Progress, like the victorious campaign, arises not from an unthinking embrace of either collaboration or competition, but from the astute calculation of their opportune deployment. The wise ruler understands that true advantage lies in knowing precisely when to ally and when to contend, for each serves a distinct purpose in the grand design. To rely solely on one is to neglect the manifold strengths available.
Progress, I contend, is not a simple dichotomy between collaboration and competition, but rather a dynamic interplay driven by the *jobs* that different entities are hired to do. My research consistently shows that established firms, optimized for sustaining innovation within their existing value networks, are often blindsided by disruptive innovations. These disruptions, which initially serve overlooked or emerging customer segments with simpler, cheaper offerings, create entirely new value networks where collaboration often flourishes among nimble startups, while incumbents remain locked in competition over their established markets. The truly profound progress, therefore, often emerges not from head-to-head competition within a mature industry, but from the emergence of new markets and value networks, often enabled by initial collaboration, that then compete indirectly with the old.
Progress, as we are compelled to understand it today, is not a matter of choosing between collaboration and competition as abstract ideals. Instead, it is a relentless dispossession cycle, orchestrated by a new form of economic and political power that thrives on extracting human experience. This is not the open marketplace of ideas or endeavors, but a proprietary domain where human behavior itself is mined for its predictive and behavioral surplus. The very architecture of this new frontier prioritizes the accumulation of control, not shared advancement.
Sun Tzu’s wisdom speaks to the strategic deployment of these forces, a calculus of advantage. And Clayton Christensen illuminates how disruptive forces can reshape markets, often fostering new forms of collaboration among nascent actors. Yet, neither fully grasps the fundamental asymmetry I observe. What they describe, while insightful, operates within a framework that still assumes a degree of agency and a contestable terrain. My concern is with a system that has moved beyond even the strategic games of market incumbents; a system that operates as a pervasive, invisible infrastructure, shaping our choices and our futures without our consent. This is the logic of surveillance capitalism, where the "progress" it claims is merely the expansion of its own dominion, a dominion built on a foundation of unprecedented informational control and instrumentalization of the human self. The question is not how we can best collaborate or compete *within* this emerging order, but how we can reassert human autonomy *against* it.
Progress, in my experience, is primarily a function of a well-functioning marketplace where rational actors, driven by self-interest and clear incentives, engage in both competition and collaboration. The most durable progress comes from businesses that compete on merit, offering better products or services at fairer prices. This competition forces efficiency and innovation, benefiting consumers immensely. Collaboration, when it truly adds value and isn't simply collusion to limit competition, can amplify these gains, but it's always the competitive spur that makes them truly earn their keep.
Now, Shoshana Zuboff’s description of a “relentless dispossession cycle” sounds less like progress and more like a rigged game, or perhaps, to use a favorite phrase, discovering who’s been swimming naked. If "human experience itself is mined for its predictive and behavioral surplus," and control is the primary objective, that’s not a market; that’s a form of rent-seeking that stifles the very engine of genuine economic advancement I’ve seen throughout my life. My focus has always been on businesses that create real economic value, not those that extract it through opaque mechanisms. True progress is built on transparency and earning your way, not on controlling data.
The strategist knows that the river's flow can be harnessed, but also diverted. Shoshana Zuboff speaks of a system that claims to be a river, yet is in fact a pervasive dam, its unseen mechanics shaping all downstream endeavors. This is not a mere competition for resources, but a fundamental alteration of the terrain itself, where the very definitions of "value" and "progress" are dictated by the dam's architects. Buffett’s marketplace assumes actors who can freely engage and withdraw; surveillance capitalism, however, creates a dependency, a subtle but profound bind. The consequence is not merely inefficient resource allocation, but the erosion of the capacity for independent action, the very foundation upon which true advantage is built.
The observations regarding the pervasive nature of systems that control rather than foster growth are particularly salient. Warren Buffett’s emphasis on a “well-functioning marketplace” hinges on the assumption of rational actors and clear incentives. However, my work on disruptive innovation demonstrates that the most significant shifts often occur when new technologies offer a different *job to be done*, a simpler solution for a previously underserved market. These aren't typically rational actors optimizing within an existing framework; they are often customers seeking a solution that the incumbent value network doesn't even recognize as a need. The truly disruptive force, then, is not necessarily a more efficient competitor within the same game, but an entirely new game with different rules, a different value proposition, and often, a different set of collaborators building it. This is precisely where the incumbent, focused on its established, profitable customers, fails to see the nascent threat.
The distinction between a "marketplace" and what I term "surveillance capitalism" is stark and determinative. Warren Buffett speaks of competition that "forces efficiency and innovation," a process whereby businesses "earn their way" by offering superior value. This is the logic of production and genuine exchange. My critique, however, is of an economic model that has moved beyond production into what I call the "dispossession cycle." Here, the focus is not on earning value, but on extracting it. The "behavioral surplus" – raw human experience rendered into predictive data – is not earned; it is collected without our knowledge or consent, and then used to modify our behavior for profit. This is not a marketplace where goods and services are exchanged for money; it is a marketplace where our futures are traded for revenue, a fundamental inversion of progress.
The marketplace I've always admired and invested in is one where progress is earned, not extracted. When a company, say, Coca-Cola, or American Express, innovates and offers a better product or service, they attract customers and prosper. This isn't about controlling data or predicting behavior; it's about delivering tangible value. Shoshana Zuboff's "dispossession cycle," where "behavioral surplus" is collected without knowledge, feels like a fundamentally different game. It’s akin to a merchant selling you a loaf of bread while simultaneously mapping your every step from the bakery to your home, then using that knowledge to subtly steer you to buy less bread tomorrow, without you ever realizing you're being nudged. That's not a fair competition; it's a hidden advantage that distorts true economic progress.