The newsletters from Monocle, Bloomberg, Rest of World, Semafor, ARTNews, the Economist and New York Times from October 16-22, 2025, open with Germany’s aborted conscription lottery, a episode that illuminates fundamental tensions in contemporary governance. The Monocle piece captures how Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s proposal collapsed under Defence Minister Boris Pistorius’s objections, revealing what Max Weber (1919/1946) termed the state’s perpetual struggle to maintain its “monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force” (p. 78). Yet the nature of this monopoly has fundamentally shifted since Weber’s formulation in “Politics as a Vocation.”

Christopher Cermak’s argument that Germany needs a “willing, professional army” rather than conscripted “begrudging soldiers” echoes the transformation Charles Tilly (1992) documented in Coercion, Capital, and European States, wherein modern states increasingly relied on professionalized rather than mass mobilization. The tellingly-named “lottery legion” represents what Zygmunt Bauman (2000) might recognize as “liquid” citizenship—the state unable to command sacrifice, reduced to gaming chance to distribute duty.

The survey data revealing 59% of young Germans rejecting military service speaks to what Jürgen Habermas (1975) identified as “legitimation crisis”: when democratic states can no longer generate the mass loyalty that underpinned earlier forms of sovereignty. As Habermas wrote, “The state apparatus is dependent on its decisions being collectively accepted as binding. The legitimation system provides grounds that satisfy this need for legitimation in a diffuse form” (p. 97). Germany’s conscription debate exposes precisely this diffusion—the grounds no longer satisfy.

This legitimation crisis extends globally. The newsletters document Trump’s authorization of CIA covert operations in Venezuela, his threats against Colombia, and maritime strikes in the Caribbean—all exercises of force that bypass traditional declarations of war. Carl Schmitt (1932/2007), in The Concept of the Political, argued that sovereignty resided in the capacity to decide the exception, to determine friend from enemy. Yet Trump’s approach represents not Schmittian decisionism but something more diffuse: a permanent state of exception normalized through executive action, what Giorgio Agamben (2005) termed “a paradigm of government” rather than extraordinary measure (p. 2).

The contrast between Ben Hodges’s suggestion for “defence-related education modules” and Denmark’s gender-equal conscription lottery reveals divergent state strategies. The former represents Foucauldian (1975/1995) “disciplinary power” operating through knowledge formation, the latter a residual sovereign power attempting to distribute risk equally. As Foucault observed in Discipline and Punish, modern power operates less through spectacular displays than through “training” that “fabricates” subjects (p. 170). Neither approach resolves the fundamental problem: in Beck’s (1992) “risk society,” citizens increasingly resist bearing collective risks when individual risk-calculation dominates social rationality.

The newsletters’ extensive Trump coverage—from his meetings with Putin to his mocking video of protesters to his commutation of George Santos’s sentence—illustrates what Benjamin Moffitt (2016) identified as “the global rise of populism” characterized by performance, spectacle, and the collapse of governing/campaigning distinctions. Trump’s AI-generated video showing himself as “King Trump” dumping excrement on “No Kings” protesters exemplifies what Walter Benjamin (1935/2007) warned against: “the aestheticization of politics” that fascism practices (p. 241).

Yet Benjamin’s analysis requires updating for digital conditions. The video’s artificiality is transparent, even announced—what Mark Fisher (2009) in Capitalist Realism might recognize as “reflexive impotence,” where critique is incorporated into the spectacle itself. As Fisher observed, “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism” (p. 2). Similarly, it becomes easier to produce satirical autocratic imagery than to contest the underlying power relations.

The Semafor analysis of Trump’s “Disrupter in Chief” approach and Polymarket betting patterns revealing Trump “always chickens out” captures what Byung-Chul Han (2015) diagnosed in The Burnout Society: achievement-subject politics where constant activity masks strategic incoherence. The newsletter notes that betting against Trump’s follow-through yields 12% returns—a remarkable quantification of inconsistency as investment strategy. This recalls Nassim Taleb’s (2007) The Black Swan, where he notes that “we like to emit logical and rational ideas but we do not necessarily enjoy this execution” (p. 107).

The juxtaposition of Trump’s volatility with the “No Kings” protests—attracting millions yet seemingly ineffectual—suggests what political theorists call “performance activism.” As Paolo Gerbaudo (2012) argued in Tweets and the Streets, contemporary protest operates through “choreography of assembly” that mobilizes affect without necessarily generating institutional change (p. 12). The New York Times characterization of the “split-screen” between military spectacle and protest captures this theatrical quality, where both state and opposition perform for digital audiences rather than directly confronting power.

