The term “enshittification” was popularized by leftist writer Cory Doctorow to describe the degradation of service on online websites and apps. His piece is quoted in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
“Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a “two-sided market”, where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.”
“In a 2024 op-ed in the Financial Times, Doctorow argued that “‘enshittification’ is coming for absolutely everything” with “enshittificatory” platforms leaving humanity in an “enshittocene”.
For a while now I have seen such a process occurring in most capitalist endeavors, not just online platforms. Only I don’t call it enshittification, I call it strip-mining the market. Basically, in order to maximize profit, a company’s owners will cut back on customer service and inventory, and charge for things that used to be perks, that causes people to quit going to the business, that leads to more cost cutting to maximize profit, that makes the business unprofitable and it goes terminal, then the owners sell it for parts. This was a business strategy of investors like Bain Capital, and it is why the once omnipresent Sears department store filed for Chapter 11 and is now reduced to a holding company for its remaining assets.
In this spirit I propose that a similar process is occurring in world government, in particular the American government. And for reasons that will become clear I call it: Enschmittification.
Carl Schmitt, upon being asked how well he knew Adolf Hitler.
Carl Schmitt was a legal scholar and professor in the time of Germany’s interwar “Weimar” Republic. Prior to the takeover of Hitler, Schmitt had written pieces that scholars now regard as both influential to the growing Nazi movement and useful to it. In 1932 Schmitt wrote The Concept of the Political, which detailed his central concept that politics is a case of friend versus enemy, considering liberal notions of non-conflict based political philosophy to be “utopian.” Liberal writer Mike Brock recently wrote on another central work of Schmitt in regard to authoritarianism:
“In 1922, the German jurist Carl Schmitt published a short book called Political Theology. Its opening sentence is among the most consequential in the history of political thought: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”
What is meant by this is that sovereignty means the power to create exceptions to the legal system. Wikipedia goes over one of Schmitt’s earlier works, Die Diktatur (On Dictatorship) in which he stated among other things that it is in fact the purpose of the executive to bypass the formalities and limitations of parliamentary democracy. “If the constitution of a state is democratic, then every exceptional negation of democratic principles, every exercise of state power independent of the approval of the majority, can be called dictatorship.”
To Schmitt, the fundamental premise of government is the distinction between friend and enemy: “This distinction is to be determined “existentially”, which is to say that the enemy is whoever is “in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible”. The essential dynamic is that government is not a public service, but rather exists to reward and protect one’s friends and punish one’s enemies. This aligns with the cynical Internet interpretation of conservatism: “There are those whom the law protects but does not bind, and there are those whom the law binds but does not protect.”
For Schmitt, capitalism is to be opposed because he sees it as exploitation – “The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism.” At the same time that enmity is based on the opposite of the leftist critique in that free trade seeks to create a universal value rather than stoke conflict: “All liberal pathos turns against repression and lack of freedom. Every encroachment, every threat to individual freedom and private property and free competition, is called repression and is eo ipso evil. What this liberalism still admits of state, government, and politics is confined to securing the conditions for liberty and eliminating infringements on freedom. We thus arrive at an entire system of demilitarized and depoliticized concepts.”
Even in Randian terms, capitalism and business are not simply about making money; making money is the means to the end. Success in capitalism means providing a service no one else can deliver, or with better service than anyone else can deliver. Developing a business is just as much a personal pursuit as athletics or art, from the standpoint of an entrepreneur. It is goal-directed. Competition may lead to the merger of a business with a smaller one, but that is not necessarily the goal. When making money is the whole point, all the other stuff that a given business does is secondary to what is ostensibly the company’s reason for being, and a company and its product can be sacrificed for the sake of greater mergers and sell-offs. At this point capitalism indeed becomes what the Left claims it to be: A cancer.
Enschmittification is nothing less than the application of this mercenary behavior to government.
