Power’s paradox is that it flourishes best where it cannot fully dominate. Like the tensile balance of a body held together by structured tension, it requires counterforces, resistance, and the ever-present possibility of dissolution to sustain itself. Autocracy and capital alike reveal this pattern: their most efficient mode of operation is not in a vacuum of absolute control but in an ecology that resists them, one in which dissent, fracture, and insecurity provide the tension that both threatens and stabilizes their existence. To dissolve opposition is to dissolve the very gradient upon which power feeds. Thus, exploitation becomes metastable—never secure, always leaning against the weight of its own contradictions. Its continuity depends less on its own strength than on the perpetual reproduction of the conditions that might otherwise undo it. For the ego to fully know its object—its other, and by corollary itself—and this is simply a logical consequence of relational properties—is for it to vanish; so too with power, which cannot achieve total control without erasing the very relational field upon which its existence depends.
This is why fear, hatred, and insecurity are manufactured at scale: they generate and sustain the tensile field in which power optimally coheres. Populations are wilfully, often voluntarily, deceived into generative confusion or instrumentalisable rage, becoming the medium in which extractive systems thrive, even as those systems parasitize and threaten the very freedoms they profess to protect. The weakness of autocracy is its hunger for totality, for a commutative closure that would make it indistinguishable from the system it seeks to define and regulate. But in attaining such closure, it risks collapse, for it annihilates the differential—opposition, variance, tension—that sustains it. Full control, like the ego’s impossible quest for total self-knowledge, proves toxic not only for the controlled but for the controller, whose survival requires the object and orbit of a possible resistance that both threatens and secures its tenure.
Power is as dependent upon freedom as freedom is upon power, each deriving meaning only in contradistinction to the other. Neither can stand alone, for their very existence is defined through the tension of relation, circling one another, bound by the necessity of opposition.
Daedelus Kite 
One reply on “Complex Power Dynamics”
Power, as presented in the piece, depends on the presence of something that resists it. Without resistance, it collapses into emptiness or overreach. This can be pictured like an orbit: a satellite circles a planet because it is always being pulled in yet always moving away. Take away either the pull or the motion and the orbit ends. In the same way, power cannot survive without some form of tension or counterforce. The blog post rightly points out this dependence, but it leaves open the danger that if opposition is too weak or too tightly managed, the whole system risks falling inward, catastrophically destroying the very balanced tension and unresolved dissonance that makes it work.
The argument that fear and insecurity are deliberately manufactured to keep the system alive risks blurring two different things: natural opposition that arises by itself, and manipulation that tries to engineer it. Real balance depends on the first—on difference and resistance that come from life and society itself. When those differences are replaced by manufactured conflict, the system bends toward instability, because the opposition is hollow and predictable. The article makes a strong point that control taken too far cancels out the conditions that keep it alive, but it could go further in distinguishing between organic resistance, which sustains balance, and artificial insecurity, which corrodes it.
LikeLike