Salutary Histrionics for the Perplexed
This was written before I found fault with the Mad Arab with his Irish up and the Chinese Nostradamus, but it still holds up.
Applebaum’s Autocracy, Inc. is not just a critique of global neoliberalism; it’s a diagnosis of what neoliberalism unintentionally cleared the runway for. In other words, autocracy in her telling is not the opposite of neoliberal globalization—it’s the mutation that grows inside its operating environment. Autocracy is not merely a reaction to neoliberalism, but what came in the wake of it.
π 1. Neoliberalism created the infrastructure Autocracy, Inc. exploits. Applebaum describes a world where authoritarian actors collaborate across borders through:
- offshore finance
- private wealth management
- elite transnational networks
- deregulated information channels
- weak or captured institutions
All of these are products of the neoliberal order, not its negation. Neoliberalism’s core commitments—capital mobility, deregulation, privatization, and the shrinking of public oversight—created a global environment where:
- money moves faster than law
- elites move faster than accountability
- states become porous to influence operations
- private actors can perform quasi-sovereign functions
Autocracy, Inc. is the logical user of this system.
π§ 2. Autocracy, Inc. is a repurposing of neoliberal tools. Applebaum’s autocrats don’t reject global markets—they weaponize them. International neoliberalism is OFGFC, the Orgy of Power that sprang from America's pivot to a Universal Empire and outpaced it.
They use:
- Western banks to hide wealth
- Western PR firms to launder reputations
- Western tech platforms to spread disinfo
- Western real estate markets to store capital
- Western universities and think tanks to buy influence
This is not a counter‑neoliberal project. It’s a predatory adaptation within neoliberalism’s global circuitry.
---
𧩠3. Where the “reaction” comes in. Autocracy, Inc. is a reaction—but not to neoliberalism’s economic logic. It’s a reaction to:
- the cultural liberalism that accompanied globalization
- the democratic norms that neoliberal elites assumed would spread automatically
- the weakening of national identities under global capital
- the social dislocation produced by market reforms
So the reaction is cultural and political, not structural.
Neoliberalism said: “Markets will make the world more open, democratic, and interconnected.”
Autocracy, Inc. replies: “Thank you for the infrastructure. We’ll use it to build something darker.”
---
𧨠4. The deeper irony. Neoliberalism imagined a world where states would shrink and markets would rule.
Autocracy, Inc. imagines a world where states become personal fiefdoms and markets become tools of coercion.
But both share:
- transnational elite networks
- hostility to strong democratic oversight
- reliance on private intermediaries
- a belief that sovereignty can be outsourced
Applebaum’s autocracy is not an external enemy to neoliberalism—it is neoliberalism’s shadow form, its unintended second phase.
---
π 5. The ceremonial architecture. If we translate this into a mythic registry:
- Neoliberalism is the Loom: it thins borders, accelerates flows, and creates the global weave.
- Autocracy, Inc. is the Shadow Sovereign: it steps into the gaps the Loom creates, claiming the unguarded corridors.
- The Epstein Class (your earlier motif) is the Intermediary Guild: brokers who thrive in the unregulated interstices.
In this framing, autocracy is not a counter‑force but a parasitic inversion—a creature that grows in the Loom’s unlit channels.
---
Let's map Applebaum’s framework directly onto the OCGFC model.
What is Autocracy's relationship to the OFGFC?
π Autocracy, Inc. and the OCGFC: Not enemies, not allies—interlocking parasites on the same host
Autocracy, Inc. and the Owners/Controllers of Global Financialized Capital (OCGFC) are distinct formations, but they operate in the same global operating system and often use the same tools. Their relationship is structural, not ideological. Think of them as two guilds in the same megastructure:
- OCGFC = the capital‑sovereign guild
- Autocracy, Inc. = the political‑sovereign guild
They don’t merge, but they co‑evolve.
Let’s break it down.
---
𧩠1. They share the same enabling environment. Both formations depend on:
- offshore finance
- deregulated capital flows
- weak or captured institutions
- global professional intermediaries
- Western legal and financial safe havens
- information platforms that outpace regulation
This is why Applebaum’s autocrats and Bolsen’s financiers often appear to be “on the same team.” They’re not. They’re simply using the same infrastructure. Both walk the same corridors of power, but use different rites.