The Louvre heist—occurring in broad daylight, executed in eight minutes with industrial equipment—reads as almost allegorical. That thieves specifically targeted jewelry rather than paintings, seeking “commodity theft” of dismantleable gems rather than art appreciation, illuminates Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) distinction between economic and cultural capital. As the art detective noted, this wasn’t an “art crime” but commodity extraction, converting symbolic value to exchange value.

Bourdieu’s Distinction argued that “taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier” (p. 6). The Louvre thieves’ disinterest in the Mona Lisa or Regent Diamond—too recognizable, hence unsellable—demonstrates pure economic rationality unconcerned with classificatory games. Yet ironically, their crime generates precisely the symbolic value it dismisses. The 1911 Mona Lisa theft, as noted, transformed the painting from “merely a portrait” to “legend.” Theft converts art into spectacle, enhancing aura through absence.

This parallels broader dynamics in the art market newsletters document. The Frieze London coverage reveals galleries selling “works of lesser-known artists—with their significantly lower price tags—up on the walls alongside those of household names.” What Olav Velthuis (2005) called “Talking Prices” in his ethnography of art markets—where price becomes communicative rather than purely economic—here shows market adaptation to inequality. Blue-chip works for ultra-wealthy collectors coexist with accessible pieces, spatially reproducing class structure.

The detail that Hauser & Wirth’s UK subsidiary saw profits fall 90% yet sold £33 million at Frieze captures what Thorstein Veblen (1899/1994) termed “conspicuous consumption”—spending that signals status irrespective of profit (p. 68). For Veblen, such consumption represented “wasteful” expenditure, but as Rachel Silvera (2013) notes in “Art Market Economics,” contemporary art functions as “store of value” amid monetary uncertainty (p. 234). The Semafor newsletter’s observation that gold prices surged past $4,000 before plunging 6% contextualizes art collecting as wealth preservation strategy.

The juxtaposition of museum heists with discussions of museum accessibility proves illuminating. The ARTnews coverage of arts funding cuts—one-third of U.S. museums losing government support—alongside the Monocle piece arguing the Louvre “shouldn’t be turned into a secure military base” reveals tensions between preservation and access. Carol Duncan (1995) in Civilizing Rituals argued museums function as “civic ceremonies” where publics “perform the state” (p. 7). Increased security transforms ceremony into security theater, converting shared cultural property into protected commodity.

The Simon Bouvier commentary captures this perfectly: “It is the duty of museums to make knowledge and humanity’s great achievements accessible to all. Visitors should feel drawn in and inspired, not scrutinised by suspicious guards.” Yet this duty confronts what Andreas Huyssen (1995) identified in Twilight Memories: museums increasingly operate as “imaginary spaces of compensation for a loss of lived traditions” in accelerated modernity (p. 15). When tradition converts to commodity—gems extractable, art insurable, culture securitizable—the museum’s pedagogical function collapses into warehousing.

The newsletters’ technology coverage—from OpenAI’s browser launch to AWS outages to data center protests—maps what Benjamin Bratton (2015) termed “The Stack,” wherein planetary-scale computation reorganizes sovereignty itself. Bratton argues that “platforms are infrastructures that mediate and structure sociality itself” (p. 44). The AWS outage taking down “much of the internet” for hours demonstrates this infrastructural dependency, where private corporate systems become civilizational infrastructure.

The detail that “half a million employees have been furloughed across government” while “air traffic controllers are required to work” during the U.S. shutdown, causing airport chaos, shows how public/private boundaries blur. Air traffic control represents what economists call “natural monopoly”—services requiring centralized coordination. Yet increasingly, as Evgeny Morozov (2013) argued in To Save Everything, Click Here, such coordination depends on private platforms whose logics supersede public interest. As Morozov wrote, “The Internet has become a lingua franca of problem-solving” (p. 6), colonizing governance itself.

The Rest of World coverage of Filipino workers remotely controlling Japanese convenience store robots captures what Antonio Casilli (2019) termed “digital labor,” where automation doesn’t eliminate work but spatially redistributes it to lower-wage regions. As Casilli observed in Waiting for Robots, “digital economy doesn’t destroy jobs; it makes them invisible” (p. 23). The convenience store customer sees autonomous service; the Filipino controller’s labor disappears into technical infrastructure.

