# Japan's shows are inferior, but you need to read Black authors immediately
How populational hegemony emerges from chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy
in the discussion of "cultural hegemony" and Media Representation
something nearly nobody ever thinks about
the United States is absolutely full of Media Representation of Japanese schoolgirls.
but none of these characters live in the United States. they all belong to a separate population we call "the population of Japan". the population of Japan is not part of the United States White subpopulation. this fact would be obvious to anybody — nobody can be standing within the area of the United States and the area of Japan at the same time. yet, the population of Japan has somehow shipped out great volumes of fictional and occasionally non-fictional media to the United States, informing everyone in the United States White subpopulation about life and experiences within the population of Japan.
the population of Japan has thus achieved an almost ideal result in relation to the discourse of "cultural hegemony" and "representation in media".
how did this happen? why has this not happened for all the subpopulations within the United States which are currently having long discourses about "cultural hegemony" and Media Representation?
## is anime real?
some people might object that it does not make sense to compare the population of Japan to a subpopulation inside the United States because a country population is a much bigger object that can contain many subpopulations. if a large population contains subpopulations, it can gain the capacity to oppress those subpopulations. and if this is the case, what is the value of having "Media Representation" for what amounts to an oppressive majority population? is this "Media Representation" merely a false picture of reality which is doing the opposite of educating us?
of course,
if you actually look through United States history, and the way that ordinary people outside academia perceive the world in the present day, you'd quickly realize that this is basically an ultraleft interpretation of xenophobia.
historically, there have been times when people were virulently xenophobic toward country populations and first-generation immigrants, hardly giving anyone a warmer welcome just because said immigrants originally came from a so-called "oppressive majority population".
likewise, there are many efforts today to try to discredit the country population of China that begin when people hear about problem relationships between subpopulations inside the greater China region, but these efforts often end up feeding into standing prejudices about the country population from non-academics and wrapping around to hurt immigrants. allowing people to say bad things about country populations easily restores earlier harmful dynamics that existed before countries had as much contact with each other.
the act of any population outside the United States interacting with the United States changes the dynamics between the populations. when any particular population is by itself, it has one particular set of internal relationships, but when it tries to interact with another separate population of another country, it then has to work itself through the power structures of that other population in order to gain acceptance there. the status of subpopulations inside a population has nothing in particular to do with this. a country population can have a low, unaccepted status in another country population regardless of the status it has given itself relative to its local subpopulations. this is to say that the relationships between large country populations should not be fundamentally different from the relationships between subpopulations fully contained in one population when it comes to the process of hegemony politics.
having established what it means for a country population to be accepted or not accepted in another country population, it should be clear that the question of how basic Media Representation for any number of country populations has made its way into the United States and firmly planted itself is a legitimate question. it definitely could have been the case that some particular country that is well represented today instead had no representation. so how is it that some foreign countries become so well represented in the United States while some of its own local subpopulations struggle to achieve such levels of representation?
"cultural hegemony" definition
it is dubious in the first place that any population alive in the 21st century can accurately be described as "a culture". but this discussion will be addressed in the next chapter.
here the concept of "cultural hegemony" will be addressed as either _populational hegemony_, the ubiquity of a particular defined subpopulation in a given place while other subpopulations have trouble getting in, or _philosophical hegemony_, the ubiquity of a particular subpopulation's ideological models, identifiable traditions or expressions, associated beliefs, or other general associated ideas or Philosophical Systems tied to a Social System. populational hegemony is the ubiquity of White people, while philosophical hegemony is the ubiquity of racist explanations of reality, European rationalisms, benign expressions of French or German history, or Christianity. populational hegemony is the ubiquity of Han Chinese in a particular region of China, while philosophical hegemony is the ubiquity of ideas such as Confucianism. populational hegemony is the ubiquity of ethnic Russians in the former Soviet Union region, while philosophical hegemony is the ubiquity of ideas that may include the Russian Orthodox sect of Christianity.
the arts are an inherently privileged field of activity
to become a good writer requires more than a lot of practice in writing. it requires examining existing material for concepts that have "already been done".
when capitalism exists, no matter what we do, this will inevitably be framed in terms of Property.
we have no choice but to comprehend popular art as a series of commodities we choose to own or not to own.
