Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/4.4r/3010 responsible
now let's try Proudhonism. let's say there are a bunch of Saiyan anarchists and they determine that they can end imperialist wars by all just sitting down and doing absolutely nothing ...
most likely, what is going to happen next is the rest of the population is simply going to turn around and slaughter them.
... this does begin to imply that there is a clear way for Saiyans to stop their population from going to war if they actually are willing to construct a new system of productivity, but we will get back to this shortly.
the reason Bolshevism works for the purposes of stopping wars is the workers are all willing to construct a new way of survival which can substitute for waging war. when the central party-nations of the early Soviet Union, early China, or North Korea created strategies to build up local industry, they simultaneously took away the incentive to exploit other countries in order to create outsourced factories, war debts, or any such thing there.
there are still notable holes in early Bolshevism - if a particular country area exhausts all its potential internally, what should it do then? according to Trotsky, you miraculously cause another country to spontaneously have a Communist revolution. according to Mao, you sit and wait and hope all the people in your country are resourceful enough to suddenly think of a way to create more productivity inside your country, and hope it doesn't fail. according to Stalin, you occupy other countries to prevent Liberalism or fascism from exerting external force on them, and hope that there will be no force needed to get them to eventually consider Bolshevism or at least immediately become your ally.
according to me? the problem is fixed when you really, actually find a way to create new Social-Philosophical-Material Systems of industrial productivity inside your country. waiting for geniuses the way Mao did won't do anything. occupying other countries won't necessarily move things forward by getting the other countries any closer to Bolshevism. waiting for a miracle in another country has a pretty low chance of success — see how Stalin and Trotsky are more similar than you think? the day you find a way to keep Bolshevism running and running within the space of one country without having to stomp over any other countries either for protection or for power, you'll see that success come from "one of the idiots who lives in it". you'll get success as more and more of the individuals in your country realize that if they in particular had a way to survive without contributing to war or exploiting another country they would survive better, and that for every individual it's stark insanity to do anything else, that it's throwing away their spouses' and children's well being to do anything else, to think the present way of doing things leaves their spouses and children safe. when they desire to become responsible for their own survival and their children's survival, they'll all form into a new system, not because "attitudes" or "milieux" create systems, but purely because they each can't solve their problems alone.
so why is this so easy to demonstrate with Dragon Ball and so hard to demonstrate with the United States? it goes down to those tiny molecular scales of society where people are supposed to take responsibility. in the United States people are fractured into the tiniest little subpopulations which all to some degree function like approximately half a million or hundreds of thousands of separate countries. this means that when people are "in poverty" in the United States, it's not one population in poverty, it's not even one small subpopulation in poverty, it's some 100 or so different miniscule populations each in poverty.
imagine that tiny population A is in poverty and wants to get out. that is not a matter of finding capitalists in larger population B, or strangely-prosperous tiny population C. it's a matter of generating business territories or productive Careerists or proletarians in tiny population A. if you don't miraculously generate new business territories in tiny population A, you risk all the people in tiny population A being drained into population B or population C just to be allowed to have a job and have somewhere to work, and if population A accepts that, populations B and C get to dictate the entire identity and behaviors and daily life of population A. and worse, if all the experts in population A leave as soon as they get educated, all the rest of the people in that town will perpetually be stuck in poverty with no options except leaving. population A has no autonomy or dignity or freedom or self-expression or liberty or any of those other good things we throw around as platitudes every day in the United States. when capitalism exists, arguably when economics exists if we want to put things in certain framings, you get those things only inasmuch as you have the power to produce something that somebody else can't produce, and aggressively defend your claim to be the one producing that and calling the shots on who will or won't let you produce that. often, it's the capitalists or Artisan types that carry out this particular campaign to spread themselves all over production with one hand and one foot on each corner of the business territory. but in theory it could be something else, some structure made of proletarians taking up the same space. (it is a huge topic for discussion somewhere else what exactly that structure should look like, because in theory there may be many options. the most important thing to know is that the new "class" taking up the business territory is a structure; the abolition of classes is the abolition of particular positions attached to individuals, and the replacement of such individuals with one or more kinds of structures composed of multiple people.) here is the real crux of things: the United States is solved when you can take Detroit and throw all the people in Detroit into a new structure, perhaps entirely within Detroit, and start producing things regardless of who does and doesn't want to fund that initially. in principle, racism would cease to exist if every tiny subpopulation were to become objectively and inherently useful. and these "principles" may be a slightly oversimplified picture of all the factors at work in the real world, but nevertheless, if every tiny subpopulation could begin mathematically solving the best structures to achieve productivity and solving problems related to the connections of its internal structure and strategies to the outside world, it would have a powerful tool to achieve this "objective, inherent" utility. [*u]
this is the complicated underlying reason why every time Dragon Ball comes up my entries start weirdly drifting toward Vegeta and some sort of abstract notion of a Communist Vegeta. Vegeta's situation is such that he would have as much freedom as he wants if he could spontaneously figure out how to be productive. no matter how much his personality or inner sense of "culture" clashes with the people around him — or perhaps whatever psychological conditions or disorders he may have in some analyses of the text — that wouldn't be a problem if he could just find some way of being which met the baseline standards of what earth people consider productivity. produce, and he could be whoever he wants to. he could toss up Vegeta effects at anybody who tells him to be any other way. he could be the ideal Existentialist. the ideal country-subpopulational postcolonial alterity Anarchist. nobody wants to believe there's no real difference between an Anarchist and a right-Libertarian, but at the end of the day, that's kind of what's true. but what we have is a situation where the absolute beasts of people from Planet Vegeta are dropped down to earth and they can't comprehend this new environment, they have trouble coercing themselves to understand how to do the things that will allow them to survive. this is the same for Goku, when he complains about the whole concept of work not making any sense, but it's twice as true for Vegeta with his personality issues and inability to trust people or get along with them properly. all the earth people start quietly pathologizing the Saiyans because, why would they know to do anything else, having to be born with inherent productivity to be allowed to live is simply the way everything functions on earth. so what if they're really powerful, if they don't know what some narrow definition of work and productivity then a Saiyan is disabled. and in order to have somewhere to live, a disabled person had better be awfully, awfully nice to someone who can work, and had better never ever upset that person. what? government programs so people can live alone? this is a medieval kingdom. go get married and hope you don't hate your spouse.