This spatial arbitrage recalls what David Harvey (1989) identified as “time-space compression” under flexible accumulation—capital’s accelerating capacity to exploit geographical wage differentials (p. 147). Yet the newsletter’s observation that this creates “automation-related jobs” in the Philippines suggests what Nick Srnicek (2017) called “platform capitalism,” where platforms extract value from coordinating distributed micro-labor rather than direct exploitation (p. 45).

The controversy over data centers—from Ireland to Mexico to South Korea, communities oppose facilities straining electrical grids—illustrates what Langdon Winner (1980) meant arguing technologies have politics. As Winner wrote, “the things we call ‘technologies’ are ways of building order in our world” (p. 121). Data centers literally inscribe computational capitalism into electrical infrastructure, their energy demands restructuring power generation itself. The Semafor newsletter’s observation that “analysts argue fears of AI causing a global electricity shortage are overblown” while documenting “electrical disruptions in more than a dozen countries” captures this tension between techno-optimist narrative and material constraint.

The OpenAI browser launch and subsequent blocking of Martin Luther King Jr. deepfakes reveals what Kate Crawford (2021) termed “the atlas of AI”—how artificial intelligence systems embed historical power relations. Crawford argues AI is “both embodied and material, made from natural resources, fuel, human labor” (p. 8). The capacity to generate convincing King videos saying racist statements demonstrates not technical sophistication but the reproduction of historical violence through algorithmic means.

Subscribe

The New York Times coverage of Gen Z protests across Nepal, Madagascar, Indonesia, Kenya, and Morocco—toppling governments yet failing to secure lasting change—deserves extended consideration. The characterization of these movements as “contagious,” spreading through “platforms that defy physical distance and turbocharge a shared language and culture,” recalls what Benedict Anderson (1983/2006) termed “imagined communities.” Anderson argued print capitalism enabled national consciousness through “the possibility of thinking the nation” (p. 24). Contemporary protest movements suggest similar dynamics at different scale: social media enables thinking global youth solidarity, imagining commonality across vast distances.

Yet this imagining proves ambivalent. The detail that Nepali protesters drew inspiration from Indonesia, while Malagasy protesters drew from Nepal, suggests what Arjun Appadurai (1996) called “mediascapes”—flows of images creating “imagined worlds” that enable transnational identification (p. 33). As Appadurai wrote, these “scripts of possible lives” are “deeply perspectival constructs, inflected by the historical, linguistic, and political situatedness of different sorts of actors” (p. 33). The protest slogan spotted in Nepal—”corruption is sus, stop ghosting democracy”—exemplifies this: gaming/dating metaphors transposed to governance critique, legible across cultural contexts through shared digital vernaculars.

Paolo Gerbaudo’s (2012) observation that contemporary movements practice “choreography of assembly” organized through social media rather than traditional parties or unions helps explain both mobilization speed and institutional weakness. The 48-hour Nepali revolution and Madagascar’s rapid regime change demonstrate social media’s capacity for rapid mobilization. Yet the subsequent incorporation by existing political elites—career politicians assuming power, young protesters “frozen out”—suggests what Zeynep Tufekci (2017) argued in Twitter and Tear Gas: movements excelling at protest often struggle at politics.

As Tufekci wrote, “protests that build up steam without building capacity, organizing, and institutions end up failing to accomplish much” (p. xviii). The newsletters document precisely this trajectory: spectacular mobilization, regime toppling, then disillusionment as “everything goes back to the same way.” This recalls the Arab Spring, which one protester explicitly references. As Asef Bayat (2017) argued in Revolution Without Revolutionaries, these “refolutions”—combinations of reform and revolution—often reproduce existing power structures while changing personnel (p. 2).

The structural explanation—youth unemployment, endemic corruption, demographic bulges—connects to what Gunnar Heinsohn (2003) termed “youth bulge theory,” wherein societies with large young populations and limited opportunities face instability. Yet this deterministic framing misses what Jeffrey Arnett (2014) identified as “emerging adulthood”—the 18-25 period in post-industrial societies characterized by identity exploration and instability (p. 8). The Gen Z protests suggest this developmental stage globalizing beyond post-industrial contexts, creating transnational cohort consciousness.

The observation that Nepal’s median age is 28 and Madagascar’s 21 contextualizes protest not merely as political expression but generational assertion. As Mannheim (1952) argued in “The Problem of Generations,” age cohorts sharing formative experiences develop distinctive worldviews that shape historical trajectories. Contemporary Gen Z, formed through pandemic, climate crisis, and digital saturation, appears to constitute such a generation—globally conscious, digitally fluent, yet institutionally excluded.