unfortunately, every book costs money. a stack of books which is sufficient for the purposes of research into creating a new book can easily cost hundreds of US dollars. and the more books that already exist and have made meaningful contributions to popular culture, the higher that stack becomes. "originality" inevitably becomes more and more expensive, requiring a greater input of money, energy, and intellectual labor with each generation of people.
with this said
we cannot "Nazify" art, attacking the mere craft of research and the "intellectual".
accusation that Maoism eliminates artists or academics
this seems to be one of the major causes of conflating Nazism and Bolshevism
if it appears that Maoists are taking significant handfuls of bourgeois elements and removing them from a particular section of society for disloyalty, people have trouble telling the difference between this sorting of people into political nations and the deliberate destruction of subpopulations on basis of ethnicity.
on the surface this may seem like mere stupidity — is it really so difficult to identify when people belong to different classes that form materially different social structures? is this more difficult to determine on an objective basis than _race_, an identity which is fundamentally socially constructed? but what this confusion actually stems from is the legitimate question of how to determine when a group of people meaningfully exists.
what _is_ a demographic identity? if any demographic identity is ultimately just a socially-linked graph of people who have chosen to sort into that identity, then how can we be sure the process does not go the other way? how do we know some arbitrary group of people who have sorted into a socially-linked population are not a race? even if it seems evident they are not a race category, how do we know they are not a _nationality_? when does a socially-linked group of people joined by political ideology literally become a nation? are Trotskyites a nationality? was the intellectual movement in China a nationality? are White Floridian Southern-Baptist Christians a nationality? is the Democratic party a nationality? if Liberal political parties tend to be concerningly composed of alliances between arbitrary identities, what is the difference between that process and linking ethnic groups into a nation-state? is it _racist_ or _xenophobic_ to say threatening things about the Democratic party, or the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy?
one apparent way to distinguish between the formation of race categories and the absence of a race category is that race categories form inside All-Directional Contradictions between subpopulations. a dialectical-materialist analysis is required because the socially-linked racial community forms in a dialectical process of islands, gaps, and interactions. unfortunately, that same definition also applies neatly to nationalities and political groups. racial communities, new nation-states, and "mere" political groups all form in All-Directional Contradictions, making it difficult to use this standard to distinguish a political group from a nationality.
most arguments that arbitrary demographic identities could be "races" seem laughable. few would seriously try to argue that the United States Democratic party _really is a race_ and it is possible to be racist not against any particular identity _within_ their constituency but specifically against _Democrats_. but at the same time, this is more or less the logic on which Bolshevism has been declared bigoted and a step backward from Liberalism. the Nazi party didn't tolerate all socially-linked subpopulations. the Bolsheviks didn't tolerate all socially-linked subpopulations. the Maoists threw out swaths of intellectual circles in academia. the Maoists may as well be racist. they didn't allow every arbitrary group of socially-linked people to independently link into a larger population without their supervision! they didn't practice the Existentialist understanding of reality.
## the "Kimba problem": commodities across Social Systems
some people seem to believe that Representation of marginalized groups is a quick shortcut to achieving Originality. as they talk about the importance of Representation in Media, they leave the implication that people will inherently look at a piece of Representation and see it as a novel thing which is not usually done, potentially making the work a great hit and thus incidentally educating a great number of people.
but there are complications standing in the way of this model. human culture, in general, exists inside Social-Philosophical Systems. Social-Philosophical Systems in turn exist inside localized subpopulations — Social Systems.
this leaves the possibility that within any particular Social System, only the possibilities which have been produced inside that Social System and under the basic assumptions of that Social System — the assumptions of its Social-Philosophical System — can truly be compared to each other. a science-fiction book and a fantasy book both written by United States White people can be compared for Originality and one judged as more Original than the other one. but two fantasy books coming from different subpopulations may be difficult for people to properly judge for Originality. people may, without having any understanding this is what they are doing, judge each book within a culturally-relative context, purely within the knowledge and achievements of its own subpopulation. although they are most likely not professors with a deep knowledge of the entire art history of the other subpopulation, keenly able to pick out all the nuances of when particular ideas were developed in that region and how they relate to one another, they may be able to intuitively realize that a story which would not be considered Original within their local subpopulation "if it were told with White people" does not have high Originality within the other subpopulation either, and come to the conclusion that the story is not remarkable by anyone's standards, whether this is either individual subpopulation or the combined set of both populations.
