@Corngold
Funny that this can be taken towards radical individualism or radical social-ism. I keep seeing the horseshoe theory everywhere...the limits of the individual are the limits of the group, and group size and number needs to be considered.
I have recently been brushing up against this in a lot of different areas as well. Although I do not think about it in terms of a horseshoe, but more of a hub-and-spoke. As in a bicycle wheel. Actually it's a recursive hub-and-spoke.
[image: 1731179848235-ca6533cf-83b4-44f2-924c-5a2998ee5930-image.png]
Source is: https://x.com/HUMANMAXXING/status/1848831481046568967/photo/1
The hubs (more stationary, "sources" of power), have a more "female" quality. The spokes (protruding, "ejaculatory", exploratory, more varied (in terms of measured IQ for example)) have a more "male" quality. I think this maps really well onto the fact that males are a sub-variation of females (we still have nipples, fused labial scar on underside of genitals, etc...). @LetTheRedeemed had mentioned a similar sexed evaluation of the social hierarchy. As opposed to a "vulgar dialectic" of equal yin and yang. Individualism or socialism is as such a question of what place in the system is within your view. In the design of computer architecture management, an often-used dictum is "cattle, not pets". But this is myopic because you need pets to manage the cattle. Call it "sheepdogging".
The center might be called The Party. The periphery might be called the Mass Line.
Funny that this can be taken towards radical individualism or radical social-ism.
The founding fathers were generally preachers towards individualism, but their individualism was indisputably enabled oftentimes by slave plantations or other structures. Hence the dissonance between Jefferson calling slavery a "hideous blot", designing Monticello in such a way as to see slaves as little as possible, yet still continuing the practice. Without this social structure their time at the constitutional convention and such would have been spent doing menial labor in the maintenance of clothing, housing, food. The "individualist", let's go with "software entrepreneur", is a phenomenon made possible by an incredibly socialized manufacturing and commodification of computers.
Today a greater individualism is materially enabled by a vast socialized, standardized, electrical and communications grid. As Lenin said, "Socialism is Soviet Power plus Electrification of the Whole Country". Standardization of shipping containers. And so on.
[image: 1731180308979-1615c5bf-a779-4787-8d42-0ac2a1d7a5be-image.png]
(This is from the video: "modes of production": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbjZlKqDCMA)
[image: 1731178955952-bdf5668c-dd13-4cee-a423-13ddefd4915c-image.png]
[image: 1731180596909-546c9964-ae0e-4e12-a18b-423b9b9f24ad-image.png]
[image: 1731181130650-f3qebq_x0aadylp.jpg]
[image: 1731181560858-14064a07-594c-46d3-b251-7b7cb1b22e3c-image.png]