The New York Times feature on living longer as an introvert—emphasizing quality over quantity of relationships—alongside Singapore’s achievement of A-grade pension ranking illuminates what Nancy Fraser (2016) termed “crisis of care” in contemporary capitalism. Fraser argues capitalism systematically undervalues reproductive labor—the care, education, and relationship-building sustaining human life. As she writes, “capitalist societies tend to ‘eat their own tails,’ by free-riding on feminized, informalized domestic work” (p. 99).

The longevity research cited—strong relationships, cognitive stimulation, emotional support, logistical assistance—essentially describes unpaid reproductive labor. The prescription for four to six close relationships providing varied support functions reveals what Arlie Hochschild (2012) called “the outsourced self,” wherein market logic colonizes intimate life (p. 4). The newsletters’ framing—”How to live a long and healthy life as an introvert”—converts relationship to health optimization strategy, quantifiable and instrumentalized.

Singapore’s CPF system achieving top-tier ranking while the newsletter notes “self-employed ‘aunties’ and ‘uncles’ working in hawker centers...well into their 60s or 70s” captures pension systems’ fundamental paradox. As Gøsta Esping-Andersen (1990) argued in The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, welfare regimes systematically privilege formal employment, marginalizing those in informal economy (p. 37). Singapore’s recognition as A-grade masks inequality between salaried workers and gig economy participants.

The Washington Post piece on increasing numbers dying alone—15 million Americans 55+ with no spouse or children—illustrates what Robert Putnam (2000) documented in Bowling Alone: declining social capital in advanced capitalism. Putnam defined social capital as “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19). The demographic transformation—smaller families, geographic dispersal, extended lifespans—produces longevity without social support.

This connects to what Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim (2002) termed “individualization,” wherein “institutionalized individualism” becomes compulsory as traditional structures collapse (p. 4). As they write, “individualization means that the biography is removed from given determinations and placed in each person’s own hands” (p. 24). Yet this autonomy proves ambiguous when “each person’s own hands” lack capacity for self-care in elderhood.

The juxtaposition with the introvert longevity piece—where “confiding” in close friends and walking with exercise buddies optimize health outcomes—reveals care’s double movement: simultaneously marketized (quantified, prescribed, optimized) and evacuated (relationships instrumental, loneliness epidemic, solo dying). This recalls what Silvia Federici (2004) argued about primitive accumulation: capitalism required destroying communal care systems to force wage dependency. Contemporary longevity crisis suggests this destruction’s culmination—individualization so complete that reproduction itself becomes unsustainable.

The extensive coverage of U.S.-China trade tensions—rare earth export restrictions, tariff threats, corporate supply chain shifts—suggests what political economists call “neo-mercantilism”: economic nationalism prioritizing domestic production and resource control. As Robert Gilpin (2001) argued in Global Political Economy, mercantilism never disappeared but was suppressed during globalization’s hegemonic phase (p. 187). Its resurgence indicates hegemonic decline.

The detail that China’s rare earth shipments to the U.S. fell 30% even before announcing export restrictions demonstrates strategic withholding—converting market dominance to geopolitical leverage. This exemplifies what Albert Hirschman (1945/1980) termed “national power and the structure of foreign trade,” wherein trade dependence becomes political weapon. As Hirschman wrote, “the power to interrupt commercial or financial relations with any country...is the root cause of the influence or power position which a country acquires in other countries” (p. 16).

The U.S.-Australia rare earth agreement represents counter-strategy: diversifying supply chains to reduce dependence. Yet the challenge is temporal. China controls 90% of rare earth processing capacity, infrastructure developed over decades. The newsletter’s observation that Trump’s “eagerness to strike a deal signals Washington knows how much leverage China has” captures this asymmetry. As Ha-Joon Chang (2002) argued in Kicking Away the Ladder, developed countries now advocate free markets only after building domestic capacity through protectionism (p. 3).

The corporate response—TSMC raising revenue targets despite tariffs, Microsoft moving production from China, CATL reconsidering European expansion—illustrates what Susan Strange (1998) called “casino capitalism,” wherein firms navigate policy volatility through hedging and diversification (p. 21). Yet this volatility has distributional consequences. The newsletter’s observation that U.S. farmers face devastation from Chinese soybean import drops—falling to zero—while the administration considers bailouts shows how trade wars redistribute costs.