for the purposes of defining Originality, it is irrelevant whether people are racist. it is possible they are. but even when people do not intentionally identify with racism and "intend" to be racist, there is nothing that stops them from exhibiting these particular Property-based biases.
for one example, look at the relationship between the United States and Japan. the majority of people in the United States do not conceptualize Japan in terms of "race". people do not talk about Media Representation for residents of Japan. we could conceive of a world in which they did, one where everyone demanded "international" Representation of events actually happening in other countries, but this is not the typical shape of discourse in the United States today.
in regard to Japan, part of the reason for this is that such "international Representation" already exists. people have access to any number of works of media shipped out of Japan that depict life in Japan. because of this nobody considers it necessary for anyone to go around talking about breaking the philosophical hegemony of works that do not depict life in Japan.
nonetheless, people can still exhibit Property-based biases when talking about Japanese media.
when faced with two superficially-similar works from the United States and Japan, people can be seen analyzing them for their utility as commodities, and thus accidentally falling into either a purely local viewpoint or cultural relativism.
_The Lion King_ and _Kimba the White Lion_
from an art history standpoint, it is arguable that _Kimba_ should be viewed as coming from a tradition of environmental movements and the push to conserve animal species and their habitats, while _The Lion King_ should be viewed as coming from the Shakespearean tradition. one derives from the humanities, the other from the natural sciences. the purpose and conceptual influences of these two works are very different. nonetheless, capitalism pushes us to compare them purely because they have "lion" in the title and we always have to choose to spend our money on one particular show with a lion on the cover.
this will lead people to make quick decisions on whether "the United-States one" or "the Japanese one" is better. is the familiar one everyone around me knows that I almost certainly will not have to import from another country better? is the one for which I can easily go with my friends to see a lazy cash-grab remake better? do I take a risk on importing a manga series or uncommon video disc I am not yet sure if I like and that no one around me knows?
the above "Kimba problem" sheds light on why philosophical hegemony in general is so difficult to break. what happens with _Kimba_ between the United States and Japan also happens with Media Representation between subpopulations. a local subpopulation sees a work from another subpopulation. the locals evaluate the costs of bringing in the new piece of media, including material costs and opportunity costs, versus sticking with what they already have. in some cases, the locals reject the new piece of media as not worth buying, either on an individual basis or on a group basis of available town library and retailer budgets.
in this case it does not necessarily make a big difference that the bourgeoisie and various Liberal experts make a large portion of group decisions. for this particular situation, the driving factors are the set of popular art commodities which exist in the town or region and how further commodities interact with these existing commodities. this set of criteria is concrete and easily exists outside the personal preferences of any particular individual, so the bourgeoisie are sufficiently capable of crudely calculating these interactions-between-things to the point that many people will not notice the difference between the decision made by the bourgeoisie and the decision they would make themselves. philosophical hegemony is created within the logically-defined interactions between material commodities and the underlying process of competitively slotting human beings into spaces in a population to fulfil these "objective" criteria for which tasks and people the system of commodities requires. put another way, philosophical hegemony is populational hegemony. it is the process of miscellaneous individuals from populations each containing finite slots trying and failing to claim slots in other populations while at the same time the other populations grow and attempt to toss their new people into the same number of slots, always limited and always insufficient for anybody.
it is worth taking a brief moment to think about the added layer of complexity of both _The Lion King_ and _Kimba_ that although these works more easily read as depictions of European and Japanese societies, both of these works supposedly depict life in Africa. what might these works have been like if they had been written on the African continent, based on actual first-hand experiences of African wildlife, poachers, and civilizations?
Existentialists will be quick to look at the workings of the spatial slot hierarchy and exclaim "ah ha! the bourgeoisie are not important! Marxism is defeated! clearly the problem is that every individual in the system continued following criteria they thought were objective but were actually viewed from a distorted perspective and not really objective."
we will then likely be told the behavior of the system would change if only every single individual stopped believing in building settlements or retail stores by comparing commodities.
