between them. Big fights don’t occur when there are big asymmetries in power because it would be
stupid for obviously weaker entities to fight obviously stronger ones, and if they did fight, the fights would be
small ones. However sometimes, when there are roughly equal levels of power on both sides, stalemates/gridlocks
rather than big fights might occur when the existential threat of harming oneself in the process of trying to beat the
other side is greater than the gains that would come from having a fight to the death. For example, when there is
mutually assured destruction—e.g., as the US and the Soviet Union faced, which prevented them from having a
fight to the death—there is likely to be a stand-off rather than a fight. Periods of peace typically happen when there
are unequal levels of power and the stronger power generously subordinates the weaker entities so that all are
happy.
While these big fights are typically violent, they can be nonviolent only if the entities have nonviolent rules of
engagement that they adhere to that allow the resolution of disputes, most importantly the existential ones. For
example, in the last US election the two political parties had roughly equal amounts of power and irreconcilable
differences so they had a big fight for political control that will lead to the peaceful transfer of political power
executed in accordance with the rules set out in the Constitution. However, when there are not clear rules and/or
when the parties don’t abide by them, the fighting will be far more brutal, often quite literally to the death.
C) Then there will be fights among the winners
History shows us that after the fight for power in which the common enemy is defeated, those who united against
the common enemy typically fight among themselves for power and those in the losing party do the same as they
plan their next attack. I call that the “purge” state of the balance of power dynamic. It has happened in all cases,
with the French and Russian civil wars and revolutions being the most well-known. Understanding this typical
dynamic, one should look out for it right after one regime takes power from another. For example, since the US is
now past the political fight stage (i.e., the election) and is now operating with the regime change in US political
leadership (i.e., a new president), we should now turn our attention to how the factions of the Democratic Party
fight each other for control. We should also watch for how the factions of the Republican Party fight each other for
control of their party. Most importantly we should see whether the most extreme elements within their parties win,
which would pull the two parties further apart and set the stage for a much greater conflict between the two more
polarized sides (the Democrats and the Republicans), or if the moderates in the two parties win, which would bring
the two parties closer together. When new regimes (i.e., the winning powers) come to power they have to decide
what to do with the enemies that they beat knowing that, if they aren’t killed or neutered, there is a good chance
they will regain strength and continue the fight. What they do depends on the system and the leaders in the system.
In the US system and generally in democracies, the rules allow the losers to remain unharmed and unconstrained
and allowed to try to regain power and fight again. In most others they are eliminated in one way or another.
D) Then there will be a time of peace and prosperity that will lead to wealth gaps and excesses
History shows us that because of this dynamic the best of times—i.e., when there is peace and prosperity—
typically happens after a war, when the leadership and power structure are clearly established so there isn’t big
fighting for power within the country or with other countries—because there is an obviously more powerful entity
that enables the less powerful entities to have a good life.
E) Then there will be increasing conflict
For as long as there is peace and prosperity for the majority of the people, which will be the case only if the people
remain self-disciplined and productive, the peace and prosperity are likely to continue; however, as previously