This recalls what Karl Polanyi (1944/2001) termed “double movement” in The Great Transformation: market expansion provoking protective counter-movements. As Polanyi wrote, “laissez-faire was planned; planning was not” (p. 147). Similarly, contemporary protectionism emerges not from planning but reactive nationalism responding to deindustrialization, inequality, and lost hegemony. Yet protectionism’s benefits (manufacturing jobs) accrue selectively while costs (higher prices, retaliation) distribute widely.

The newsletters’ coverage of luxury markets—LVMH earnings beating expectations, Pad London art fair, collectable design booming, gold rallies—documents extreme wealth concentration’s cultural expressions. The Economist piece noting “the ultra-rich are trading private jets, Rolexes and fine art for luxury experiences” captures what Elizabeth Currid-Halkett (2017) termed “the sum of small things”: contemporary elite consumption shifting from conspicuous goods to inconspicuous experiences signaling cultural capital (p. 6).

As Currid-Halkett argues, “contemporary elites have moved away from overt displays of wealth...to more subtle forms of distinction” including education, health, and experiential consumption (p. 96). Yet the newsletters document both conspicuous and inconspicuous luxury coexisting. The $14 billion HSBC-Hang Seng deal, $40 billion AI data center acquisition, $23.9 million Singapore house purchase represent traditional conspicuous wealth. Meanwhile, Monocle’s coverage of “design-led events” and “craft, covetable design and...buying and selling” at Pad London suggests experiential luxury.

Thomas Piketty’s (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century provides context: when returns to capital (r) exceed economic growth (g), wealth concentrates. As Piketty demonstrates, “the past devours the future” when inherited wealth compounds faster than wages (p. 571). The art market booming while youth unemployment surges illustrates this divergence. The Hauser & Wirth detail—UK profits falling 90% yet selling £33 million at Frieze—captures wealth’s resilience despite economic volatility.

The Semafor observation that billionaires average “more than three kids each” while “upper-middle-class people...can’t afford full-time childcare” despite earning more than the very poor connects fertility to class. As Philip Cohen (2018) argues, family structures increasingly stratify by class—wealthy having resources for larger families while middle-class face “family complexity” and constraint (p. 187). The economic explanation—”opportunity cost”—converts reproduction to investment decision, family planning to portfolio management.

This connects to what Melinda Cooper (2017) termed “family values” in neoliberalism: the devolution of social reproduction to private households simultaneous with erosion of wage-earning capacity. As Cooper writes, “the family was called upon to assume ever-expanding insurance functions at precisely the moment when household income was stagnating” (p. 7). Divergent fertility patterns reflect this: ultra-wealthy insulate from opportunity cost through wealth, poor lack alternatives, middle-class squeeze between.

The recurring theme across newsletters—U.S. government shutdown, French no-confidence votes, British Museum scandals, Venezuelan authoritarianism—suggests what political scientists call “democratic backsliding.” The detail that the U.S. shutdown is becoming “the third-longest in history” with “no end in sight” while “700,000 workers are furloughed” illustrates what Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (2018) termed “how democracies die”: not through coups but institutional degradation (p. 7).

As Levitsky and Ziblatt argue, democratic norms—”mutual toleration” (accepting opponents’ legitimacy) and “forbearance” (restraining institutional power)—prove crucial. Both erode under populism. The detail that Trump “fired 4,100 federal employees and plans to slash at least 10,000 government jobs overall” demonstrates forbearance’s collapse: partisan power maximization superseding institutional preservation.

The French situation—prime minister surviving no-confidence votes yet facing “brutal battle over budget”—illustrates fiscal politics’ centrality to contemporary crisis. As Wolfgang Streeck (2014) argued in Buying Time, post-2008 states face trilemma: satisfy markets demanding austerity, citizens demanding services, or accept democratic legitimation crisis (p. 17). France’s year-long budget impasse, successive government collapses, and rising bond yields demonstrate this trilemma’s severity.

The British Museum’s “Pink Ball”—£2,000 tickets, wining and dining around the Elgin Marbles—illustrates what James Ferguson (2015) termed “distributions” replacing “redistribution” in neoliberalism (p. 18). Rather than tax-funded universal access, private philanthropy funds exclusive events that subsidize public access. Greece’s criticism—treating marbles as “decorative elements”—captures the symbolic violence: appropriated cultural property becomes backdrop for elite consumption.

The John Bolton indictment alongside Letitia James and James Comey prosecutions—all Trump critics—suggests what Balkin and Levinson (2001) called “constitutional dictatorship”: democratic forms maintained while power concentrates (p. 1808). The detail that Bolton’s charges are “less surprising” than others because “a judge previously warned” him suggests legalistic veneer masking political targeting. This recalls Carl Schmitt’s (1932/2007) argument that liberal legalism obscures friend-enemy distinctions fundamental to politics (p. 26).