first of all, we need to recognize that this would be tantamount to asking everyone to adopt an entire predictive theory of society. the mechanical criteria by which people link various producers and workers together into settlements based on collections of products constitute a _theory of society_, describing the processes by which every individual forms social links to other individuals and what shape each level of society takes — namely, the Liberal theory of the Market Society. in asking every individual to spontaneously change all the assumptions and behaviors that constitute this theory, Existentialists are in fact replacing the old theory with a new theory. far from typical Existentialist or Gramscian claims that they are "just promoting decency and empathy in a world of ignorance", the reality is that Liberal economics constitutes a full theory of society, Marxism constitutes a full theory of society, and Existentialism presents a full theory of society. to ask somebody to abandon Liberal capitalist "biases" is like asking somebody to abandon all of their Existentialist-Structuralist teachings and begin replacing every one of them with the contents of a big stack of Marxist theory.
second, people do not follow the criteria of the Market Society consciously. if every individual _did_ look at all the criteria they could use and decide that according to some kind of Cartesian logic comparing commodities was the rationally-supported choice, then it would make a lot of sense to speak of individuals "abandoning their harmful attitudes" and spontaneously choosing better ones, as they would have literally chosen those frameworks. however, people in general do not choose their "attitudes" like this, especially when it comes to theories of society. in many cases people absorb beliefs and practices from the behavior of surrounding people without anyone necessarily advertising new behaviors or telling anyone else to come to a meeting where everyone agrees to a new behavior. in the case of theories of society, it becomes a lot more difficult to counteract the spread of any particular diffuse pattern of behaviors or Filament of peer pressure because the consequences of believing and practicing the theory are realized into large and noticeable forms of structure in physical reality — discrete boundaries of cities or towns, discrete shop buildings containing producer nodes, discrete residential "properties" containing worker household nodes deemed worthy of producing. to live life is to practice a theory of society. the moment any individual takes steps to create daily life and survive without thinking about theories of society, they become locked into realizing and perpetuating a theory of society. they must put their lives (and their children's lives) on hold to adopt a new theory of society.
are Property-based biases inherently racist?
there is an argument for this if you hold to the principle that chunk competition is inherently racist
## is hegemony a social construct?
even if philosophical hegemony does not come from _biases_ in any sense that is useful to us in fixing it, perhaps we can still fairly argue that it is a _social construct_. even if people have no idea that they are constructing a particular kind of society according to a particular theory of society, we could still point out that this created chunk of society is an artificial invention by humans brought into the material world arbitrarily and that different artificial inventions are possible instead.
from the point of view of Deleuze and Guattari, the spatial slot hierarchy is nothing more than a social construct, a system of created territories built up emergently from oppressive Ideas as we artificially constructed the concepts of the household property structure, the Market Society, the town police, and the Liberal republic. if we had somehow constructed everything differently starting at the most basic conceptual levels, we would not have ended up with such rivalrly between subpopulations nor the spatial slot hierarchy.
is society a social construct? yes. by definition.
in order to create society, individuals must come together through social processes belonging to a particular form of society and _specific_ to the interior of that particular Social-Philosophical-Material System of people, connections, and understandings. it is ultimately more accurate to say that _society_ constructs society than that human individuals construct it, yet at the same time it is entirely fair to say that _someone_ constructs society — everyone that is part of society. thus, society is a construct put together by previous temporal development states of the same society. society is a social construct.
graph populations are not a social construct. as they exist in the real world before we linguistically describe them with such terms as "graph population", "arbitrary subpopulation", "faction", "tribe", or "community", they exist below the level of any social understandings. a connection between people is the first thing to form, before the terms of that connection are even negotiated and enriched with various new layers of social understandings. likewise links can break for arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with most of the social understandings developed inside of them — or perhaps any of them at all.
no social formation can be created without social links, including a movement for radical multiplicity of approaches and desires. without social links, people cannot communicate, coordinate, or think "collectively"; they will simply function in true independence from each other and have nothing to do with each other.
however, as soon as social links are created and people link into a graph, there is the potential for slot-like effects. every individual in a graph potentially has some finite number of outgoing connections, depending on their level of free mental energy, their level of material needs, and other such factors that cause them to seek fewer or more connections. if we analyze every individual in a population in this way before any of them are connected, we see there is a maximum total number of slots. if every individual has an average of 5 open connections, and there are 100 individuals, the maximum number of connections is about 500. yet, whenever any connection is actually made, the number of open connections decreases by _two_. whenever a local shop sells to a local resident, one of the shop's many outgoing connections is taken up, and one of the resident's outgoing connections is taken up. whenever an item is imported from another population, the resident's connection is taken up but no connections are taken up at the local shop.
