Thank you, Tony. You make a lot of sense --- I think the most important point is the one that the SSA folks have been struggling with since the financial crisis (which is now --- amazingly 18 years ago!!) ---- namely, the old neoliberal SSA has floundered but NOTHING has replaced it.
(David Kotz's book, the Rise and FALL of NeoLiberaL Capitalism, had some interesting speculations on what was coming down the pike --- or what MIGHT replace failed neoliberalism --- that book dates from 2015 ---) I think one contribution the Monthly Review School folks (who base their analysis on the Baran-Sweezy-Foster stagnation analysis --- the book STAGNATION and the FINANCIAL EXPLOSION predicted a lot of what has happened as neoliberalism began to fall apart) is that the system generates a tremendous amount of surplus value that just cannot be realized with productive investment which creates all the financial churning --- (much of which ends up being parasitic!) The kind of society that Krugman is describing is one where a smaller and smaller group of capitalists parasitically draw more of the surplus value to themselves to the detriment of large swaths of other capitalists and especially the massive "non-monopoly" sector --- as wealth gets more and more concentrated in a tiny tiny sliver of the capitalist class, there is less to "go around" for the rest of them. Will SOME of them decide that this is NOT the system they want to support? For example, will more and more capitalists oppose data centers -- making possible common cause with citizen activists? There is a lot going on --- to be sure --- and I for one am totally uncertain about what it all means which is why I definitely welcome Tony's intervention into the discussion. On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 11:41 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 (#43250): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43250 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