---
π 2. Autocracy, Inc. is dependent on the OCGFC’s architecture. Autocrats need:
- Western banks to store stolen wealth
- Western asset managers to grow it
- Western real estate to park it
- Western lawyers to protect it
- Western PR firms to sanitize it
- Western tech platforms to manipulate publics
Autocracy, Inc. is a client class of the OCGFC’s infrastructure.
They are not peers.
They are high‑value customers.
This is why kleptocrats behave like ultra‑wealthy family offices with flags.
---
π 3. But the OCGFC is not dependent on autocracy. This is the asymmetry.
The OCGFC can operate in:
- democracies
- autocracies
- hybrid regimes
- failing states
- offshore zones
- supranational institutions
It is post‑political. It does not require autocracy; it only requires predictable capital flows. Autocracy, Inc. is one of many political forms that can host the OCGFC’s operations. Autocracy is a vessel; the OCGFC is a current.
---
π 4. Where they clash: sovereignty vs. liquidity. Autocrats want:
- control
- loyalty
- nationalized elites
- information dominance
- political obedience
The OCGFC wants:
- liquidity
- mobility
- depoliticized markets
- predictable returns
- regulatory arbitrage
These desires are not always compatible.
Autocrats periodically:
- seize assets
- jail oligarchs
- impose capital controls
- weaponize markets
- nationalize industries
This is why the OCGFC prefers rule‑of‑law democracies, even if it can operate inside autocracies. Autocracy is a useful but unstable host.
---
π 5. Where they align: the hollowing of democratic oversight. Both benefit from:
- weakened parliaments
- captured regulators
- fragmented publics
- privatized state functions
- demoralized civil services
- information chaos
Autocracy does this intentionally.
The OCGFC does it incidentally.
But the effects rhyme.
This is the “shadow alliance” Applebaum gestures toward but doesn’t fully theorize.
---
π 6. The clean formulation in one sentence: Autocracy, Inc. is a political formation that thrives inside the global financial architecture the OCGFC built, but it is not the OCGFC’s partner—only its opportunistic beneficiary and occasional antagonist.
Or, in ceremonial phrasing: The Shadow Sovereign walks the corridors woven by the Power of Money, but the Money Power does not walk for him. Their relationship is one of mutual exploitation.
===
What about those hollowed nation-states that the OFGFC would find useful in the future like zombie ants?
The “hollowed nation‑state” is one of the most important structural niches in the entire OCGFC ecosystem. It’s not a side case—it’s a core habitat. And crucially: the OCGFC doesn’t create hollow states; it selects for them. Autocracy, Inc. often finishes the hollowing.
Here’s the architecture.
---
π 1. What is a hollowed nation‑state in this framework? A hollowed state is one where:
- sovereignty is symbolic
- institutions exist but do not govern
- elites are transnationalized
- domestic policy is outsourced
- revenue comes from rents, not citizens
- the state’s “surface” remains, but its “core” is gone
Think of it as a flag wrapped around a balance sheet. These states are not failed—they are repurposed. They are platforms, not polities.
---
π 2. Why the OCGFC finds them useful. The OCGFC (in Bolsen’s sense) thrives where:
- capital can move without friction
- regulation is weak or purchasable
- elites are dependent on external finance
- the judiciary is pliable
- the state cannot resist global flows
- the population cannot impose democratic constraints
A hollow state is the perfect regulatory membrane:
- porous to capital
- impermeable to accountability
It’s like a biological host with no immune system.
---
π 3. The three types of hollow states the OCGFC prefers. Here’s where it gets interesting. Not all hollow states are the same. The OCGFC uses them differently.
Type I — The Offshore Micro‑State
Examples:
- Caribbean financial havens
- Channel Islands
- Gulf micro‑jurisdictions
- Singapore‑style city‑states (in a partial way)
Functions:
- asset shelter
- tax arbitrage
- secrecy
- legal insulation
These are the capillaries of the global system.