this means the most basic process of individuals claiming slots on a graph is not a social construct. individuals cannot be in two separate places at once expending energy in both places. this means that given a simple scenario of an unspecified individual being posed the choice between a business considered inclusive and a business considered regressive, the mere existence of that _choice_ cannot be called socially-constructed. it may be fair to label the content observed at each business as a social construct, given that any of the choices made by each one could have been made for personal or arbitrary reasons, yet outside of their individual content, the act of _choosing_ one of the two is not.
and yet, in the real world, philosophical hegemony does not amount to much more than this. hegemony is realized through local graphs of similar individuals occupying slots, from which they continuously output concepts, understandings, and material decisions they are each or all familiar with. however, every single time someone occupies a slot, it occurs through a process of people forming connections and choosing which people they think are better connected to which other people. this is true of every position in society from a new business entering a town to a university deciding who it will admit to who becomes United States president. it is a serious problem that people determine the links in society with prejudice, but the simple act of choosing links is a mathematical inevitability that no human being can take credit for. as much as it may be socially _determined_ through the interaction of various colliding groups or individuals, none of us are capable of inventing or _constructing_ the inevitability that individuals will choose some people before other people, and because each person possesses some set of individual characteristics this act of choosing will likely create some kind of pattern even if only by accident.
fortunately, capitalism's _spatial slot hierarchy_ is more elaborate than a simple process of forming connections.
[unfinished]
how /does/ capitalism grow? one way to look at it is: capitalism grows through social judgements.
if we imagine a simplified United States containing a Filament of farms in the United States Midwest, and a Filament of cities, the city Filament gets to invent things when the farm Filament wants them to exist. the farms produce food, and this is not truly fungible with any other category of product, so all the farms can truly choose to do is deliver food to other Filaments or not deliver food. simultaneously, an urban industry such as books can choose to deliver books or not deliver books. in practice these choices are most often simple choices of survival: each industry will choose to deliver an amount of products proportional to what it has received back, or what is considered to be equivalent. however, there are also cases where people capable of buying products will choose not to for arbitrary reasons, even if those products could in fact be useful to them.
the farm Filament delivers a certain amount of produce to retailers in the city, and receives a certain amount of money back proportional to the number of people in the city who are able to buy produce at this retailer. this happens to be a good amount of money, and the farm Filament is able to buy books. however, when the farm Filament sees that the city people have been writing inclusive fiction about marginalized groups who live in cities, their responses range from uninterested to disgusted. they are unable to ponder through philosophical arguments that reading the books could cause them to lose their prejudices about reading the books, because they have not yet read either these books or the relevant Existentialist philosophy books. yet despite this insufficient information early capitalism asks them to either choose to spend their money or not spend their money. with no good reason to choose to spend their money, they do not buy the books and thus learn the lessons of why they should have bought the books. by the most simplified Liberal models of capitalism which do not account for such things as retailers or investors, this could mean the publishers and authors lose money on creating the books. the farm Filament gets to decide whether the city authors get to create particular kinds of books or that particular kind of growth simply will not happen, according to what kinds of books they actually need — worse, according to what kinds of books they _believe_ they need, rather than what kinds of books they actually need.
### Trotskyists against transgender Representation
admittedly, to attempt to create a situation where Trotskyists refuse to buy books is a bit bizarre. despite their well-known prejudice against mainstream Marxism-Leninism, it is far from impossible that a Trotskyist will still obtain and read "Stalinist" books in order to criticize them, or even those of other ideologies such as periods of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition. in this sense, Trotskyists are remarkably un-prejudiced when it comes to books.
likewise, Trotskyists are somewhat more likely than Liberals to think in terms of consumer actions being unimportant compared to actions at the point of production. they are comparatively unlikely to think that it truly matters whether they buy a product, and if they did feel like a particular product needed to be stopped, they would instead come up with a plan to get workers to shut down production.
in order to find a scenario for Trotskyist prejudice inside conditions of capitalism, we need to be somewhat creative.
