Since we are struggling with semantic issues, I could have written “Meta-political analysis,” which would emphasise a method of examining politics. As it was, my terminology can be understood thus:
Meta-political refers to perspectives that go beyond immediate political discourse, examining deeper structures, historical patterns, ideological frameworks, or philosophical underpinnings of power.
Perspective suggests a particular way of viewing these deeper structures.
Obviously, history repeats itself, but seldom exactly the way it was. In this case, it is the outreach of power that is attempting to achieve conditions comparable to feudal times. The change in the world that occurred finally after WWII, although it had its roots in the past, brought about a relatively peaceful epoch for Europe, with relative wealth among the lower financial classes, but it has been reversing gradually, and since 2016, it has been clear that it has been declared a failure by big business, because Europe has made several attempts to force their financial participation through some kind of levy.
I don’t wear names that I have no affiliation to. Hegelian means nothing to me.
In what bubble have you been living?
1. United States
Trump Tax Cuts (2017) – Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)
- Reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, benefiting large corporations and high-income business owners.
- Lowered the top individual income tax rate from 39.6% to 37%.
- Doubled the estate tax exemption, allowing the wealthiest families to pass down more wealth tax-free.
- The benefits were skewed towards the rich, with high-income earners seeing larger absolute tax savings.
Bush Tax Cuts (2001 & 2003)
- Reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 39.6% to 35%.
- Cut the capital gains tax from 20% to 15%, benefiting investors, who are disproportionately wealthy.
- Phased out the estate tax, reducing tax burdens on inherited wealth.
2. United Kingdom
Liz Truss’s Proposed Tax Cuts (2022) (Later Reversed)
- Planned to eliminate the 45% tax rate on incomes above £150,000, benefiting the highest earners.
- Cut corporate tax rates, which primarily benefited large businesses.
- The plan was widely criticised and spooked financial markets, leading to its reversal.
Margaret Thatcher’s Tax Cuts (1980s)
- Reduced the top income tax rate from 83% to 60% in 1979 and later to 40% in 1988.
- Lowered corporate taxes, benefiting businesses and wealthy individuals.
- It became increasingly difficult for working class families to buy their houses.
3. France
Macron’s Wealth Tax Cut (2017)
- Replaced the Solidarity Tax on Wealth (ISF) with a narrower tax on real estate, significantly reducing taxes on financial assets for the wealthy.
- This benefited high-net-worth individuals and was criticized for exacerbating wealth inequality.
“Economic liberalisation” refers to the fact that more people were involved in commerce and trade than just the aristocracy owned businesses, and more people could live from their means, rather than the just upper classes. The middle class started to grow and become influential, and the lower class saw at least the potential of more autonomy. This is a form of liberation, even if it was provisional. This came to a halt after the victory of Prussia in the Franco-German War (1870-71) and the founding (in Paris) of the empire (The Second Reich) a new great power in Europe.
France was seriously wounded, and succumbed a second time in WWI, just forty years later, which was why the punishment for Germany after the war was so costly. This led to WWII, as we all know, and the final suppression of German nationalist and expansionist visions. But the French were not done with nationalist ideas after 1872. While the defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and the subsequent loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany deeply affected French politics and society, nationalism remained a powerful force well into the 20th century. In fact, the trauma of the war strengthened nationalist sentiments in many ways.
However, after France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of Napoleon III, socialist and republicans briefly controlled Paris in the Paris Commune (March–May 1871). It was violently suppressed by the French government, which saw it as a threat to national unity, and the massacre of Communards (with 20,000-30,000 killed) left a lasting trauma in socialist movements in France.
Before WWI, socialist parties in France (and across Europe) were strongly anti-war, seeing it as a struggle between imperialist powers. However, once war broke out, nationalist fervour led to the so-called “Sacred Union” (Union Sacrée), where even many socialists supported national defence. In this confusion, Jean Jaurès, the leading anti-war socialist, was assassinated in 1914, removing one of the strongest voices for peace.
French colonial efforts started much earlier (1600s–1815). The First French Colonial Empire included Canada (New France), Louisiana, the Caribbean (Haiti, Martinique, Guadeloupe), and parts of India and West Africa. However, France lost many of its early colonies after the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) and the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815).
The beginnings of expansion were earlier too, between 1830–1870. France invaded and gradually colonized Algeria, leading to decades of brutal resistance. In West Africa the French established trading posts along the Senegal River, and in Indochina by the 1860s, France had begun expanding into Vietnam, Cambodia, and later Laos.
Strangely at first sight, the height of French colonialism coincided with the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War, but was not a coincidence—rather, it was a direct response to France’s defeat and the loss of its status in Europe. The national humiliation led to the search for prestige. The collapse of the Second French Empire and the establishment of the Third Republic (1870-1940) was a severe psychological and political blow to France, damaging its influence in Europe. In response, French leaders shifted focus to colonial expansion as a way to restore national pride and compensate for territorial loss in Europe.