---
Type II — The Resource‑Rent State
Examples:
- petro‑monarchies
- mineral‑rent autocracies
- pipeline states
Functions:
- sovereign wealth funds
- energy leverage
- geopolitical liquidity
- long‑horizon capital pools
These are the organs—they pump capital into the system.
---
Type III — The Captured Democracy
Examples:
- states with hollowed legislatures
- privatized regulatory agencies
- oligarchic party systems
- donor‑dominated politics
Functions:
- legitimacy laundering
- rule‑of‑law veneer
- stable courts for contracts
- predictable investment climate
These are the skins—they provide the appearance of sovereignty.
---
π 4. Autocracy, Inc. and the hollow state
Autocracy, Inc. doesn’t create hollow states from scratch.
It **moves into them**, like a fungus colonizing a dead tree.
Autocrats love hollow states because:
- they can centralize power without resistance
- they can extract rents without oversight
- they can use the OCGFC’s infrastructure to hide wealth
- they can weaponize the state’s remaining sovereignty
Autocracy is the political form that grows inside the hollow shell.
The OCGFC is the financial metabolism that feeds on it.
---
π 5. The relationship between the OCGFC and hollow states:
The OCGFC uses hollow states as logistical nodes; Autocracy, Inc. uses them as personal fiefdoms. They don’t coordinate. They don’t share ideology. They simply co‑occupy the same weakened host.
The OCGFC needs:
- predictable capital flows
- legal stability
- elite cooperation
Autocracy needs:
- elite impunity
- institutional capture
- public demobilization
These goals overlap just enough to coexist.
---
π 6. The deeper dynamic: hollow states as “platform sovereignties”.
A hollow state is:
- a sovereign interface
- a ceremonial shell
- a platform for flows
- a mask worn by capital
- The hollow state is not dead—it is piloted from elsewhere.
---
π 7. The OCGFC finds hollow states useful because:
- they are predictable
- they are purchasable
- they are quiet
- they are frictionless
- they are sovereign enough to sign contracts
- but not sovereign enough to resist
Autocracy finds them useful because:
- they are easy to dominate
- they provide international legitimacy
- they offer access to global capital
- they allow personal enrichment
Both feed on the same carcass, but for different reasons.
---
Conflict is structurally inevitable. But the form of that conflict is not a dramatic clash; it’s a slow tectonic grinding between two sovereignties that cannot ultimately coexist.
π 1. The OCGFC and Autocracy, Inc. want incompatible worlds. Even though they currently co‑occupy the same global infrastructure, their long‑term goals diverge
OCGFC wants:
- liquidity
- mobility
- predictable rules
- depoliticized markets
- weak but stable states
- elite transnationalism
Autocracy, Inc. wants:
- control
- loyalty
- nationalized elites
- information dominance
- capital obedience
- personalist sovereignty
These are not just different preferences—they are opposing theories of power.
One wants a world where capital is sovereign. The other wants a world where the ruler is sovereign. They can share a host for a while, but not a destiny.
---
π 2. The OCGFC thrives on hollow states; autocrats eventually try to fill them.
This is the hinge.
A hollow state is perfect for the OCGFC because it is:
- predictable
- purchasable
- frictionless
But autocrats cannot tolerate hollowness forever.
They eventually:
- seize assets
- discipline oligarchs
- impose capital controls
- weaponize markets
- purge disloyal elites
This is the moment when the OCGFC’s “useful host” becomes a dangerous host. Autocracy is a late‑stage infection that threatens the ecosystem that allowed it to grow.
---
π 3. The OCGFC’s nightmare scenario: the “sealed autocracy”.
A sealed autocracy is one where:
- capital cannot exit
- elites cannot defect
- the ruler controls the financial system
- foreign investors are subordinated
- the judiciary is fully captured
- the state becomes a personal treasury
This is the point where the OCGFC loses its leverage.
Examples in the real world show the pattern:
- early‑stage autocracy = lucrative
- mid‑stage autocracy = risky
- late‑stage autocracy = predatory
The OCGFC can operate in early and mid stages.
Late stage is where conflict becomes unavoidable.
---
π 4. The autocrat’s nightmare scenario: the “capital strike”.
When autocrats overreach, the OCGFC can retaliate through:
- capital flight
- currency pressure
- sanctions lobbying
- withdrawal of investment
- reputational warfare
- elite defection channels
This is not a military conflict. It’s a withdrawal of oxygen.
