This Over-the-Top Imitation of the Good Old Days (with Fancy Flourishes) Is Fixin' to Cut You Off



In every historical case we can actually observe, the builders of Universal States enrich themselves, but the mode of enrichment depends on the structure of the state they are creating. Some enrich themselves through direct extraction, others through privileged access to rents, and others through control of allocation rather than personal wealth. The pattern is consistent across empires, dynasties, and modern technocratic blocs. Here is a clear, structured breakdown that fits Toynbee’s model and maps cleanly onto the modern Universal State dynamics.

πŸ›️ How Universal-State Architects Enrich Themselves (across ancient empires, early modern states, and contemporary platform–finance–security hybrids)

1. They enrich themselves through control of allocation, not just personal wealth. In Universal States, the decisive power is not merely owning wealth but deciding who gets what. In Qing China, the Eight Banner elite enjoyed hereditary stipends and privileged access to state-controlled resources. In modern states, elite bureaucrats, military leaders, and political appointees control resource flows, regulatory privileges, and institutional access. This is enrichment through position, not just money.

2. They capture rents created by the state’s consolidation. Universal States centralize taxation, land, trade, and regulatory authority. The architects—bureaucratic, military, or technocratic—gain:

- privileged access to state contracts  

- monopolies or quasi-monopolies  

- legal immunities  

- control over licensing and permissions  

- insider access to information and policy

This is why elite-driven development in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan produced powerful technocratic-business coalitions. 

3. They often become a hereditary or quasi-hereditary caste. Toynbee’s Universal State tends to freeze into a rigid hierarchy. Historically:

- Roman senatorial families  

- Ottoman devşirme and Janissary corps  

- Qing bannermen  

- British imperial administrative class  

All became self-reproducing elites with guaranteed access to wealth, land, or stipends. The Qing case is especially illustrative: the state intentionally created a privileged military-administrative caste whose entitlements persisted for centuries. 

4. They justify enrichment as necessary for stability. Universal States arise in periods of breakdown. Their architects claim:

- “We must stabilize the system.”  

- “We must prevent chaos.”  

- “We must coordinate the economy.”  

This legitimizes:

- emergency powers  

- expanded budgets  

- privileged access to resources  

- consolidation of authority  

Elite theory (Pareto) notes that state elites—bureaucratic, military, judicial, and political—shape policy in ways that reinforce their own power and interests. 

5. They enrich themselves less through markets and more through command. This is the key distinction between a Universal State and a commercial empire.

In a Universal State:

- markets are subordinated  

- finance is captured  

- production is directed  

- rents are allocated politically  

Elites enrich themselves by controlling the commanding heights, not by entrepreneurial competition. This is why elite-driven development in East Asia was so effective: technocrats and business elites coordinated through the state, not the market. 

🧭 So what does this mean for modern Universal State candidates? In the 21st century, the architects of Universal States enrich themselves through:

1. Reactionary Finance

- asset inflation  

- regulatory capture  

- control of monetary policy  

- extraction from debt and fees  

2. Platform Technostructure

- data monopolies  

- network effects  

- control of digital infrastructure  

- privileged access to state contracts  

3. Security–Administrative State

- expanding budgets  

- contracting ecosystems  

- legal immunities  

- control of classification and enforcement  

These are not “corruptions” of the Universal State—they are its operating logic.

🧩 Final Summation

The architects of Universal States consistently enrich themselves, but not primarily through personal greed. They enrich themselves because the very act of building a Universal State requires creating a centralized allocation system—and whoever controls that system inevitably becomes the privileged beneficiary of it.

We can plot this directly onto the three blocs shaping America’s Universal State (finance, platforms, security) and show exactly how each enriches itself and why Toynbee would consider this structurally inevitable.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Blueprint v. the Altar Call

Obama didn’t use the word deindustrialization as often as economists or critics did, but his administration’s stance is very clear in the record: he saw the long decline of U.S. manufacturing as a structural problem that needed active correction, not something to accept as inevitable.  In Obama’s view, deindustrialization was a threat to middle‑class stability. Obama consistently treated the erosion of manufacturing capacity as a danger to economic resilience and to the social fabric. His policy documents describe the loss of industrial jobs as something the federal government should reverse, not merely cushion. His “Blueprint to Support U.S. Manufacturing Jobs” explicitly framed offshoring as a harmful trend and proposed tax changes to discourage it. He regarded offshoring as a policy failure, not a natural market outcome.  Full marks, Mr. President!   His administration argued that the tax code rewarded firms for moving production overseas and needed to be rewritte...
Read more

MY HUMBLE CONTRIBUTION TO COGNITIVE FATIGUE (OR, CONATIVE PSYCHOLOGY WRONGLY VESTED)

Image
Conative psychology is the lesser-known sibling of cognitive, affective, and behavioral psychology — but it plays a crucial role in understanding human motivation and volition. While cognitive psychology focuses on thinking and reasoning, and affective psychology deals with emotions, conative psychology is all about doing — our drive, willpower, and purposeful action. The term “conation” comes from the Latin 𝘀𝘰𝘯𝘒𝘳π˜ͺ, meaning “to try” or “to endeavor.” It refers to the mental faculty involved in goal-directed behavior: how we initiate, persist in, and regulate actions based on our desires and intentions. In other words, conation is what bridges the gap between knowing and doing. Here are a few key aspects of conative psychology: - Volition and agency: It explores how people make choices and commit to them, even in the face of obstacles. - Motivated behavior: It examines the internal forces that push us to act beyond just instinct or emotion. - Self-regulation: It includes how we ma...
Read more

Neoliberalism as Bad Art

Image
  Kelcy Warren, Pipeline Mogul (albeit not an upstream oil magnate) This fellow was flanked by a chart displaying financial supporters on one side and participating oil companies on the other. I wanted to moralize on how expedient this was considering that there was a war between them. Call it the Quiet Rich versus the Noisy Rich. I didn't know I was looking at a victory dance. The Quiet Rich, the Yankees, won Civil War IIA. Don't think of personalities, think of structures and sectors. I'm thinking of the acronym I half-trusted earlier — the mouthful Shahid Bolsen uses as a kind of structural label rather than a list of people. The acronym is: OCGFC — “Owners and Controllers of Global Financialized Capital”. Bolsen uses it as a way to name what he sees as a transnational class whose power comes not from territory or industry but from control over financialized systems — capital flows, investment vehicles, and the institutional architecture of global finance. He is trying t...
Read more