if Trotskyists come to exist in an ill-developed workers' state similar to North Korea, the underlying set of conditions is very similar to early capitalism — many of the actual points of production are small and disconnected. this could create a scenario where one Filament of people in one town is secretly led by Trotskyists and one Filament of people is loyal to the central party-nation. in a backward country, it is not impossible that the central party has a better understanding of many social issues than the average person, up to the point some of the Trotskyists do not understand them either. for example, perhaps a great number of people in the country have genuinely never heard of transgender people, yet all the members of the central party have at least read about them. this could lead to a scenario where the central party somehow requests or incentivizes people to create transgender Representation, but the Filament of backward Third-World Trotskyists becomes outraged, and starts trying to get workers to shut down production, discard these items before they properly get distributed, or at least never send them to the particular town the Trotskyist Filament lives in. the Trotskyist filament acts as if the decisions of the central party have been inappropriately forced onto the general population and thus it is a form of justice to wreck the central party's plans.
this scenario should be relatively familiar to most people who live in the United States. although many people in the United States have likely never experienced a Third World Marxism, these kinds of wrecker figures nearly enjoy the status of heroes across popular media and discourse; when whatever figures pass for political philosophers are not themselves fantasizing about their capacity for breaking open or "escaping" a workers' state, we are busy completing any and all stories that begin with "in the Soviet Union" by gradually and steadily transforming Trotskyite conspiracies into a fairy tale ending cliché.
it is all too common for policies to be proposed by center-Liberals who are at no risk of transforming into a Communist party and for right-Liberals to insist that by refusing to take the policies they are righteously opposing the central government which is "already tantamount" to Communism.
yet, applying this scenario of Trotskyist prejudice back to the United States is not straightforward. in the Trotskyist prejudice scenario, there is a populational hegemony between the central party-nation and the Trotskyist Filament; the central party-nation neatly forms a large Social-Philosophical System capable of creating and enforcing a Material System while other discontinuous Social-Philosophical Systems do not have much power. in the United States scenario, there is a simple chaotic-anarchy between the two Filaments. the populational hegemony has to be ignored in order for the two situations to be compared.
in the Trotskyist prejudice scenario, the central party will have made decisions for a reason. whatever the exact reason was, it will trace back to the needs of people in local areas that various levels of the central party have observed. on some level, the central party will have made guesses that transgender Representation was the kind of thing that people in local areas wanted, attempting to draw a graph connection from local areas to potential producers. at the same time, the Trotskyist Filament objected to this particular graph connection being drawn between two other Filaments that weren't theirs. they did not necessarily have to be a party to the transaction at all, but decided that the producers getting to connect to the other Filament and grow was objectionable, and thus tried to stop that growth. one could attempt to tell the Trotskyists that their behavior was not very in line with "hammer, scythe, and ink brush" rhetoric that in an ill-developed country all industries need to have solidarity toward each other's development. however, the Trotskyist Filament could not be expected to listen to this. by their own actions, this particular group of people would have shown that they already believe not all growth is good, and that some industries are on their side while others are not. this is to say that, in a certain reactionary sense, this group of Trotskyists would technically believe in _philosophical hegemony_. they would believe that pieces of industry which do not promote transgender rights need to be promoted and pieces of industry which _do_ promote transgender rights need to be demoted, and this is how an enlightened Trotskyist planning system would run things — nearly the opposite of what the central party did. the obvious move for the central party to make is to reinforce that they do not want philosophical hegemony graph struggles across industry; for people to hold multiple different ideological stances within society is one thing, but different patches of industry must be encouraged to converge into a single civilization with room for the positions encouraged by the central party rather than fully devolving into chunk war and trying to eliminate each other. this should be sufficient to create responsibility for the Trotskyists to reevaluate what they just did. if they do not realize on their own that hegemony politics is causing problems, then the problem will end if they all ultimately get arrested and the intended hegemony is allowed to continue. [*h]
in the United States scenario, there is no central party to mediate what growth will and will not happen or whether people get educated. the system of Filaments is anarchic. nobody has ordered the Filaments to properly converge into a single civilization, or given them a program for how to do so. this means that under ordinary conditions, every Filament separate from others has to separately make the decision to develop itself toward others. fifty people in the city Filament can attempt to create growth the farm Filament doesn't want and the farm Filament can simply say no to all of it and render their effort wasted. the typical way for this kind of growth to finally happen despite Liberal capitalism looks something like multiple other cities forming and all the city filaments exchanging otherwise-unwanted books with each other. a separate Social-Philosophical System begins to form within the cities around their separate understanding of books and perhaps of other things, while the farm Filaments stick to their own Social-Philosophical System around simpler understandings. it is important to remember that every single bit of growth in the society from people being born to businesses being created potentially furthers the process of slowly differentiating the population into two populations. every moment the two subpopulations separately grow, the border between them gets further away and it becomes more difficult for outsiders to claim any particular slot in the population because most of the slots are already surrounded by multiple competing locals. compared with any dream of pushing members of minority populations into majority populations, it is easier to "get into" the population if the goal is merely to get locals already in it to spread around outside products — the "city of White people that won't shut up about Black media" strategy.