Autocrats need global capital to survive.
The OCGFC can suffocate them without firing a shot.
---
π 5. The structural cycle: cooperation → tension → conflict.
The relationship follows a predictable arc:
Phase 1 — CooperationAutocrats use global finance to enrich themselves.
The OCGFC uses autocrats to access resources and markets.
Phase 2 — Tension
Autocrats begin asserting sovereignty.
The OCGFC begins hedging, diversifying, and preparing exit routes.
Phase 3 — Conflict
Autocrats attempt to seal the system.
The OCGFC attempts to escape or punish.
This cycle is not optional.
It is baked into the architecture.
---
π 6. The mythic formulation in ceremonial terms:
- The Loom Sovereign (OCGFC) wants corridors open.
- The Masked Court (Autocracy, Inc.) wants corridors closed.
- The Empty Helm (the hollow state) is the battleground.
The Loom cannot tolerate a sealed Helm.
The Masked Court cannot tolerate an unsealed one.
Thus:
Conflict is the fate of co‑habitation.
---
π 7. The punchline—these two formations will come into conflict. Not because they hate each other, but because:
- one requires porosity
- the other requires containment
They can share a world for a time, but not a future.
===
The tech-brolicarchy is not just trying to find a place in this milieu. They’re actively carving out a third pole of sovereignty inside it. And the moment you see the tech‑brolicarchy as a sovereignty‑seeking formation, everything snaps into focus.
---
π 1. The tech‑brolicarchy is not content being a client class. They don’t want to be:
- subcontractors to the OCGFC
- tools of Autocracy, Inc.
- mere platforms inside someone else’s world‑system
They want to be a world‑system of their own. This is why their projects cluster around:
- AI
- crypto
- network states
- private cities
- platform currencies
- alternative governance models
- “exit” ideologies
These are not business ventures. They are proto‑sovereign experiments.
---
π 2. Their core problem: the OCGFC already occupies the “global” niche. The OCGFC is the reigning supranational formation.
It controls:
- capital flows
- asset management
- global liquidity
- the legal‑financial infrastructure
- the offshore archipelago
Tech bros can’t displace that directly.
So they look for new terrain—places where the OCGFC is weak or absent.
Their strategy is frontier‑seeking:
- cyberspace
- virtual economies
- unregulated jurisdictions
- cloud governance
- AI‑mediated systems
- crypto‑sovereignty
They’re trying to build a sovereignty that doesn’t need the state and doesn’t need the OCGFC’s infrastructure.
---
π 3. Their other problem: Autocracy, Inc. wants to domesticate them. Autocrats see tech platforms as:
- threats to information control
- rival centers of loyalty
- alternative elites
- uncontrollable networks
So autocracies try to:
- regulate
- coerce
- nationalize
- force data localization
- demand backdoors
- impose censorship
Autocracy wants to pull tech into the palace.
Tech wants to escape the palace entirely.
This is why the tech‑brolicarchy is uncomfortable in both worlds.
---
π 4. The tech‑brolicarchy’s actual position: a third sovereignty in formation. Here’s the clean formulation:
The OCGFC rules capital. Liquidity, leverage.
Autocracy, Inc. rules territory. Coercion, loyalty.
The tech‑brolicarchy wants to rule networks. Scale, data, platforms.
Three sovereignties:
They’re not trying to join the existing system.
They’re trying to route around it.
---
π 5. They feel “in between” Because they are.
They depend on:
- the OCGFC’s capital
- the liberal state’s legal protections
- the global internet’s open architecture
But they dream of:
- post‑state governance
- algorithmic authority
- cloud citizenship
- private law
- exit over voice
They are a liminal elite, not yet sovereign but no longer merely corporate.
---
π 6. The coming conflict is three‑way, not two‑way. Will the OCGFC and Autocracy, Inc. eventually clash?
Yes.
But the deeper truth is:
All three formations are on a collision course.
- The OCGFC wants global liquidity.
- Autocracy wants sealed sovereignty.
- Tech wants cloud sovereignty.
These cannot coexist indefinitely.
