Austerity Is the Class War’s Sharpest Weapon

I am thinking about cognitive load today because it has just been piled on. This is not just an abstract concept for me; it is something I am experiencing in real time, and it shapes how I approach the challenges and ideas discussed in this article.

The theory that austerity diminishes IQ is closely associated with the concept of cognitive load, which posits that financial stress and scarcity undermine cognitive functioning. As resources become available once more, cognitive performance typically rebounds, counteracting the detrimental effects of austerity. This framework is commonly known as “scarcity theory” or the “scarcity mindset theory,” and was brought to prominence by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir in their influential book Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much (2013). Their research illustrates how financial scarcity and the resulting stress deplete individuals’ mental bandwidth.

My mental bandwidth has just been squeezed even tighter, layered over the constant static of bills, taxes, rising prices for basics, and the endless healthcare maze where new hurdles spring up without warning.

A son with health insurance is battling a serious illness, another is unwell without health insurance, and the other three seem healthy, but only one of them has health insurance. The background noise is always there.

Now, as if that weren’t enough, cataracts have forced me to reshape my daily life. Still, two eye doctors have delayed referring me for a cataract evaluation until my sight is so poor that glasses are useless. Why?

I had Medicare Advantage insurance, yet the eye doctor claimed that wasn’t the reason. So now I’m back on Medicare with a GAP plan, so I was sent to a retina specialist who showed me why my vision is distorted, but believes the cataracts may be a worse problem. They made a cataract evaluation appointment 6 months out, followed by another evaluation of the retinal hole and wrinkle, if I understand the condition correctly.

Meanwhile, books and documents blur unless I use a magnifying glass. Locker room lock numbers are a mystery. I cannot drive anywhere; signs might matter, so my world shrinks to a few miles from home. And the looming question remains: what will it cost out of pocket to regain my sight?

So how is my bandwidth? Even narrower, just like last winter when I spent weeks making endless phone calls to renew my glucose monitor. Still, I am grateful I can read large text on my laptop, listen to Substack articles and audiobooks, and write to share my thoughts with you.

I remind myself to tackle one thing at a time and let go of what can wait, like housekeeping. When my five boys were young, I would ask, “What will matter in a week, a year, five years, or ten?” That question often led me to spend an hour playing Star Wars in the sandbox with them instead of vacuuming or scrubbing the kitchen floor—unless the floor was so sticky you could walk out with your shoes glued on.

So how does my strategy look now? Health is my top priority, then supporting my family however I can. After that, I focus on learning what I need to help shape a better country and environment. That’s why I seek out others who share news and ideas for building a brighter future.

So how does available bandwidth apply here?

We love when research backs up our gut feelings. When we are forgetful, irritable, or unable to focus, we call it “having too much on our mind.” We know that steering a toddler toward a safe toy helps them forget the dangerous one and stops the tears. With older kids, we find ways to keep them busy, knowing boredom will almost always lead to mischief.

Have monarchs and elites always viewed the masses as overgrown children? Did they toss out distractions like debates over which Christian sect was superior, or whether Christianity trumped Islam, just to keep people busy? And did they keep folks just poor enough to stay too busy surviving to ever wonder why the monarch on the hill got so much of their food and livestock? Of course, if those tricks failed, there were always knights in shining armor with spears to enforce the king’s will, plus the ever-handy claim that the king’s power came straight from God.

But people wised up. More learned to read, and the printing press put the Bible in their hands. The old tricks of indoctrination needed backup, so new strategies emerged to keep the hierarchy intact. Force, of course, never went away.

Modern strategies to control the masses

I recently read a book (audio) recommended by Mr. Dobbertin, a subscriber to this Substack. The book is Clara E. Mattei’s “The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism.”

Mattei argues that austerity is not an economic miscalculation or a tool meant to balance budgets and manage debt; rather, it is a deliberate, anti-democratic tool of class discipline designed to preserve capitalism and protect the core hierarchy of wage labor and private property.