While Schmitt is the thinker most often quoted by recent analysts, the anti-liberal or “post-liberal” approach to government in the modern era has been developed the longest by Russia, which should be no surprise to anyone seeing how Vladimir Putin’s government operates with Hungary and the United States. In an article for The UnPopulist, theorist Tom G. Palmer discussed how Putin’s guru Aleksandr Dugin deliberately referred to Schmitt’s theories in works that were studied by Putin and his men. Palmer did say that the “contingency” of conditions in the United States made it that much easier for Donald Trump to become president, but he and his advisors were very much operating from similar playbooks:
“The accretion of cronyism is not only a problem in Russia—it’s very real almost everywhere and it is very much a function of the state privileging those who are already “in” at the expense of those who are ‘out.’ That’s not just about the old stereotypes of cigar-smoking industrialists in black silk top hats; it’s far more systemic and is found wherever state interventionism creates a space for what political economists call ‘Directly Unproductive Rent-Seeking,’ now usually just shortened to ‘rent-seeking,’ that is, securing wealth without actually creating additional value for others. “
The mechanism for such actions in authoritarian regimes – such as this government – is the standing assumption that the executive’s authority means the ability to interpret how the laws apply. This is an informal norm in many countries but Schmitt specifically articulated this as deliberate policy.
For instance the Constitution specifically states that only the Congress can declare wars but places the President as Commander in Chief because decisions in a wartime situation have to be made with immediacy. But given the prospect of nuclear war or surprise attacks (such as 9-11) it has been more and more the assumption since World War II (where Congress did declare war after Pearl Harbor) that the president has to have authority for military action even in advance of an existing war or casus belli, effectively transferring the warmaking power to the executive. The War Powers Act, passed in the wake of the Vietnam War, merely authorizes or reviews presidential military action taken after the fact, and even this has rarely been invoked since passage. The premise is that in case of emergency, the government needs to bypass the law. As many people have observed, especially these days, if you give the government the power to break the law in an emergency, they will create an emergency when they want to break the law.
But on many levels it is the second Trump term, far more than the first, which demonstrates the true practice of enschmittification in action. It already started before the 2025 inauguration with the ascension of Trump’s main financial backer, Elon Musk, who was given blanket authority in government by Trump with no Cabinet office (and thus, no Senate authorization) for no other reason than that he was an elite capitalist who had already perfected the process of enshittifying Twitter after he purchased it, changing it from a flawed but universal platform into a vehicle for the distorted views of himself and fringe fellow travelers, legitimizing racist and fascist-adjacent opinions by their presence on his established platform, and not incidentally promoting the Trump 2024 campaign. After the election, Trump announced the creation of “DOGE” – the Department Of Government Efficiency, under Musk and Republican entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy was quickly pushed out, perhaps because people realized that a department to eliminate inefficiency didn’t need redundant leadership. As soon as Trump was sworn in (and Musk saluted our Roman ancestors), the current occupant of the Oval Office established DOGE by executive order (not an act of Congress). The legal status of DOGE remains unclear and most of its agents serve on an “acting” level without Congressional authorization or approval. While Musk had asked payments of millions for his staff, it remains to be seen how much unnecessary spending has been trimmed from government. DOGE was however given unrestricted access to everyone’s Social Security and financial records, set previously independent bureaucracies under direct presidential control, cut staffing for offices investigating Musk and his businesses, mostly dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID), eliminated over 300,000 government jobs and cut budgets at various departments including SSA, Treasury and Health and Human Services, by eliminating all that “waste, fraud and abuse” that previously was known as “providing services to the population at large.”
The latest manifestations of the dynamic are in Trump’s Iran war (aka The You Know What They Do To Pedos In Prison War). Reporters discovered that just before Trump announced a threat to bomb Iran’s civilian energy facilities, someone bought $1.5 billion in oil futures. Or as it’s usually called, insider trading, since you would have to know what was going down beforehand in order to time the maneuver. And after he got talked out of nuclear annihilation, he seemed willing to entertain the idea of leaving a postwar arrangement where Iran would charge tolls on passage through the Straits of Hormuz if America could get a cut of the proceeds. So the whole thing started with any of various pretexts, such as the threat the Tehran theocracy posed to its people, or the threat it posed to Israel, or rival Sunni governments, and the Iran cutoff of shipping is a blatant violation of international law. But Trump was willing to throw both principle and practicality aside if he thought he could monetize the situation, even if it meant a ‘joint venture’ with the nation he started hostilities with.