on the surface we have this weird prejudice against Saiyans because even when they're nice and they aren't trying to kill anyone they appear to lack the ability to "work" and "be responsible". it's not that Saiyans actually have no ability to work hard, considering how much effort they would put into becoming stronger or learning new techniques. it's that "work" and "responsibility" are defined so specifically they become elusive and out of reach. below the surface, what's going on is networkism. what makes Saiyans supposedly useless? the fact that no work has any value unless somebody else assigns it value. but the assignments of what is valuable and will be purchased aren't totally arbitrary. they occur based on whether the producer and the consumer are socially compatible in such a way as to produce a shared culture-grouping or Audience. people who can predict what people will form into Audiences that happen to be Audiences hospitable to them are people who can create new business territories or find employment. people who have no idea how to predict Audiences, or somehow know how to target all their years and years of career training and education toward the correct ones, will be difficult to employ. so productivity never really was a matter of Freely Deciding toward hard work, it was always a matter of correctly predicting what kind of productivity people would want or what kinds of people would take a particular kind of productivity and accept it. in some ways networkism is inherently prejudiced; it inherently generates prejudices against people whose desires or predictions for what culture they should spend their time building are not compatible with those of the potential Audiences who will be receiving them. even worse than that, not every unexpected movement of Audiences occurs because of culture clashes and prejudice, some are just black swan events that nobody could have prepared for that should it not match the direction of the black swan event will suddenly leave a bunch of people's "hard work" in the dust. the tension between all that Goku or Vegeta is capable of and how earth people want to build their society threatens to snap the connection between the two subpopulations. you think it's already bad when a big population is telling a demographic subpopulation how to be, but things can only get worse when their compatibility becomes so bad the two populations patchify and become entirely separate entities. can Goku build a whole town by himself just to prove a point that he isn't lazy and isn't worthy of social rejection? would he want to? would the outcome be desirable? what is the definition of productivity when nobody likes you? is it an utter absurdity we have to try to define productivity, responsibility, and economic independence in these kinds of conditions?
this is the problem. this is the real problem. if Liberal economics made any sense, although it mostly doesn't, economics is inseparable from the basic process of how populations socially link together. to manage an isolated "building" is to pilot part of a population hoping and praying you solved it correctly to the liking of all the other parts, even as that is often impossible. if all Subjects are excessive Subjects, economics should be totally unthinkable, and even one single economics book should not exist. that any economics books exist at all is quite a conundrum. one of the fundamental assumptions of most Liberal economists is that individuals and free-floating groups cannot be predicted. but somehow people have mysteriously forged ahead and created economics, which assumes that certain patterns must be predicted to have a functioning society, such as profit and the broadest kinds of structure in stock markets. if the patterns of society were truly unpredictable nobody would be able to predict that people would open businesses and there would be capitalism. but that statement sounds ridiculous on its face — we all know that people will open businesses and we all know that the businesses and investors have to magically put themselves into the correct arrangement to make sure all the stocks stay stable and the businesses don't collapse, almost as solidly as we know the sun will go down each night. how exactly do we know this? how can we ever predict that capitalism won't destroy itself? maybe we can't predict it won't all come crumbling down one day. and that's what's terrifying.
so there are two sides to the coin. one is the very complicated matter of populational links and how populations behave to other populations' standards to try to have worth and avoid social rejection the other side of the coin is simple productivity, the matter of how in a world where people can be so easily disconnected from capital and productivity entirely as capitalists and Careerists move around and decide on a whim who will be ordered into what towns and what society will be, how in a sane world which valued all hard work according to its objective utility, any individual could then understand the process of transforming a town to productivity out of nothing and become able to survive. neither of these things is easy, and both of them more or less require constructing a whole theory of society to even so much as allow any individual to figure out how not to waste their life and how to function in society at all versus becoming a mountain hermit or a real-life common shut-in.
the moment Goku or Vegeta drops down to earth even they have a certain incentive to start solving how the hell they could possibly construct society around them in order to survive. this is the true contest between Goku and Vegeta, I guess.
[*u] I need to be perfectly clear, I do not think the word "culture" applies to this kind of thought experiment. at other times, I may have spoken of "Social-Philosophical-Material Systems of culture" just to get people to understand what SPMSs actually do and how they construct society, but I do not mean to insinuate that people practicing one particular ideology or another ideology is having "good or bad" "culture" that somehow needs to be assimilated/eliminated, as Tories are always saying about places like Detroit. I assumed the part about Saiyans getting judged and assimilated would have made that concept relatively clear, but, this is in case it wasn't.
isn't it ironic that Tories and right-Liberals often love to go on about "culture", "culture" and how supposedly failing cities are failing because people don't have the right "culture" or "attitudes", but then some of them crank out a bunch of self-help books about what are supposedly good and useful "attitudes" and it's all a bunch of bullshit that doesn't necessarily work — totally contradicting the notion one of the cities had better or worse "culture"? by their logic, maybe we should assimilate all the people who wrote bogus self-help books and make them all live in progressive cities.