Core Arguments & Key Thesis Points

Austerity as Class Discipline (Protecting the “Capital Order”):

Mattei posits that the fundamental relation of capitalism—where workers sell their labor power for a wage—is inherently precarious. When bottom-up social movements or working-class power threaten this dynamic, economic and political elites deploy austerity to induce economic insecurity, force workers into docility, and crush alternative economic visions.

The Interwar Origins (Britain & Italy):

Tracing the origins of modern austerity to post–World War I Britain (a liberal democracy) and Italy (which transitioned into fascism), Mattei demonstrates that both regimes adopted similar austerity measures. When post-war strikes, factory occupations, and labor movements challenged elite control, both liberal technocrats and fascist authorities weaponized austerity to restore employer dominance.

The Triad of Austerity:

Mattei breaks austerity down into three distinct, complementary levers:

Fiscal austerity involves spending cuts to public goods and services, as well as regressive taxation, to shrink social safety nets.

Monetary austerity means raising interest rates and restricting credit to deliberately trigger recessions or suppress wage growth.

Industrial austerity consists of privatization, the weakening of labor unions, and the deregulation of labor markets, all aimed at stripping workers of bargaining power.

Technocracy and Depoliticization:

A key pillar of Mattei’s argument is how economics presents austerity as an objective, neutral science managed by unelected technocrats (such as central bankers). By insulating economic decision-making from democratic politics, elites convince the public that “there is no alternative” to market discipline.

Ultimately, Mattei argues that austerity’s repeated inability to produce broad prosperity or stable government finances is intentional, not accidental. According to her thesis, austerity works as intended: it protects the accumulation of wealth and insulates the capitalist system from democratic influence.

Is it really so far-fetched to wonder if the austerity we feel is by design, not just the result of incompetence or indifference?

Maybe mass manipulation has always been hiding in plain sight. Did the Founding Fathers truly lead the revolution, or did they spot it on the horizon and rush to steer it before it turned into a true democracy—one where they might lose their hard-won wealth and privilege in the New World?

When I read “The Blind Spot: Why We Fail to See the Power That Drives Us” by Jeffrey Winters, I wasn’t shocked to learn the wealthy dodge taxes and use those savings to grow even richer. What did surprise me was that the Nordic countries face the same issue. I had assumed their stronger safety nets meant the wealthy paid their fair share, but that is not the case. Inequality is less severe there, but the richest still keep themselves perched above the rest.

Winter’s concept of participatory inequality was a new angle, though. He points out that although we have been more democratic since the Founding, we have also become more unequal. He describes a horizontal system of democracy in which we compete with each other on issues that divide us, and a vertical democracy that maintains the economic hierarchy. He explains that our Congress, with an upper and lower chamber, was copied after the British system of two houses, the Lords and the Commons, structured to protect the inherited property and wealth of the aristocrats.

Winters argues that mainstream political science and much of public discourse focus on institutions, elections, and visible forms of power, while ignoring the profound impact of economic elites’ material resources. He uses a comparative and historical approach to show that, across societies and eras, a small subset of the population—oligarchs—have consistently shaped political outcomes, laws, and policies in ways that protect and perpetuate their wealth.

The Senate is a key player in keeping wealth inequality alive and well. Meanwhile, the Central Bank and economic manipulation guarantee a shaky bottom rung, where people teeter on the edge of unemployment, homelessness, and hunger. The system keeps wages low and workers scrambling for the lowest-paying jobs.

Winters contends the “blind spot” is our collective failure to recognize and confront the outsized influence of wealth and oligarchs in shaping political and economic systems, thereby distorting democracy and perpetuating inequality.

My changing priorities

Beyond caring for my health and family—who need me less these days—I am here to learn from you and share what I can on Substack. I wanted to share these concepts and ideas with you today because they feel like revelations to me.