The tech‑brolicarchy’s ambitions threaten:
- the OCGFC’s monopoly on supranational power
- autocracy’s monopoly on territorial power
- democracy’s monopoly on legitimate power
They are the third house in the emerging feudal triad.
---
π 7. In mythic terms:
- The Loom Sovereign (OCGFC) weaves the global fabric.
- The Masked Court (Autocracy, Inc.) seizes the old thrones.
- The Cloud Princes (tech‑brolicarchy) build palaces in the sky.
The Cloud Princes want:
- corridors without borders
- subjects without citizenship
- wealth without intermediaries
- law without legislatures
They are the new aspirants, the ones trying to found a fresh order.
---
π 8. The tech‑brolicarchy is trying to find a place in this milieu. But not as a junior partner.
They are trying to become:
- a sovereign class
- a third pole
- a new world‑system
- a rival to both capital and the state
They are the unclaimed throne in the emerging triarchy.
===
Is there any hope for the nation-states? Can bhey become tne nuclei for Kroeberian reform?
Here’s the surprising, energizing answer: yes—nation‑states can become nuclei for Kroeberian reform or reconstitution. But only a certain kind of nation‑state, under a certain set of historical pressures, with a certain kind of elite circulation. Let me lay out the architecture in a way that’s faithful to Kroeber, grounded in contemporary dynamics, and resonant with my ceremonial lexicon.
---
π± 1. Nation‑states are not dead—they’re dormant. People often talk as if:
- the OCGFC dissolved sovereignty
- Autocracy, Inc. captured sovereignty
- tech‑brolicarchy is inventing post‑sovereignty
But Kroeber would say: Sovereignty never disappears; it migrates. Nation‑states today are not obsolete. They’re hollowed, captured, or asleep.
Dormancy is not death.
Dormancy is a precondition for reconstitution.
---
π₯ 2. Kroeberian reform requires a nucleus—and the nation‑state is still the only viable one. Kroekber is explicit:
Reform happens when an institution recovers its original instrumentality.
What institutions still have:
- taxation authority
- legal jurisdiction
- territorial legitimacy
- coercive capacity
- public symbolic power
Not the OCGFC.
Not Autocracy, Inc.
Not the tech‑brolicarchy.
Only the nation‑state retains these levers. Even hollowed, even captured, even weakened—it is still the only vessel capable of reconstitution. It is like reforging a new crown.
---
𧩠3. The three forces hollowing states also create the conditions for reform. This is the paradox.
OCGFC hollowing → creates demand for public purpose. When capital flows outrun public needs, citizens rediscover the value of state capacity.
Autocracy, Inc. hollowing → creates demand for rule‑of‑law legitimacy. When autocrats overreach, elites and publics seek predictable institutions.
Tech‑brolicarchy hollowing → creates demand for democratic accountability. When platforms govern without consent, people rediscover the need for civic sovereignty.
All three pressures push toward reconstitution, not dissolution.
---
π§ 4. What a Kroeberian nucleus actually looks like. A nation‑state becomes a nucleus for reform when:
- a new creative minority emerges
- institutions regain instrumentality
- elites circulate rather than ossify
- public purpose is rediscovered
- the state becomes a problem‑solving instrument again
This is not nostalgia. It’s a structural reset.
Quigley calls this the moment when the civilization “recovers its expansionary capacity.”
---
⚔️ 5. The coming tri‑sovereign conflict creates openings for reform. The triarchy we’ve mapped—OCGFC, Autocracy, Cloud Princes—cannot coexist peacefully.
Their conflict creates cracks in which nation‑states can reassert themselves:
- OCGFC vs. Autocracy → states reclaim regulatory power
- Autocracy vs. Tech → states reclaim informational sovereignty
- Tech vs. OCGFC → states reclaim fiscal authority
Each clash weakens a non‑state sovereignty and strengthens the state’s latent role.
This is the “pressure cooker” Kroeber says precedes reconstitution.
---
π‘️ 6. Which nation‑states have the best chance? Not all states can reform. But some have the right structural ingredients:
1. Large, complex economies
They have enough internal capacity to rebuild instruments.
2. Strong civic myths
Kroeber insists reform requires a unifying ideology.
