James P. Carse — Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility (1986)
Carse proposes a single fundamental distinction: finite games are played to win (they have defined rules, fixed players, clear endings, and the goal is to reach the boundary and stop play); infinite games are played to continue play (their rules evolve, boundaries shift, players come and go, and the goal is to perpetuate the game itself).
This deceptively simple frame generates a rich political philosophy. Finite players seek titles, territories, and power; infinite players seek to include more players, maintain the conditions for ongoing play, and resist the conversion of infinite games into finite ones. Institutions tend to finite game logic — they establish boundaries, enforce rules, and declare winners. The protocol underground operates as an infinite game: the goal is not to win but to keep the scene alive, the protocols circulating, the possibilities open.
Key implications for OM:
- The extitution as infinite game: an organizational form that exists to sustain the game (the protocol underground) rather than win it
- The walkaway test as infinite game logic: an extitution that cannot be abandoned has converted the infinite game of the protocol into a finite game of institutional survival
- Power vs. strength: Carse’s distinction maps to OM’s substrate/control binary — power is coercive and finite; strength is the generative capacity of the infinite player