Political parties are in constant opposition to each other. Without getting into too much of the theory behind why that is or its various implications, one specific implication worth mentioning is that if political party X adopts position Z as part of its platform, political party Y will tend to adopt ~Z because it doesn’t know how to distinguish itself from political party X in any other way than policy. In other words, political party Y comes to believe that position Z is tainted simply because the wrong people are holding it. Therefore, since the wrong, bad people are holding it, ~Z must be true. This is obviously stupid methodology when assessing the truth of Z, but everyone does it. I don’t make the rules. Almost no one cares about the policy as such.

What this means, then, is that if there is a hegemonic/subordination dynamic between political party X and political party Y, respectively, then to win policy battles in political party Y is actually pointless, since the real struggles that actually matter take place in political party X. But not only is the activity pointless, but if the policy is good, then it’s actively harmful to that policy because political party X will reject it outright, instead of assessing it on its merits. Again, people don’t assess proposals on their merits. They might think they do, but it’s clear that in the vast majority of cases they don’t.

So, when developing new, good theory and developing new, good proposals and concepts, it makes sense to establish a transmission containment window. That’s a mouthful. Probably too long. But a TCW applied to activity inside political party X means that for any concept or set of concepts that you develop, you need to ensure that there is no transmission leakage outside of the wider social circle around political party X. The reason for this is that if there is transmission leakage, then political party Y may be the first to pick up the concept and loudly broadcast it, making it entirely toxic to anyone in political party X. Therefore, the TCW means that no one in political party Y should ever even hear about the concept until it is well-transmitted and establish among political party X social circles. At that point, it’s political party Y that will adopt the negation of the concept, but of course, if it is in fact true that political party Y is in a subordinate position relative to political party X, then it doesn’t really matter, and you can just add five years to the clock before political party Y ends up eventually adopting it, anyway.

The only exception to this TCW analysis I can think of is when political party X becomes so incoherent and insane that out of desperation it ends up adopting some concepts from political party Y. But even then, it will make some attempts to launder those concepts or reframe them.