concrete spacetime katabasis

The mental power of taboo begins when one refuses to integrate a fact into reality. It is the social expression of a person's conscious denial of an object, often used as mental and social defense against undesired emotions and shifts in the environment.

Taboo manifests at larger scales as a profound fixation on the object, warped into a reactive outpouring of deep rage, hatred, and violence. paradoxically, this makes any object of taboo immensely compelling to those inclined to social conformity, who may find themselves drawn into any sufficiently encouraged stream of public feeling.

On the ego's surface, taboo also helps stabilize the identity by defining it against a fixed, unforgivable point, making taboo especially effective on those already inclined to shame and secrecy. Taboo is a shortcut: just loudly declare that you hate the object of taboo, and your private fears become irrelevant in the social sphere. Private indulgence in the taboo also becomes psychologically easier when you're primed to deny it exists.

This is a natural cycle of performance, participation, shame enforcement, and violence that achieves its highest expression all around us. Advertisers, educators, politicians, religious leaders... it would be harder to name an influential group that doesn't wield taboo to isolate and entrain their adherents. By creating false conditions to fear and reject, just about anyone can cause you to question the nature of your reality.

Still, the function of taboo can be used to one's advantage; in the final analysis, even the most toxic and violent incarnations of taboo, such as bigotry, are also created to advantage the ones enforcing them. A sound mind can apply the power of discrimination to remove obstacles from her field of view, so long as she manages her degree of attachment to the taboo object and ultimately integrates it into reality.

@womenintheirwebss I dunno if you're thinking about the way bigots engage with the taboo as fetish objects, or about how antiracist people use white supremacy itself as a taboo object, or about how social media clout and lolcowing have functioned as ways to identify taboo objects for so long that people go out of their way to become one. Either way, what bliss

"It takes so much time and effort to create, but only an instant to destroy..." . ݁˖ . ݁

@akissthroughtheglass at this point I'm making it a new post so I'm not derailing OP's post too much :P

I will admit that I have oversimplified the possible outcomes for the United States in particular. (In my defense, I am ill with the flu right now and kinda missed the nuance there.) There are possible futures in which the United States collapses and yet capitalism goes on, its center moved to some other metropole.

But the end of capitalism itself can only be apocalyptic or communist.

And yes, that is a social theory, regardless of whether you have scorn for it. It's a social theory built and expanded upon by highly educated and intelligent people for a couple centuries now. It's not messianic--that implies waiting for an individual messianic figure--but I think what you really mean is probably closer to millenarian. Wikipedia's definition for the word works here:

the belief held by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming fundamental transformation of society, after which "all things will be changed".

And yes, absolutely, this is a millenarian way of looking at the world. That doesn't mean it's incorrect, though. Sometimes society transforms!

Not necessarily for the better. For instance, your point:

Dominant social orders tend to default to their easiest alternatives, not the perfect idealized social solution to the global situation.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "easiest," but I'm going to assume you meant that in a water-flows-downhill sort of way. Correct me if I'm wrong! If I'm not, we're on the same page about that. I agree. The process by which the new social order is produced within the context of the old social order, and eventually overthrows that old social order, is an example of dialectics, and dialectics follows a path of logical progression. There were dozens of classes with their own interests in medieval Europe, but only the bourgeoisie emerged victorious in the new colonial world, because their relationship to production and property resolved contradictions of the old order and gave them many advantages. The Aztec Empire was incredibly complex, but it fell to Spanish rule because of Spain's many advantages over it. I don't think it's reasonable to say that these large historical processes could've gone that much differently.

So why am I advocating for the inevitability of an "idealized social solution?" Well, for one thing, I don't think the process of getting there will be at all idealized. It'll be ugly and violent and the world will take time to recover. For another thing, I believe that it will occur because I can see that capitalism is unsustainable in the long run and the proletariat's relationship to production resolves the contradictions of the old social order and gives them many advantages. (Simplifying a lot here but there's no helping it, all I have is a tumblr post's worth of space.) You may disagree, but it is a rational position formed on the basis of evidence, not "idealism."

After all, global civilization has unlocked the powers necessary to kill itself, and that could happen before communism wins. I really fucking hope not, but it seems possible.

Now:

The white Christian nationalists will say it's about Jesus. The Eastern Europeans and Chinese who associate communism with oppression will continue to do so. The capitalists will keep going to work and managing their asset portfolios. Do you genuinely think Hindu nationalists are going to experience 140 degree heat and decide Marx has the answers?

Those are idealist movements, and your argument is idealist. Idealism isn't a doomed adherence to utopia. Idealism is the belief that history turns on ideals. I am a materialist; I know history turns on material conditions, and ideas follow from there. I don't expect the entire world to sing the praises of Our Prophet Marx. I expect that a global oppressed class will, through its material interests and proper organizing, rise up against an oppressor class that has had the run of the roost for a long damn time.

But to be honest they probably will cite Marx. There's a lot of communists among the oppressed peoples of the world. You mentioned India--are you familiar with the Naxalites? Hindu Nationalism is only the current ruling ideology. No place is a monolith.

Don't stop at the first decent looking idea you encounter. Keep searching even if you think you're right. Communist or no, you haven't found the answer to everything quite yet.

Goddess spare me. Communism is not "the first decent looking idea [I] encouter[ed]." I was raised as a liberal, which involves way more magical thinking and idealism, and it took a long time to un-learn that.

And the proper response to not having figured out everything isn't to sit around and read until I do. It's to learn, act, grow, and find a path forwards for my own liberation and the liberation of others. I've been at this shit for a hot minute and have gone through many changes in my thinking. The important part is doing something about it.

I have three main responses.

1. The social theory of Marxism is indeed well-developed by intellectuals, but my understanding of the context of that development makes me doubtful of their millenarian tendencies, not more confident.

2. History may not turn on ideals, but human beings do. Kant and Plato both tell us reality is what we perceive, not what truly exists in itself. The primary flaw of dialectical materialism is the way it trains adherents to believe their mode of analysis is an exception to that principle, which alienates spiritual people (the vast majority) as well as those who don't like condescending pricks. As something of a condescending prick myself, I run into this wall constantly.

3. "No place is a monolith" also applies to global capitalism. Social transformation is never "total". There are those today who live in small groups of non-agricultural people ("hunter-gatherers") while watching planes fly overhead, and both Europeans and Africans were at times adopted into American indigenous societies in the 15th-19th centuries. So I find it unlikely that the dialectics of capital, which is itself the institution of an imbalance in the distribution of resources, would produce communism that's balanced, global, and distributes resources fairly. Like, who is directing the resources?

This kind of thing is why 20th century communist governments were so vulnerable to capitalist capture, not just literally in military and economic terms but also socially. A materialist society organized around resource distribution can easily become fertile ground for capital and extraction.

Aside from that, I was also raised as a liberal and educated by communists in a liberal institution, so I get where you're coming from. The reason I put it like that, "the first decent idea", is because communism is quite literally the primary institutionally supported anti-capitalist critique, meaning most liberals will encounter it as young people and dedicate their lives to it. MY journey didn't end with communism, so I wanted to encourage others to keep exploring as well.

Thank you for the suggestion! I will be honest, I'm not gonna read Stalin in the big 2026. I'm relatively educated on DM already, and his methods speak more loudly than his words, in my opinion. That guy's got nothing to do with me.