3. Fragmented but not collapsed institutions
Hollowed is fixable.
Shattered is not.
4. Elite factions seeking renewal
Reform requires a creative minority with legitimacy.
These are the states that can become nuclei.
The nation‑state is the only vessel that can undergo the process of reconstitution.
Nation‑states can become nuclei for reform. Not because they are strong, but because they are still the only institutions with the latent authority to reconstitute a civilization. The hollowing is not the end; it's the prelude.
I foresee a century of recovery in which the nation-state nuclei reconstitute via Jon Larson's inverted mercantilism, the greatest good for the greatest number instead of for elites, a dirigisme funded by functional finance. It’s the path out of the tri‑sovereign turbulence that is closest to the Western credo of change within a tradition.
πΏ 1. A century of recovery is what macrohistory would predict. Civilizational cycles always include:
- a long period of institutional ossification
- a crisis of legitimacy
- a breakdown of elite consensus
- a period of conflict between rival power centers
- a slow reconstitution around a new nucleus
We’ve already identified the rival power centers:
- OCGFC (unaccountable capital sovereignty)
- Autocracy, Inc. (reactionary territorial sovereignty)
- Tech‑brolicarchy (neo-patriarchal network sovereignty)
The nation‑state is the only actor with the latent authority to synthesize these forces into a renewed instrument.
I would call this the Era of Reconstitution.
---
π§ 2. The Veblenist Jon Larson’s inverted mercantilism is the right instrument for reconstitution. Larson’s framework—productive investment, industrial reconstruction, public purpose, and functional finance—is not a technocratic tweak. It’s a civilizational instrument.
It does three things essential for renewal:
1. Rebuilds the material base
A civilization cannot reform on a hollow industrial foundation.
Larson’s inverted mercantilism restores:
- manufacturing
- energy systems
- logistics
- productive capacity
This is the “new instrument of expansion.”
2. Reorients elite incentives
Instead of extraction → production.
Instead of rentier gains → public purpose.
Instead of capital flight → national development.
This is the “creative minority” reasserting instrumentality.
3. Re-legitimizes the state
Functional finance allows the state to:
- invest counter‑cyclically
- build long‑term infrastructure
- stabilize employment
- support innovation
- maintain social cohesion
This is the state recovering its role as a problem‑solving institution.
---
π️ 3. Why the nation‑state becomes the nucleus
Because it is the only institution that can:
- mobilize resources at scale
- coordinate long‑term projects
- enforce standards
- tax and spend
- regulate capital
- maintain territorial legitimacy
The OCGFC cannot do this.
Autocracy can do it, but only for elites.
Tech‑brolicarchy can innovate, but cannot govern.
The nation‑state is the only vessel capable of Larsonian dirigisme. (Psst. It's really the Founding Fathers' idea, not Larson's.)
---
π₯ 4. The tri‑sovereign conflict creates the opening. Here’s the key insight:
The century of recovery doesn’t begin despite the triarchy—it begins because of it.
OCGFC vs. Autocracy
→ states reclaim regulatory and monetary sovereignty.
Autocracy vs. Tech
→ states reclaim informational sovereignty.
Tech vs. OCGFC
→ states reclaim fiscal and infrastructural sovereignty.
Each clash weakens a non‑state sovereignty and strengthens the state’s dormant capacities.
This is the crucible in which the new nucleus forms.
---
π 5. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not idealism—it’s strategy. Larson’s inverted mercantilism is not moralistic.
It’s operational.
A state that invests in:
- broad prosperity
- productive employment
- resilient infrastructure
- universal services
…creates:
- a stable tax base
- a loyal citizenry
- a skilled workforce
- a cohesive society
- a legitimate elite
This is the only sustainable foundation for a reconstituted civilization.
I would call this the restoration of instrumentality.
---
π 6. The hollowed nation‑state, using functional finance, guided by the Founders' Principle of Inverted Mercantilism, to become the next sovereign capable of restraining the OCGFC (the Lords of the Exchange), outmaneuvering the Autocracy, and integrating the Cloud Princes (tech‑brolicarchy) into a renewed civic order, inaugurates the Century of Recovery.
Comments
Post a Comment