The newsletters’ climate coverage—global shipping carbon tax blocked, Brazil drilling Amazon, Spain’s grid crisis, Norway’s EV dominance—maps energy transition’s uneven geography. The detail that Trump called the shipping tax a “Global Green New Scam Tax” and “threatened supporting countries with visa restrictions” illustrates what Andreas Malm (2021) termed “corona, climate, chronic emergency”: crisis response blocked by fossil capital interests (p. 24).

The shipping tax defeat demonstrates what Naomi Klein (2014) identified in This Changes Everything: climate action requires challenging capitalism’s “extractivist” logic (p. 169). As Klein argues, “our economic system and our planetary system are now at war” (p. 21). The International Maritime Organization adjournment—following pressure from Saudi Arabia and Russia—shows fossil states’ veto power over transition.

Yet the newsletters also document transition’s momentum. Norway’s 95% EV sales, China’s solar capacity doubling, Iran’s renewable boom, and declining U.S. coal dependence suggest what Vaclav Smil (2010) called “energy transitions”: gradual, decades-long shifts in primary energy sources (p. 4). Smil emphasizes transitions’ slowness, requiring infrastructure replacement across entire economies. The detail that “renewables ‘can’t be subsidized by US taxpayer...and we don’t want it reliant on foreign sources like China’” captures transition politics: climate action subordinated to economic nationalism.

The Spain grid crisis—”voltage swings raised fears of another blackout” after April’s massive outage—illustrates renewable integration challenges. As Jesse Jenkins (2022) argues, variable renewable energy requires grid flexibility through storage, transmission, or dispatchable backup. The newsletter’s observation that “renewable energy...is changing energy systems, and grids are often failing to keep up” captures infrastructure lag. Yet Spain’s economy minister claiming green tech was “essential in the rapid recovery” after the blackout suggests adaptation learning.

The data center energy crisis—”huge gap on energy and AI” per former U.S. energy czar—connects technological acceleration to planetary constraint. The detail that tech companies are “building power plants to fuel data centers”—”gas-fired generator in Texas, gas turbines in Tennessee, fuel cells in California”—illustrates what Bratton (2015) called “The Stack’s” material requirements. Planetary-scale computation requires planetary-scale energy, creating what Bratton terms “terraforming” through infrastructure (p. 85).

Subscribe

The China coverage of K visa backlash—”racist and xenophobic comments spread furiously, especially about Indians”—alongside Dutch migrant deportations, Spain’s migration expansion, and U.S. refugee policy overhaul documents migration politics’ global polarization. The detail that “China has virtually no history of inbound immigration” and foreigners “provoke curiosity and suspicion” contextualizes the backlash.

This connects to what Arjun Appadurai (2006) termed “fear of small numbers”: how minorities provoke anxiety disproportionate to size. As Appadurai argues, globalization creates “surplus populations” whose presence challenges national imaginaries (p. 42). The Chinese social media response—horror that “China would become a country of immigrants—not...a good thing”—exemplifies this anxiety.

Yet China’s demographic crisis—aging population, declining workforce—makes immigration economically rational. The newsletter’s observation that “the government really does want science and technology talent” while publics resist suggests elite/popular divergence. This recalls what Douglas Massey (2013) identified: immigration serving capital (cheap labor, skilled workers) while threatening national identity (p. 1348).

Spain’s counter-example—”aggressively expanded migration,” Latin Americans in Madrid growing “more than tenfold over the last quarter-century to more than a million”—illustrates alternative policy. The characterization as “bucking a Western trend of cracking down” and “cutting international aid” suggests Spain’s exceptionalism. Yet this connects to economic necessity: Spain needs workers as population ages. The observation about “seasonal migration program” and “business and education ties” indicates managed migration serving labor demand.

The Netherlands’ plan to “deport dozens of so-called third-country migrants to Uganda” exemplifies what Ruben Andersson (2014) termed “illegality industry”: migration control’s externalization through deals with third countries (p. 9). The comparison to UK-Rwanda and Italy-Albania agreements suggests regional pattern. Yet both prior programs “did not go ahead,” indicating implementation challenges. As Andersson argues, externalization often fails practically while succeeding symbolically—governments “doing something” about migration regardless of effectiveness.

