Comrades I think the best way to characterize the period we are in is to d*e*scribe it as a *sattelzeit* (Kosseleck) or a period between the paradigms. Neoliberalism is dead but what is to replace it? Obviously there are struggles going on around this. We entered the sattelzeit as customers. Will we emerge from it as citizens with restored and enhanced rights or will we be perpetual patsies of the oligarchs?
I won't be around for the answer but I do not think the oligarchs will win out nor do I think they have won at present. The fact that Krugman can name the oligarchs is a sign of their weakness because it means Krugman can stand outside looking on and describe what the oligarchs want. Hegel made the analysis of Antigone that the laws she is obeying in giving her brother funeral rites were all powerful because no one could name them! Antigone says to Creon Yes, for it was not Zeus who made this proclamation, nor was it Justice [Dike] who lives with the gods below that established such laws among men, nor did I think your proclamations strong enough to have power to overrule, mortal as they were, the unwritten and unfailing ordinances [nomima] of the gods. For these have life, not simply today and yesterday, but forever, and no one knows how long ago they were revealed. But we can name the oligarchs and their manifold perversions and that is a limit on their power. All rule must have some pretension to some moral grounding and if we cannot name the origins of that moral grounding it is all the more powerful. There is no such grounding available to the oligarchs. Their very power guarantees their downfall. comradely Gary On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:41 PM Anthony Teso via groups.io <anthony.p.teso= [email protected]> wrote: > Tony, Mike, Mark, > > Two errors of opposite signs; Krugman provides the corrections to both > errors. > > Mike, your expectations are too high to put onto this article. Krugman's > historical account of a fifty-year-long history of the New Deal tax system > being dismantled while wealth accumulated, wealth paid for the politicians > who allowed it to accumulate even more wealth, is his overall account of > his time frame. He cites the collapse in the rate of auditing millionaires > from 7.2% to 0.7% as his key evidence. These rates collapsed over the years > 2011-19. He interjects at one point to note that these numbers were before > Trump. There is no break in the narrative of Krugman's article because he > is not attempting to identify a break in the narrative. > > Additionally, there is an error in categorization. Social structures of > accumulation are identified based upon how surplus is extracted and > legitimized (i.e., validation), not by whom extracts or legitimizes it. Tax > evasion is a means of extracting; however, it is not a mechanism of > extraction. $600 billion per annum is a massive flow of resources from the > state to property owners, and as such, it is organizing nothing. As such, > you cannot construct a political economy on nonenforcement because > nonenforcement is not a method of coordinating. Nonenforcement is parasitic > on an accumulation regime, which it does not create. > > Mark, "same shit, different toilet," has the opposite problem. The seed > corn argument absorbs each and every momentary circumstance and thus fails > to provide a basis for defining periods. Mechanisms used to govern under > neoliberalism were impersonal and based on rules: central banking > independence, rules-based trade systems, courts guaranteeing contracts, and > markets disciplining. The claim made by neoliberalism concerning these > mechanisms was that they applied universally. What has taken place since > then is that claims to universality are now based on individual discretion. > Personalized tariff exemptions, pardons for certain individuals, > selectively prosecuting other individuals, and issuing permits on a > case-by-case basis. This represents a fundamental transformation of the > relationship between capital and the state regarding mediation, and if you > fail to recognize it, you will be unable to understand why certain > capitalist fractions are fearful of an administration that reduces their > taxes. > > As such, what has occurred is not a transformation in the political > economy but rather a transformation in the political form. Krugman > recognizes a symptom of the current situation and labels it as moral decay. > Weber would label this process as patrimonialization, i.e., the conversion > of public office into a private household resource for rulers. The IRS > serves as the paradigmatic example here, and the fact that Krugman finds > puzzling is not a preference for cheating. Rather than a preference, it is > simply a selection criterion. Dependence is the end goal. > > For this reason, I believe your policy recommendation—utilizing the > impersonal fiscal apparatus to discipline the oligarchy—is the weak link in > your entire position. In other words, you want to utilize an apparatus that > is currently at issue within this conflict and not merely a neutral > instrument available for use. > > This option was attempted previously. The effort included funding totaling > approximately 80 billion dollars along with a "trifecta," i.e., control of > Congress and the White House. Unfortunately, it was reversed by the end of > two election cycles. When fruit has been plucked and regrown once, twice, > or three times, it is not low-hanging. > > Reformist thought has consistently sidestepped the primary question: > namely, who is going to compel an administration to prosecute its own donor > base and subsequently maintain that prosecution until the next reversal? > Without naming such a social force as described above, your proposal for > action will remain correct but unfulfilled due to a lack of constituents > demanding the same. > > Bonapartist regimes are not successors but rather substitutes for > successor regimes. They exist where no capitalist faction can rule in its > own name and the working class cannot rule in its own. Thus, both portions > of this dialogue are half correct. No new social structure of accumulation > exists; something has fundamentally changed. > > Tony > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43249): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43249 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/121011868/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