France needed new markets and resources to strengthen its economy after the war and colonies were seen as a way to provide raw materials (rubber, cotton, coffee, minerals) and trade routes. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine meant France had fewer coal and iron resources, so it looked to its empire for economic security.
Now? Now we are seeing the decline or transformation of socialist governments is a major political trend, especially in Europe. Over the past few decades, we’ve seen mainstream socialist or social-democratic parties shifting toward the centre, often abandoning traditional leftist economic policies in favour of market-friendly approaches. This has led to a fragmentation of the left, with smaller socialist or left-wing parties emerging.
As I have said before, nothing unfolds exactly as proposed, and the Russian economy was the opposite to what Marx envisioned. However, the failure of the Soviet Union had a large influence on how social democracy developed in Europe, with major socialist ideas being maintained until the collapse of the USSR, but then the shifting toward the centre occurred, with Britain’s Labour leading the way, and Germany’s SPD aligning with Labour’s policies until the Iraq war, when there was a break.
By the late 2000s, social-democratic parties had moved so far to the centre that they were often indistinguishable from centre-right parties on economic issues. The 2008 financial crisis exposed the limits of this model, forcing some left-wing parties to rethink their approach, but the damage had already been done. After 1991, the U.S. took advantage of its position as the sole superpower to push a radically pro-market, neoliberal agenda both domestically and internationally. This created friction with Europe, which had been more committed to social democracy and regulated capitalism. During this time, the U.S. actively pushed Europe toward more corporate-friendly policies.
In the U.S., tax policies and deregulation allowed billionaires and corporations to gain massive influence over politics (Citizens United ruling in 2010 accelerated this). Europe initially resisted this trend, but U.S.-driven globalisation made it difficult to keep taxes on the wealthy high.
That may be, but the effectiveness of antitrust laws has fluctuated over time. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the U.S. enforcement of antitrust laws weakened due to policies that favoured market deregulation (such as those in the 1980s under Reagan). This reduced the power of antitrust enforcement agencies, allowing the oligarchic tendencies to resurge, which is one of the points I was making in my response. At the rate at which Trump is dismantling, it might not be long before there is no trace of such laws or unions.
That was before Brexit, but Brexit was probably to cherry on the top.
[quote=“gib, post:27, topic:80835, full:true, username:gib”]
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia went through a radical transformation from a centralized, state-controlled economy to a market economy. The U.S. and Western advisors supported economic “shock therapy” for Russia—rapid market reforms that involved privatization of state assets and deregulation. This policy was intended to move Russia towards a capitalist economy quickly. However, this process helped create a new oligarchy in Russia, as a few individuals gained control over much of the country’s wealth.
The shift towards neoliberalism promoted by the U.S. and its global influence led to the undermining of social democracy and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few in both countries. In Russia, the shock therapy and privatization programs facilitated the creation of a new oligarchy, while in the U.S., corporate deregulation and tax cuts for the rich entrenched a system that favours the wealthy elite. In both cases, this has contributed to the undermining of democratic principles and the growth of oligarchies that prioritize the interests of the wealthy few over those of the general population.
Thanks for the analogy with Brownian motion. It’s a useful way to highlight how politics can feel unpredictable, with events altering their course in ways that make any single trajectory hard to predict. You’re right that political movements don’t always go in one unbroken direction.
However, what I’m suggesting isn’t that there’s a direct, linear path back to feudalism, nor am I predicting it will be exactly the same as then. I’m pointing out the structural tendencies I see in current political and economic systems that could lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few—much like what occurred during the rise of feudalism in earlier periods of history. It’s about the systemic risks, rather than a direct, unalterable course. These forces are subtle, cumulative, and shaped by policy decisions, capitalist incentives, and power dynamics.
It’s also true that these things aren’t inevitable, and there’s plenty of room for positive shifts in how power is distributed. But I think it’s important to pay attention to the patterns in government actions and corporate influence that have historically led to the concentration of power in the hands of a few, even when other forces in society push back. For instance, the increasing wealth inequality, the capture of political systems by elites, and the global shift toward neoliberal economics could be early signs of this dynamic unfolding, even if it doesn’t follow a straight line to the extreme.
Of course, this is just my perspective. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the intersection between neoliberalism, the erosion of social safety nets, and the rise of oligarchies, especially in the context of political and economic trends we’re seeing today. What do you think of the direction that current policies are taking? Do you feel they’re pushing us toward a more equal society, or are they entrenching power in fewer hands? Perhaps you could leave your bubble and look around.