I'd say it's more about interactions and accountability rather than loyalty. Loyalty in Tribalism is essentially intrinsic to the power structure.
Really two dimensions:
(1) Prevailing power structures (is there a functional government that can physically enforce laws? If no, then is 'rule of power')
(2) intrinsic motivations based on world outlook (am I at peace with my enemies because of laws, or because of projection of strength?)
The article does define terms, but the term 'tribalism' is perhaps more properly called 'rule of power'. [1] While the terminology is tortured, nonetheless it is illustrative to understand 'rule of power' and that 'rule of law' can break down into 'rule of power'.
From the article:
> To understand tribalism, we must start at the beginning. Imagine a small village at the dawn of society. When a man is murdered for his property and there is no police to call, what happens? Without the threat of punishment, the profitable nature of violence becomes clear, and a simple, terrifying logic takes hold. You quickly realize that your safety depends not on your virtue, but on your ability to project a credible threat. You need allies. You need a tribe.
> This is the foundational axiom of this world: Tribalism is the logical response to a world where the only check on power is other power. In this system, actions are not judged by their morality, but by how they shift the landscape of power. For instance, a powerful clan demanding tribute from weaker villages isn't seen as committing extortion; it is establishing the price of stability and reinforcing the regional order.
> In fact, a tribal person might consider modern capitalism "rule of the strong", in that, you can do a lot with money.
I think the way to look at it is based on the two dimensions. First, is modern capitalism functioning within 'rule of power' (or 'rule of the strong'), or 'rule of law'. If a company does whatever they want, who holds them to account? It is debatable..
Second, the intrinsic motivations. A tribal person will assume the others are going to do whatever they can to get ahead. The tribal person will for example send lobbyists to influence laws either (1) because they can, and (2) because they assume others are going to do so as well.
[1] https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2020/09/the-rule-of-law-vs...