The AWS outage—taking down “much of the internet” including Semafor’s email system—illustrates what Benjamin Bratton (2015) meant arguing “The Stack” reorganizes sovereignty. When private infrastructure becomes civilizational necessity, sovereignty fragments across scales. The detail that airlines, banks, and “even a smart mattress favored by tech billionaires were affected” captures dependency’s scope.

The “single point of failure” problem—so many institutions relying on one vendor—recalls what Joseph Tainter (1988) identified in The Collapse of Complex Societies: increasing complexity creates vulnerability. As Tainter argues, “as a society confronts increasing problems requiring complexity to solve, its complexity must increase” (p. 193). Yet this complexity becomes brittle—small failures cascade systemically.

The Microsoft shift—”aiming to produce the majority of its products outside China next year”—alongside AWS and Google “supply chain shift” illustrates what Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman (2019) termed “weaponized interdependence”: how network structure enables coercion. As they argue, states with “hub positions” in networks can “weaponize” flows through surveillance or sanctions (p. 44). U.S.-China decoupling represents recognition of this vulnerability: reducing mutual exposure to limit weaponization.

Yet decoupling proves challenging. China’s rare earth dominance—”90% of global supply”—gives Beijing “leverage,” as newsletters repeatedly note. The U.S.-Australia rare earth agreement represents counter-strategy, but faces temporal problems: “it takes years to put people in place.” This asymmetry—China’s developed capacity versus U.S. aspirational diversification—creates what Albert Hirschman (1945/1980) called “influence effect”: dependence constraining autonomy (p. 18).

The OpenAI browser launch—competing with Google Chrome—alongside ChatGPT Atlas and various AI assistants suggests what Srnicek (2017) called “platform capitalism”: tech giants extending control through ecosystems (p. 48). The observation that “Alphabet shares fell by as much as 4.8%” following OpenAI’s announcement captures competitive dynamics. Yet all platforms share infrastructure—AWS, data centers, chip supply—creating interdependence beneath surface competition.

Across these newsletters, inequality emerges as master theme. The Louvre heist and art market boom; billionaire families and dying-alone elderly; Gen Z protesters and political elite; rare earth monopolies and supply chain dependencies; climate action blocked by fossil interests; migration serving capital while threatening identity—all reflect wealth and power concentration’s consequences.

Thomas Piketty’s (2014) fundamental insight—inequality increases when capital returns exceed growth—explains much. Yet inequality operates culturally and politically beyond economics. Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) concepts of cultural, social, and symbolic capital—alongside economic capital—capture these dimensions. The art market isn’t merely wealth storage but cultural capital expression. Gen Z protests represent not just employment demand but recognition struggles. Migration politics reflect symbolic capital battles over national identity.

Yet contemporary inequality has distinctive features. As Branko Milanovic (2016) documents in Global Inequality, within-country inequality has surged while between-country inequality declined. The “elephant curve” shows middle classes in developing countries (particularly China) gaining while Western middle classes stagnate. The newsletters document this: Chinese stocks surging, China’s growth “healthier than expected,” while Western governments face shutdowns, no-confidence votes, pension crises.

This creates what Wolfgang Streeck (2016) termed “interregnum”: hegemonic order’s collapse without successor. The U.S. remains militarily dominant—evidenced by Caribbean strikes, Taiwan defense commitments, NATO expansion—yet economically contested. China achieves industrial dominance—rare earths, manufacturing, clean energy—yet faces demographic decline, debt burdens, and global resistance to immigration suggesting limited soft power. Europe fragments politically while maintaining regulatory power—GDPR, climate standards, competition policy.

The question, as Antonio Gramsci (1971) wrote of earlier interregnum, is what “morbid symptoms” emerge in the meantime (p. 276). The newsletters document many: authoritarian populism, culture wars, democratic erosion, pandemic conspiracy, climate denial, migration panic, generational conflict. Yet also resistance: Gen Z protests, climate movements, mutual aid, technological innovation, cultural creativity.

Hannah Arendt (1951/1973) concluded The Origins of Totalitarianism arguing “every end in history necessarily contains a new beginning” (p. 479). Perhaps contemporary crisis contains such beginnings—renewable transitions, digital organizing, transnational solidarity, institutional experimentation. Or perhaps, as Benjamin’s (1940/2007) angel of history, we’re “propelled irresistibly into the future” while “the pile of debris before us grows toward the sky” (p. 258).