a single progressive "dot" showing up in the middle of the farm filament matters more than twenty new progressive dots in the middle of the city filament.
is social rejection false or true? [in the sense of v4 part 5 on unstable social links]
is the wild instability of social graphs under capitalism something we created artificially and which does not need to exist, or is it in any case the best way for things to be which was historically necessary?
think about it carefully
social rejection can prevent particular households building up in the same place over generations and creating aristocracy
it may sometimes prevent people from building up into segregated White-supremacist communities
it allows people to separate from toxic relationships and form into supportive communities
but the same process also enables basically every prejudice in existence and prevents outside subpopulations from getting through "hegemony" traps. by the standards of all current United States progressive movements, it may as well be the root of all evil.
the same process that allows a progressive town to boot out a reactionary business can easily allow a reactionary town to boot out a person from a marginalized group.
## meta-Marxism is too White!
is meta-Marxism's theory of the spatial slot hierarchy _disappointing_?
general concept of "minority populations do not get things until it benefits majority populations"
the meta-Marxist analysis of chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy has the great strength of potentially unifying discourses about racism with great masses of White people. of course, one could say that it also has the _weakness_ of unifying discourses about racism with great masses of White people.
the error in the above logic is subtle.
this has distinct similarities to complaining that a theory of how to build a workers' state is not complete if the majority of Communist allies in the Soviet Union get to determine how and when to achieve a point on Trotsky's agenda. Trotskyists do not get progress until it benefits "Stalinists"! where is the recognition of the Trotskyist group Subject and the inherently valid Trotskyist experience?
yet, the deeper understanding many Trotskyists never come to is that it was never necessary that the Trotskyist and "Stalinist" agenda be separate. if Trotskyists can somehow be reintegrated back in _without_ crushing the Trotskyist group Subject, there is the possibility of including both Trotskyists and Stalin followers in the overall Marxist agenda in order to create cooperation and peace. this is the general lesson of meta-Marxism: Stalin cannot know justice, Trotsky cannot know justice, yet Stalin _and_ Trotsky united back together _can_ know justice and can come to a greater understanding.
------
[*h] it is worth noting that under the current standards of multiple Liberal countries this particular violation would probably qualify as a hate crime. in the United States, many crimes which do not directly involve violence on individuals can be elevated to hate crimes if there is an element of bias against a protected demographic.
hate crimes are something of an imperfect construction created in an attempt to understand real-world processes of subpopulations horizontally attacking each other that are not always well modeled by Liberal or Existentialist-Structuralist concepts of individual "bias" and "hatred". as such, the concept applies in a somewhat inappropriate and sudden way to a situation of Trotskyists fighting a central government. either way, our hypothetical Trotskyists have disregarded the central party's guidance on gaining more inclusive values and they will be in a lot of trouble if LGBT-friendly North Korea recognizes hate crimes.
=> 4.3/2411/1701043926 v4.3r^/ social collapse begins at you ; collapse
;
== https://research.moraleconomy.au/entry/Philosophical_Research:MDem/5.2/3840_KimbaProblem
:: cr. 2024-07-27T23:27:04Z ; 1722122824
:: t. v5-1_3850_KimbaProblem
:: t. v5-2_3840_KimbaProblem
; v5.1-5.2/ Japanese schoolgirl Representation and how to push culture across Cultures
; v5.2^/ Japanese schoolgirl Representation and the "Kimba Problem"
; << 1722123441 v5.2/ kimba problem revision main
@@ 1758780216 ; 5.3/0992 entries r = scraps, rN = revision scraps, V = revisions, x = archived, ^ = posted to lithoGRAPHica thesis portal