It’s almost as if Trump thinks the most important government on the planet is just a vehicle to make him more rich.
But not only is Trump’s war of choice cutting off the world energy lifeline at the Strait of Hormuz, his partners in the region are endangered as Iran fires missiles and drones at their own oil facilities, causing damage that will take years to repair, and in the process, causing many of the Arab princes to rethink their ties to Washington.
The irony being that the late stages of this process are undermining its reason for being: If enschmittification means changing government from a public service to a vehicle of personal enrichment, continued manipulation will only serve to undermine profits as the outside world reacts to the manipulation.
That is, control of the markets by right-wing rent seekers can undermine a country’s economy at least as much as socialist intervention. This can create a vulnerability to the government even greater than the weaknesses created by enshittification in the private sector. The first sign of this occurred recently with the parliamentary elections in Hungary. There, Prime Minister Viktor Orban had been in charge for 16 years, and thus had gotten that much farther along in co-opting private media, industries and the courts than Trump has over 10 years. He had also gotten that much farther in fixing the government, by changing the election rules to grant even more seats to the majority (such that in 2022 Orban’s Fidesz coalition got 54 percent of the vote but two-thirds of the parliament seats). This made Orban the darling of not only Vladimir Putin but serious anti-liberal thinkers in the West (such as JD Vance and Rod Dreher). But by 2026, Hungary’s economy was weaker than that of Romania or Bulgaria. Despite national health care and other provisions America does not have, basic services and consumer goods are lacking. “The main reason for Hungary’s poor economic performance is an autocratic government that has subordinated its economic policy to systemic corruption and the organized theft of public funds, undermining fair competition,” said József Péter Martin, Executive Director of Transparency International Hungary, at the presentation of their 2025 report. But in 2024, Fidesz member Peter Magyar decided to protest a scandal in which the Minister of Justice pardoned a defendant in a child sex abuse case.* He also made news by helping to expose a bribery scandal where the same Minister – Magyar’s ex-wife – admitted on tape that records had been altered on government orders. Riding public outrage, Magyar joined the existing Tisza opposition party and gained a seat in the European Parliament. Preparing for this year’s campaign, Magyar and Tisza adopted the critical strategy of getting all the opposition parties to unite under their coalition (since Hungary actually has more than two political parties), canvassing the nation in person instead of relying on state media, and sending an online questionnaire proposing 13 specific actions. Notably, Magyar is not a leftist, being a center-right politician who agrees with a lot of previous Orban policy (such as immigration restriction) but “liberal” in demanding public investment and the rule of law. The Tisza campaign focused not so much on Orban’s so-called illiberal social policies as the decline of the economy, the blatant corruption and self-dealing of the government, and the fact that these are the same problem. The end result, after 16 years of Orban rule, led to Tisza winning in a landslide. Ironically, the margin of the vote turned Orban’s rig against him, with Tisza gaining two-thirds of the seats in parliament and thus allowing the new party to change the Constitution as Fidesz had done in 2010.
The situation for America is not exactly analogous, especially since Hungary is a parliamentary system which meant that the head of government is determined by majority control and not election of a separate office. But as Trump continues his war of choice against the nation that controls 20 percent of the world’s access to oil, the prices of gasoline and diesel will continue to increase, which will increase the cost of transportation of goods, which will increase the price of everything else, and all the while Trump and his family and cronies monetize the situation every way they can. It has already been predicted that Republicans will lose the House in November, assuming the number of dead elderly Democrats doesn’t outpace the number of Republicans being expelled before then. Trump’s bad behavior is a known quantity. But now that it directly affects American voters where they live, it’s more likely than ever that he will lose his main enabler in consolidating the government, the Republican Congress. Ethnic cleansing, putting your face on every building in Washington and dressing like Jesus may be tolerable, but gas at 5 dollars a gallon is something else.
Or as was said quite some time ago:
“It’s the economy, stupid.”
* -P.S. And it doesn’t help when your government enables pedophilia, either.