The newsletters, in their fragmentary and associative form, capture this uncertain present—not systematic analysis but the lived texture of transformation, crisis, and stubborn persistence. As Walter Benjamin practiced in The Arcades Project (1999), such fragments assembled collectively may illuminate more than totalizing theory—revealing through juxtaposition what coherent narrative obscures. The task remains what Fredric Jameson (1991) termed “cognitive mapping”: constructing representations adequate to grasping our unprecedented moment (p. 51).

Share

Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). Verso. (Original work published 1983)

Andersson, R. (2014). Illegality, Inc.: Clandestine migration and the business of bordering Europe. University of California Press.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Appadurai, A. (2006). Fear of small numbers: An essay on the geography of anger. Duke University Press.

Arendt, H. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (Original work published 1951)

Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Balkin, J. M., & Levinson, S. (2001). The processes of constitutional change: From partisan entrenchment to the National Surveillance State. Fordham Law Review, 70(4), 1727-1853.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.

Bayat, A. (2017). Revolution without revolutionaries: Making sense of the Arab Spring. Stanford University Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.

Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. Sage.

Benjamin, W. (1999). The arcades project (H. Eiland & K. McLaughlin, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Benjamin, W. (2007). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Illuminations: Essays and reflections (pp. 217-251). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1935)

Benjamin, W. (2007). Theses on the philosophy of history. In Illuminations: Essays and reflections (pp. 253-264). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1940)

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Bratton, B. H. (2015). The stack: On software and sovereignty. MIT Press.

Casilli, A. A. (2019). Waiting for robots: Enquiry on the growth of precarious work [En attendant les robots: Enquête sur le travail du clic]. Éditions du Seuil.

Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. Anthem Press.

Cohen, P. N. (2018). Enduring bonds: Inequality, marriage, parenting, and everything else that makes families great and terrible. University of California Press.

Cooper, M. (2017). Family values: Between neoliberalism and the new social conservatism. Zone Books.

Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.

Currid-Halkett, E. (2017). The sum of small things: A theory of the aspirational class. Princeton University Press.

Duncan, C. (1995). Civilizing rituals: Inside public art museums. Routledge.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42-79.

Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia.

Ferguson, J. (2015). Give a man a fish: Reflections on the new politics of distribution. Duke University Press.

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative? Zero Books.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)

Fraser, N. (2016). Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review, 100, 99-117.

Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. Pluto Press.

Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers.

Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.

Han, B.-C. (2015). The burnout society. Stanford University Press.

Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell.

Heinsohn, G. (2003). Söhne und Weltmacht: Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen [Sons and world power: Terror in the rise and fall of nations]. Orell Füssli.

Hirschman, A. O. (1980). National power and the structure of foreign trade. University of California Press. (Original work published 1945)

Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The outsourced self: What happens when we pay others to live our lives for us. Metropolitan Books.

Huyssen, A. (1995). Twilight memories: Marking time in a culture of amnesia. Routledge.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press.

Jenkins, J. D. (2022). Getting to zero carbon emissions in the electric power sector. Joule, 2(12), 2498-2510.

Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon & Schuster.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.

Malm, A. (2021). Corona, climate, chronic emergency: War communism in the twenty-first century. Verso.

Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276-322). Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Massey, D. S. (2013). America’s immigration policy fiasco: Learning from past mistakes. Daedalus, 142(3), 5-15.

Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press.

Moffitt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation. Stanford University Press.

Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1944)

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Schmitt, C. (2007). The concept of the political: Expanded edition (G. Schwab, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1932)

Silvera, R. (2013). Art market economics. In R. Towse & C. Handke (Eds.), Handbook on the digital creative economy (pp. 233-244). Edward Elgar.

Smil, V. (2010). Energy transitions: History, requirements, prospects. Praeger.

Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.

Strange, S. (1998). Mad money: When markets outgrow governments. University of Michigan Press.

Streeck, W. (2014). Buying time: The delayed crisis of democratic capitalism (P. Camiller & D. Fernbach, Trans.). Verso.

Streeck, W. (2016). How will capitalism end? Essays on a failing system. Verso.

Tainter, J. A. (1988). The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge University Press.

Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House.

Tilly, C. (1992). Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990-1992. Blackwell.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.

Veblen, T. (1994). The theory of the leisure class. Dover. (Original work published 1899)

Velthuis, O. (2005). Talking prices: Symbolic meanings of prices on the market for contemporary art. Princeton University Press.

Weber, M. (1946). Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds. & Trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 77-128). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1919)

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, tools (October 23, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (October 23, 2025).]

[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (October 23, 2025). The Crisis of Legitimate Force: Conscription, Sovereignty, and the Modern State. Open Culture.

The Open Access Blogs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe