The final week of October 2025 presents what scholars term a “polycrisis”—multiple, interacting crises creating emergent effects greater than their sum (Lawrence et al., 2022). The newsletter fragments assembled here reveal a global order simultaneously fragmenting and consolidating, where technological acceleration collides with geopolitical reconfiguration, and where institutional legitimacy faces unprecedented pressure from both market forces and populist politics.

What Beck (1992) termed “risk society” has evolved into what we might call a “complexity society,” where the speed of transformation outpaces institutional adaptation. As Appadurai (1996) observed in his theory of global cultural flows, we witness the “disjunctures” between technoscapes, financescapes, ideoscapes, and ethnoscapes—the various dimensions of globalization moving at different velocities and often in contradictory directions.

The newsletter excerpts from October 23-29, 2025, compiled from sources like Monocle, Bloomberg, Rest of World, Semafor, Goldman Sachs, CNBC, the Economist and New York Times, paint a vivid mosaic of a world in flux. Spanning geopolitical frictions, technological disruptions, cultural shifts, and economic volatilities, these snippets capture the zeitgeist of a post-pandemic era marked by resurgent nationalism, AI-driven transformations, and fragile global alliances. Economically, they highlight trade wars and market euphoria; socially, they reflect on labor shortages, cultural appropriations, and virtual identities; policy-wise, they underscore tariffs, sanctions, and regulatory experiments; and culturally, they evoke themes of craftsmanship, art theft, and modernist revival.

These elements are not siloed but interdependent: economic policies like tariffs ripple into social inequalities, while cultural narratives—such as virtual K-pop idols—intersect with technological policies. This commentary explores these interrelations, drawing associative insights from scholarly works, literature, and philosophy to illuminate broader implications. As Hannah Arendt warned in The Human Condition, modern society’s emphasis on “labor” and “work” often eclipses “action” in the public sphere, leading to technocratic solutions that overlook human plurality (Arendt, 1958, p. 7). Here, we see this tension manifest in AI’s promise and peril.

These snippets present a world simultaneously in crisis and transition—a moment where the old liberal international order is fraying, new techno-economic paradigms are consolidating, and cultural institutions are both vulnerable and resilient. At the symbolic center of this moment stands a brazen daylight theft from the Louvre: jewels once worn by Napoleon III and Empress Eugénie, valued at $102 million, snatched in seven minutes with a furniture lift and scooters. This act is not merely a crime but a metaphor: the fragility of heritage in an age of accelerated disruption, the inadequacy of legacy systems (security, political, economic) to meet emergent threats, and the persistent allure—and vulnerability—of concentrated value.

Economically, the snippets underscore a volatile landscape where U.S. tariffs under President Trump dominate headlines, exacerbating global supply chain disruptions. Trump’s abrupt imposition of a 10% tariff on Canada, ostensibly over an Ontario ad featuring Ronald Reagan, exemplifies “economic nationalism” as a tool of diplomacy, delaying USMCA reviews and straining North American interdependence (Bloomberg, October 28, 2025). This echoes Dani Rodrik’s analysis in The Globalization Paradox, where he argues that unchecked hyper-globalization invites backlash through protectionism, as nations prioritize sovereignty over efficiency (Rodrik, 2011, p. 189). The U.S.-China trade detente, teased in snippets about Trump-Xi meetings and potential soybean deals, suggests a fragile truce amid escalating rare earth and semiconductor battles. China’s softened rhetoric and industrial profit surges (21.6% in September) indicate strategic pivots toward self-reliance, aligning with Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, where crises spur innovation but widen inequalities (Schumpeter, 1942, p. 83).

Market rallies, fueled by tamer U.S. inflation (3% annual rate) and AI optimism, reflect speculative fervor. CNBC reports S&P 500 highs above 6,800, driven by tech giants like Nvidia and Microsoft surpassing $4 trillion valuations (October 29, 2025). Yet, this “AI revolution” masks underlying fragilities, such as Tesla’s profit plunge despite revenue growth, due to R&D costs and competition from Chinese EVs. Associatively, this mirrors the dot-com bubble, as analyzed in Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance, where narrative-driven valuations outpace fundamentals, risking corrections (Shiller, 2015, p. 45). In Latin America, Argentina’s bond surge post-Milei’s midterm wins signals investor relief, but persistent unemployment and austerity evoke Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, critiquing how crises enable neoliberal reforms that entrench poverty (Klein, 2007, p. 140). Interrelatedly, Saudi Arabia’s AI bets and diversification from oil (50.6% non-oil economy) highlight resource-dependent economies’ pivot to tech, per Michael Ross’s The Oil Curse, where petrostates must innovate to avoid stagnation (Ross, 2012, p. 212).

Socially, these economic shifts amplify labor precarity. U.S. farm districts’ push for immigration reforms amid deportations (Bloomberg, October 29, 2025) underscores how tariffs and policies exacerbate shortages, resonating with Saskia Sassen’s Expulsions, which details how global capitalism displaces workers, fostering “brutal sorting” of winners and losers (Sassen, 2014, p. 1). In Malawi, AI tools like Ulangizi blend ChatGPT with local knowledge to aid farmers, illustrating technology’s potential for inclusive growth, yet raising questions of digital divides as per Tim Unwin’s ICT4D: Information and Communication Technology for Development (Unwin, 2009).

The market movements described throughout these documents resist straightforward interpretation. The S&P 500 reaching “record highs” while “consumer confidence fell yet again” exemplifies what Tooze (2018) identifies as contemporary capitalism’s “volatility”—the disconnect between asset prices and lived experience. The K-shaped recovery thesis—that “low-income households [are] not benefiting from the AI boom”—suggests what Piketty (2014) documented: returns to capital systematically exceeding returns to labor, with technological transformation accelerating this divergence.

The cryptocurrency narratives—Trump’s pardon of Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, World Liberty Financial’s dealings—demonstrate what Golumbia (2016) analyzed as the “politics of Bitcoin”: ostensibly libertarian technology entangled with state power and regulatory capture. The White House statement that “the Biden Administration’s war on cryptocurrency is over” reveals how rapidly regulatory stances shift with political winds, creating what Mehrling (2011) calls “the inherent hierarchy of money”—private currencies ultimately dependent on sovereign backing and political favor.

The discussion of sovereign wealth funds and the U.S. government’s equity stakes in Intel, MP Materials, and other companies represents what Block (2008) termed the “hidden developmental state.” These investments blur public-private boundaries, creating what Mazzucato (2015) argues should be acknowledged openly: the state as primary risk-taker and innovation funder, deserving proportionate returns. Yet the arrangements appear ad-hoc rather than systematic, lacking the institutional coherence of East Asian developmental states documented by Johnson (1982) and Wade (1990).

The week’s dominant narrative concerns the U.S.-China trade negotiations, revealing what Polanyi (1944) would recognize as the “double movement”—the oscillation between market expansion and social protection, now operating at a geospatial scale. Trump’s theatrical diplomacy, culminating in the anticipated Thursday meeting with Xi Jinping, demonstrates what Braithwaite and Drahos (2000) identified as “webs of influence” replacing formal international governance structures.

The negotiations’ focus on rare earth elements and semiconductor access represents what Varoufakis (2023) calls “techno-feudalism”—a system where control over technological infrastructure supersedes traditional capital accumulation. The Bloomberg newsletter notes China produces “around 90% of critical minerals,” creating what scholars of resource politics term “weaponized interdependence” (Farrell & Newman, 2019). This is not merely mercantilism redux, but rather what Srnicek (2017) conceptualizes as “platform capitalism” extended to the level of nation-states, where control of digital and material infrastructure becomes the ultimate strategic resource.

Argentina’s midterm elections, where Javier Milei’s party exceeded expectations, offer a contrasting vision. The $20 billion U.S. currency swap—announced strategically before the election—represents what Klein (2007) termed “disaster capitalism,” where crisis becomes opportunity for radical restructuring. Yet as the commentary notes, “voters wary of his leftist predecessors, ‘not devotion to Milei, powered the electorate’s resolve.’” This distinction matters theoretically. It suggests what Hirschman (1970) called “exit, voice, and loyalty” operating at the electoral level—voters choosing the lesser-perceived evil rather than enthusiastically embracing neoliberal shock therapy.

The Canadian trade conflict reveals the brittleness of institutionalized trade frameworks. Trump’s suspension of negotiations over a provincial advertisement featuring Ronald Reagan’s pro-free-trade rhetoric demonstrates what Rodrik (2011) calls the “political trilemma of the world economy”—the impossibility of simultaneously maintaining democracy, national sovereignty, and deep economic integration. The irony that Reagan’s words themselves become contraband illuminates how far contemporary conservatism has drifted from its late-20th-century moorings, a ideological transformation documented by Slobodian (2018) in his study of neoliberalism’s authoritarian turn.

The immigration and labor threads running through these newsletters illuminate what Sassen (2014) terms “expulsions”—the systematic exclusion of populations from economic and social membership. Trump’s ICE raids on New York’s Canal Street, targeting West African vendors, demonstrate sovereignty performed as spectacle. Agamben’s (1998) concept of “bare life”—existence stripped of political rights—applies literally to irregular migrants whose labor the economy absorbs while denying their personhood legal recognition.

The agricultural labor shortage discussions reveal contradictions within restrictionist immigration politics. The Bloomberg piece notes that “Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden” acknowledges “’If we don’t retain our current agriculture workforce, our farms are going to close.’” This tension between economic interests and ethno-nationalist politics has characterized U.S. immigration policy for over a century, as Ngai (2004) documented. The proposed solutions—guest worker programs, mechanization, AI deployment—each carry distinct implications for labor power and rural social structures.

Europe’s migration politics appears differently configured. The Economist notes that “guest worker schemes are on the rise,” while Italy’s government “introduced ‘one of the [world’s] most progressive’ labor mobility agreements with India.” This suggests what Castles and Miller (2009) termed “differential exclusion”—incorporating migrant labor while maintaining hierarchical citizenship statuses. The systems create what Anderson (2013) calls “us and them” dynamics even within receiving societies, stratifying populations by legal status and entitlements.

Subscribe

Policy threads reveal a world grappling with regulatory voids. U.S. sanctions on Russian oil firms spiked prices 3% (CNBC, October 23, 2025), while Trump’s fentanyl-linked threats to China blend health and trade policy, evoking Michel Foucault’s Security, Territory, Population, where biopolitics intertwines with economic control (Foucault, 2007, p. 108). Mexico’s AI dubbing regulations protect creative workers from voice cloning, addressing cultural erosion amid tech disruption (Rest of World, October 28, 2025). This parallels global debates on AI ethics, as in Timnit Gebru’s research on algorithmic bias, warning that unregulated AI perpetuates inequalities (Gebru et al., 2021).

European snippets from Monocle highlight stalled EU enlargement in the Western Balkans, critiquing Brussels’ “misguided strategy” that erodes trust (October 23, 2025). This policy inertia, amid von der Leyen’s tours, recalls Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, where post-Cold War expansions falter on cultural fault lines (Huntington, 1996, p. 158). Space alliances like Project Bromo (Airbus, Thales, Leonardo) rival Starlink, signaling policy shifts toward self-sufficiency in critical infrastructure, per Joan Johnson’s The Politics of Space Cooperation (Johnson-Freese, 2011).

Interrelations emerge in how policies shape economic-social dynamics: Tariffs inflate costs, fueling inflation debates (CNBC’s CPI coverage), while AI policies in dubbing or farming intersect with cultural preservation and rural equity.

The week’s headlines reveal a world where trade is weaponized, alliances are transactional, and sovereignty is reasserted through industrial policy. Trump’s tariffs, the US-EU sanctions on Russian oil, and China’s rare earth diplomacy all point to what Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman (2019) term “weaponized interdependence”—the use of global networks as instruments of coercion. The Netherlands’ seizure of Nexperia, a Chinese-owned chipmaker, and China’s retaliatory export ban, show how supply chains have become theaters of strategic contestation.

This is not globalization’s end but its mutation. As Quinn Slobodian (2018) argues in Globalists, neoliberalism was never about free markets but about encasing markets from democratic interference. Today’s “new mercantilism”—state-backed investments in semiconductors, AI, and defense—represents a return to what Karl Polanyi (1944) called the “double movement”: market expansion provokes social and political counter-movements seeking protection. The US government’s equity stakes in Intel and MP Materials (Bloomberg), Europe’s Project Bromo satellite venture, and Saudi Arabia’s AI ambitions all reflect this logic.

Guy de Launey’s trenchant analysis of the EU’s stalled enlargement into the Western Balkans (“Has the EU already lost the Western Balkans?”) reveals a deeper malaise: the exhaustion of the post–Cold War liberal promise. The EU’s “garden path” diplomacy—offering membership as an end-state while moving goalposts and allowing vetoes over “arcane identity issues”—has bred cynicism. As de Launey notes, North Macedonia changed its name to satisfy Greece, only to be blocked by Bulgaria over historical linguistics. This echoes Mark Mazower’s (2009) observation in Dark Continent that European integration has always been as much about exclusion as inclusion, and that the “civilizing mission” often masks strategic ambivalence. The EU’s failure here is not just bureaucratic; it is existential. In a multipolar world where China builds ports and Russia fuels disinformation, Brussels’ conditional promises ring hollow. The result is not neutrality but realignment: Serbia’s 33% support for EU membership is not just a statistic but a geopolitical pivot.

This erosion of trust parallels what Dani Rodrik (2018) terms the “political trilemma of the world economy”: the incompatibility of deep globalization, national sovereignty, and democratic politics. The EU tried to square all three and, in the Balkans, succeeded at none. Meanwhile, as Monocle reports, South Korea is aggressively courting Europe as an arms exporter—a reversal of Cold War roles that underscores how security is no longer a transatlantic monopoly but a global marketplace. Gorana Grgić’s piece on Seoul’s defense ambitions (“South Korea’s defence industry targets a European shopping spree”) illustrates a world where industrial policy, national security, and export strategy are fused—a model closer to Ha-Joon Chang’s (2002) Kicking Away the Ladder than to neoliberal orthodoxy.

The AI-related developments—OpenAI’s restructuring, Microsoft’s $4 trillion valuation, Nvidia’s investments—constitute what Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014) identified as the “second machine age.” Yet the transformation appears more radical than their optimistic framing suggested. Bill Gates’s memo arguing that “doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals” while simultaneously championing AI development reveals a peculiar faith in technological solutionism that Morozov (2013) critiqued as a form of depoliticization.

The economic figures are staggering: Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta collectively spending “$350 billion this year” on AI infrastructure. Harcourt (2011) observed that we increasingly inhabit “the surveillance age,” but these investments suggest something more fundamental—the creation of what Zuboff (2019) terms “surveillance capitalism’s” physical substrate. The data centers, chips, and computational infrastructure represent fixed capital investments that, as Marx (1867/1990) theorized, embody social relations and lock in particular trajectories of development.

The tension between productivity gains and employment appears throughout the documents. The New York Times notes “Amazon will lay off about 14,000 corporate employees,” while simultaneously expanding AI capabilities. This resonates with Srnicek and Williams’s (2015) provocative argument in “Inventing the Future” that we should embrace automation while demanding universal basic income, yet the political infrastructure for such social protection remains nascent. As Noble (1984) demonstrated in “Forces of Production,” technological choice is always political choice, yet the current AI deployment appears remarkably politically uncontested—a consensus across partisan lines that this particular technological trajectory is inevitable.

The Businessweek article identifying “24 AI Startups to Watch” reveals what Mazzucato (2013) calls the “entrepreneurial state”—private innovation built atop public investment, with the risks socialized and gains privatized. The piece notes Saudi Arabia’s HUMAIN partnership with Blackstone, demonstrating how AI development intertwines with petrostate diversification strategies, creating what Mitchell (2011) analyzed as “carbon democracy’s” digital successor.

Andrew Mueller’s meditation on AI’s threat to “cushy desk jobs” (“AI is coming for our jobs. Choose manual labour instead”) captures a profound societal revaluation. If AI can replicate writing, music, and design, then the premium shifts not to cognitive labor per se but to embodied, irreproducible skill—what Richard Sennett (2008) calls “the craftsman’s ethos” in his book of the same name. Mueller’s lament—that he can change a lightbulb but not fix a pipe—mirrors a broader middle-class anxiety: that the very education and credentials that once conferred status now render one obsolete.

This is not dystopia but dialectic. As Marx (1844/1975) presciently noted in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, alienation under capitalism reaches its peak not when labor is brutal, but when it becomes unnecessary. Yet the UK’s new V-levels in vocational training suggest a counter-movement: a revalorization of the hand, the eye, the judgment of the artisan. This echoes Matthew Crawford’s (2009) Shop Class as Soulcraft, which argues that manual work offers a form of cognitive engagement and moral agency absent in abstracted office labor. In this light, the Swiss watchmakers pivoting to India and Mexico (Julia Jenne) are not just diversifying markets—they are preserving a craft epistemology in an age of algorithmic reproduction.

Bill Gates’s climate memo represents a significant epistemic shift within elite environmentalism. His argument that “climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise” appears calculated to deflect what he perceives as paralyzing catastrophism. This echoes debates Hulme (2009) explored in “Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” particularly around the strategic uses of fear versus hope in environmental communication.

Yet Gates’s framing proves revealing in its lacunae. By pivoting from emissions reduction to “improving lives,” he implicitly adopts what Swyngedouw (2010) critiques as “post-political” environmentalism—depoliticized technocratic management replacing democratic contestation over resource distribution and development pathways. The memo’s timing, amid the U.S. government’s aggressive anti-climate policies—including pressuring the International Maritime Organization to kill carbon taxes—suggests what Nixon (2011) termed “slow violence” operating through policy frameworks that forestall rather than accelerate climate action.

The Europe-focused newsletters note the continent’s attempts to maintain climate commitments while economic pressures mount. The proposed European Starlink alternative (Project Bromo) and defense spending increases reveal what Azmanova (2020) identifies as capitalism’s “precarity regime”—where insecurity becomes generalized, driving expenditure in multiple directions simultaneously. Climate adaptation requires massive infrastructure spending; so does defense; so does digital infrastructure. The multiplication of crisis-driven spending creates what Streeck (2014) analyzed as the “buying time” problem—delaying systemic adjustments through debt accumulation.

Culturally, the snippets celebrate resilience amid disruption. Monocle‘s focus on Swiss watch diversification post-U.S. tariffs (October 23, 2025) evokes Thorstein Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class, where luxury goods signal status, yet adapt to markets like Mexico and India (Veblen, 1899, p. 68). Art theft at the Louvre and nonagenarian painters’ retrospectives (October 24, 2025) reflect cultural theft’s timeless allure, associative with Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, lamenting aura’s loss in commodified eras (Benjamin, 1936/2008, p. 21).

Virtual K-pop idols (Rest of World, October 28, 2025) reshape fandoms, blurring human-AI boundaries, akin to Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation, where hyperreality supplants authenticity (Baudrillard, 1981, p. 1). Public art like Olafur Eliasson’s installations (October 27, 2025) fosters community, echoing Jürgen Habermas’s public sphere ideal in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas, 1962/1989, p. 27). Design snippets, from Faro’s modernist festival to Portland’s sustainable airport, explore biophilia, per Edward O. Wilson’s Biophilia (Wilson, 1984).

These cultural narratives interlink with economics: AI’s cultural appropriations (e.g., voice cloning) stem from profit-driven policies, while trade disruptions threaten artisanal traditions.

The Louvre heist—thieves stealing “$102 million” in jewels in “broad daylight”—functions as more than crime narrative. It reveals what Graeber (2013) might call the “utopia of rules” breaking down, where elaborate security theater proves penetrable by simple audacity. The subsequent revelation that the stolen items were uninsured adds farce to the situation, suggesting institutional sclerosis of the sort Olson (1982) theorized in “The Rise and Decline of Nations”—where established organizations become ossified and inefficient.

The ARTNews coverage of Art Basel Paris, with record sales amid “less speculative” market conditions, demonstrates art’s dual function as aesthetic experience and financial instrument. Velthuis (2005) explored how art markets create value through social construction, but the described scene—where “the new schedule functioned best as a staggered opening” allowing ultra-wealthy collectors first access—illuminates Bourdieu’s (1984) analysis of cultural capital’s conversion into economic capital. The market remains stratified, with “galleries on the second floor” experiencing a “lost day” while blue-chip dealers conclude eight-figure transactions.

The NBA gambling scandal—where “Terry Rozier of the Miami Heat and Chauncey Billups” faced insider trading charges—exemplifies what Schüll (2012) analyzed in “Addiction by Design”: how gambling’s normalization creates structural vulnerabilities. The leagues’ partnerships with betting platforms, valorized as revenue sources, now appear potentially corrupting. This recalls Zelizer’s (1994) work on how markets transform social relations—in this case, how monetizing fan engagement through betting fundamentally alters the meaning of sporting competition.

Monocle’s cultural coverage—from Tokyo’s Edo Kirari craftwork to Brussels’s “super-boutique” gyms—reveals what Florida (2002) termed the “creative class” economy’s global diffusion. Yet the descriptions carry undertones of what Jameson (1991) identified as postmodern pastiche: traditional craft repackaged for global luxury consumption, fitness spaces designed as “environments where you can take classes and chase a new personal best but also run work meetings.” The collapse of distinct spheres—work, leisure, health, culture—into undifferentiated lifestyle experiences represents what Ritzer (2004) called “the globalization of nothing”: simulated authenticity reproduced worldwide.

The Louvre heist coincided with Art Basel Paris, where Gerhard Richter’s works sold for $23 million and nonagenarian painters commanded attention. Sophie Monaghan-Coombs’ reflection on aging artists—“decades’ worth of learning and life experience can imbue what you create with depth and perspective”—stands as a quiet rebuke to AI’s instantaneerism. Art, in this view, is not content but testimony; not output but endurance.

This cultural moment is further complicated by Blake Matich’s report on the rebellion against “performative dining.” Restaurants banning phones and rejecting viral gimmicks are asserting what Martin Heidegger (1954/2001) called “dwelling”—a mode of being that resists the “enframing” (Gestell) of everything into resource or spectacle. The meal becomes not a post but a practice, not an experience to be consumed but a presence to be shared. This is culinary phenomenology in action.

Meanwhile, the rise of virtual K-pop idols (Semafor) and AI-authenticated art (ARTnews) reveals a tension between authenticity and simulation. Jean Baudrillard (1981/1994) foresaw this in Simulacra and Simulation: when the map precedes the territory, the real vanishes. Yet the backlash—whether in dining, watchmaking, or painting—suggests that the human desire for the indexical, the touched, the flawed, remains potent. As Michael Anastassiades tells Monocle, “A fingerprint isn’t a flaw”—it is proof of being.

Exploratively, these snippets reveal a polycrisis: Economic nationalism (tariffs) intersects with social expulsions (labor shortages), policed by regulatory experiments (AI laws), and culturally mediated through virtual escapes (K-pop idols). Philosophically, this evokes Zygmunt Bauman’s Liquid Modernity, where fluid, uncertain structures demand constant adaptation (Bauman, 2000, p. 8). AI’s dual role—as farm aid in Malawi or job destroyer in dubbing—mirrors Martin Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology, viewing tech as both revealing and endangering (Heidegger, 1954/1977, p. 35).

In world literature, Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude parallels Latin America’s lithium bust and political cycles, with magical realism capturing boom-bust absurdities (García Márquez, 1967/1970). Non-fiction like Yuval Noah Harari’s Homo Deus anticipates AI’s god-like disruptions, urging ethical policies (Harari, 2016, p. 46).

Ultimately, these snippets urge a holistic view: Economic gains from AI must not eclipse social costs, per Amartya Sen’s capability approach in Development as Freedom (Sen, 1999, p. 3). As 2025 unfolds, balancing these forces demands Arendtian “action”—collective, pluralistic engagement beyond technocratic fixes.

Subscribe

The week’s developments reveal what Gramsci (1971) called an “interregnum”—when “the old is dying and the new cannot be born,” and in which “a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” The morbid symptoms include:

Diplomatic negotiations conducted via threats and personal caprice rather than institutionalized processes

Massive investments in AI infrastructure proceeding without democratic deliberation on deployment priorities

Climate policy paralysis despite mounting evidence of accelerating changes

Cultural institutions simultaneously commodifying and failing to protect their holdings

Migration policies that acknowledge economic necessity while constructing populations as threatening Others

Financial markets detached from underlying economic conditions, pricing in scenarios few can articulate coherently

Yet viewing these solely as pathologies misses their functional logics. What appears dysfunctional from one perspective enables accumulation from another. As Harvey (2005) argued in “A Brief History of Neoliberalism,” crisis and instability are not aberrations but operational requirements of contemporary capitalism—creating opportunities for “accumulation by dispossession” and preventing the formation of stable oppositional coalitions.

The theoretical challenge is developing frameworks adequate to this complexity without succumbing to either cynicism or naive optimism. Latour’s (2017) call to “reset modernity” gains urgency, as does Fraser’s (2022) insistence that capitalism’s contradictions—between economic production and social reproduction, between commodification and nature’s limits, between economic imperatives and democratic legitimacy—cannot be indefinitely deferred.

The documents assembled here, read collectively, suggest that late 2025 represents not an aberrational moment but the consolidation of trends long underway: the assertion of executive power over institutional constraint, the prioritization of technological development over social deliberation, the instrumentalization of environmental concern for elite purposes, the acceleration of financialization, and the hardening of borders amid capital’s global mobility. These constitute not discrete phenomena but facets of what Arrighi (1994) theorized as systemic transition—the exhaustion of one accumulation regime and the uncertain emergence of its successor.

Whether this transition produces something qualitatively new or merely intensifies existing dynamics remains the essential question. The answer will depend not on technological inevitabilities or market logics, but on political struggles whose outcomes remain undetermined. As Williams (1977) insisted, hegemony is never complete but always contested, requiring continuous maintenance and offering continuous possibilities for intervention. The newsletters’ very contradictions—their simultaneous documentation of domination and disruption—suggest spaces where alternative futures might emerge, if political imagination and organization prove adequate to the moment’s demands.

The media landscape, thus, is one of simultaneous fragility and resilience. The Louvre’s jewels are stolen, but Olafur Eliasson installs illuminated planetary sculptures in Oxford; AI threatens white-collar jobs, but vocational training revives; the EU falters in the Balkans, but South Korea sells howitzers to Poland. This is not contradiction but complexity—the hallmark of a world in transition.

As Hannah Arendt (1958) wrote in The Human Condition, the modern age is defined by the tension between the “human artifice” (the world we build) and the “human condition” (our natality, our capacity to begin anew). The artisans, chefs, diplomats, and engineers featured in these newsletters are all, in their way, responding to that tension—not with nostalgia, but with reinvention. Their work reminds us that even in an age of heists and algorithms, the human impulse to create, connect, and care endures.

Share

Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press.

Anderson, B. (2013). Us and them?: The dangerous politics of immigration control. Oxford University Press.

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

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.

Arrighi, G. (1994). The long twentieth century: Money, power, and the origins of our times. Verso.

Azmanova, A. (2020). Capitalism on edge: How fighting precarity can achieve radical change without crisis or utopia. Columbia University Press.

Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press (Original work published 1981).

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1981)

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

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

Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction (J. A. Underwood, Trans.). Penguin Books (Original work published 1936).

Block, F. (2008). Swimming against the current: The rise of a hidden developmental state in the United States. Politics & Society, 36(2), 169-206.

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

Braithwaite, J., & Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge University Press.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.

Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2009). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.

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

Crawford, M. B. (2009). Shop class as soulcraft: An inquiry into the value of work. Penguin Press.

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00351

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. Basic Books.

Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-1978 (G. Burchell, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Fraser, N. (2022). Cannibal capitalism: How our system is devouring democracy, care, and the planet—and what we can do about it. Verso.

García Márquez, G. (1970). One hundred years of solitude (G. Rabassa, Trans.). Harper & Row (Original work published 1967).

Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé III, H., & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723

Golumbia, D. (2016). The politics of Bitcoin: Software as right-wing extremism. University of Minnesota Press.

Graeber, D. (2013). The utopia of rules: On technology, stupidity, and the secret joys of bureaucracy. Melville House.

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

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press (Original work published 1962).

Harari, Y. N. (2016). Homo deus: A brief history of tomorrow. Harper.

Harcourt, B. E. (2011). The illusion of free markets: Punishment and the myth of natural order. Harvard University Press.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). Harper & Row (Original work published 1954).

Heidegger, M. (2001). Poetry, language, thought (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). Harper Perennial. (Original work published 1954)

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.

Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press.

Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster.

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

Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925-1975. Stanford University Press.

Johnson-Freese, J. (2011). The politics of space cooperation. Praeger.

Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Metropolitan Books.

Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Polity Press.

Lawrence, M., Janzwood, S., & Homer-Dixon, T. (2022). What is a global polycrisis? Cascade Institute Discussion Paper, 2022(2).

Marx, K. (1975). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. In Karl Marx: Early writings (R. Livingstone & G. Benton, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work written 1844)

Marx, K. (1990). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1, B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867)

Mazower, M. (2009). Dark continent: Europe’s twentieth century. Vintage Books.

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press.

Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (Revised ed.). Public Affairs.

Mehrling, P. (2011). The new Lombard Street: How the Fed became the dealer of last resort. Princeton University Press.

Mitchell, T. (2011). Carbon democracy: Political power in the age of oil. Verso.

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

Ngai, M. M. (2004). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America. Princeton University Press.

Nixon, R. (2011). Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Harvard University Press.

Noble, D. F. (1984). Forces of production: A social history of industrial automation. Alfred A. Knopf.

Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. Yale University Press.

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

Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Farrar & Rinehart.

Ritzer, G. (2004). The globalization of nothing. Pine Forge Press.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. W. W. Norton & Company.

Rodrik, D. (2018). Straight talk on trade: Ideas for a sane world economy. Princeton University Press.

Ross, M. L. (2012). The oil curse: How petroleum wealth shapes the development of nations. Princeton University Press.

Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions: Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Harvard University Press.

Schüll, N. D. (2012). Addiction by design: Machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Knopf.

Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.

Shiller, R. J. (2015). Irrational exuberance (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Slobodian, Q. (2018). Globalists: The end of empire and the birth of neoliberalism. Harvard University Press.

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

Srnicek, N., & Williams, A. (2015). Inventing the future: Postcapitalism and a world without work. Verso.

Streeck, W. (2014). Buying time: The delayed crisis of democratic capitalism. Verso.

Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 213-232.

Tooze, A. (2018). Crashed: How a decade of financial crises changed the world. Viking.

Unwin, T. (Ed.). (2009). ICT4D: Information and communication technology for development. Cambridge University Press.

Varoufakis, Y. (2023). Techno-feudalism: What killed capitalism. Melville House.

Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. Macmillan.

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

Wade, R. (1990). Governing the market: Economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization. Princeton University Press.

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.

Zelizer, V. A. (1994). The social meaning of money. Basic Books.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, Qwen, Alibaba, and Grok, xAI, tools (October 31, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (October 31, 2025).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (October 31, 2025). The Louvre Heist, the Algorithmic Acceleration, and the Fraying Global Order: Charting the Polycrisis Cartography. Open Economics Blog.