The Collapse of Civilization

It has always been the feudal lords who made the common people dependent—those self-interested elites who hoarded power, extracted wealth, and left the masses to suffer under the weight of their decisions. They orchestrated wars for personal gain, imposed crushing taxes, and built hierarchies that ensured generational inequality. In every age, these figures emerge with new names and new titles, but their function remains unchanged: to dominate. Today, the new feudal lords wear suits instead of armor, fly private jets instead of riding horses—but their goals are no less imperial. Chief among them are the oligarchs, and most prominently, Donald Trump, who has leveraged populist rhetoric and economic nationalism to wage a trade war not for the good of the nation, but to assert personal power. In doing so, he imagines himself a kind of modern emperor presiding over the fractured remnants of what he would call the American Empire.

In the East, we find a precursor and mirror image in Vladimir Putin—the self-styled Russian ‘Czar’—who embraced this model long before Trump did, and in many ways became the prototype. He reconstructed a state built on fear, propaganda, and personal loyalty, rather than democratic ideals, and in so doing, inspired others who dream of restoring their own twisted visions of past glory. Both of these men operate on the belief that they are inherently above the people they rule, and that their vertical structures of power are not only justified, but necessary. To them, the decades of democratic experiment, with its messiness and accountability, were an aberration—a deviation from the rightful order of things.

But history teaches us otherwise. The revolutions of the past—whether French, American, Haitian, or Russian—were responses to this kind of madness. They were struggles to create societies where power flows upward, from the people to the state, not the other way around. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” was not just a phrase; it was a sacred commitment to a new way of being.

And yet here we are, watching the old order creep back in through the cracks, disguised as populism but driven by plutocracy. The question that confronts us now is simple but grave: how long will we tolerate this return to feudal logic? If our democratic institutions are once again becoming hollowed-out shells, perhaps we must rekindle the revolutionary spirit—not necessarily with violence, but with the courage, organization, and vision to dismantle the systems that place kings above citizens. Because it seems, more than ever, that we need another revolution—not only to reclaim power, but to remember that it was always meant to belong to us.

1 Like

What I don’t understand is, America does the exact same thing that Russia did, all the time, in the name of their own (supposed at least) national self-interest. They did it in Afghanistan, they did it in Iraq, they did it in Libya, they even did it in Yugoslavia and Panama back in the day.

So when Russia does the exact, exact same thing in terms of its own (supposed at least) national self-interest, suddenly… now it’s bad?

Liberal thinking makes zero logical sense.

Russia does it in its border states which are otherwise controlled by the US, US does it overseas in nations that have nothing to do with it.

1 Like

Bob do you really think the Russian Revolution was a good thing, a thing of the People?
How then did it result in the most brutal dictatorship ever? By your reasoning the people must be responsible for that. At least Lenin was, through the course he took.

They did get the first man in space, ‘disproving god’; ‘we went up there and didn’t see him’.

Putin, as I followed the process, took power from oligarchs that were in the process of selling Russia to the West for two cents on the dollar. He didn’t inherit a healthy state, let alone a democracy or anything like that. Russia never was anything but a dictatorship.

Right now France is asserting EU totalitarianism, cutting off its people from power, a judge there made the more or less same move as Erdogan just made in Turkey.

"The conviction of Marine Le Pen is the latest stage of Europe’s “descent into the abyss of totalitarianism”, according to former Greece finance minister Yanis Varoufakis.
"Varoufakis told UnHerd that the charges against Le Pen were “laughable and ludicrous”, and that to make them “a jailable offence and also a reason to bar her from running in the presidential election” was “mindboggling”.

Unherd dot com

Jakob, why do you ask this pathetically stupid question?

I am well-versed in history and know what the Russian Revolution brought. What does it have to do with anything I said?

I honestly am concerned about you and @HumAnIze , because you don’t seem to overcome your bias to look at the larger picture. Whether it is your habit to see events separate from each other, or you have been conditioned to do so, you seem permanently unable to understand the point I’m making and I know I’m pretty clear!

Huh?

“The revolutions of the past—whether French, American, Haitian, or Russian—were responses to this kind of madness. They were struggles to create societies where power flows upward, from the people to the state, not the other way around. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” was not just a phrase; it was a sacred commitment to a new way of being.”

I just don’t see Marx in the way that you do, I see him as a madman, who lacked basic understanding of the workings of value, propagated one of the gravest ever misunderstandings about human (self)worth, and whose revolutions predictably result in destitute poverty and subhuman government.

You don’t get to call me stupid because you think the Russian Revolution was some kind of spontaneous and natural uprising that miraculously went wrong. I have doubts about how well versed you are in this regard. Marx is a very handy tool for oppressors, and has been used as such.

The American Revolution was commendable, based on humanly sound principles. Stick with that.

1 Like

Answer me this clearly; which events that I should see together do I see separately?

I understand that you like to see a government of the people. That is your point, is it not? Well I agree with you in principle.

But there is also the threat of ochlocracy, rule of the mob. This is a threat where the people are sickly and ill-educated.

What is the spirit of revolution? Does it include Marx? right now in the west there is a lot of neo-marxist ideology - the moral superiority of whoever can claim to be a minority. This even extends to maga. Its supporters tend to feel a minority again theca face of globalist liberalism. This marxism results in mob-sentiments rather than in honorable, well thought-out politics.

“If our democratic institutions are once again becoming hollowed-out shells, perhaps we must rekindle the revolutionary spirit—not necessarily with violence, but with the courage, organization, and vision to dismantle the systems that place kings above citizens.”

It never worked without violence before. How could it? Not saying it cant but I don’t see how.

The madness of feudal governance and God appointed kings and queens, who supposedly stood above the common people, who were seen as just serfs, chattel, possessions.

Okay?

I don’t see a technocratic anti-democracy relying on neomarxist brainwashing as an improvement.

The establishment of the EU sees conservatives as lesser beings, as deplorables, people that should pay taxes and shut up.

Queen Ursula gets to decide that we have to bankrupt ourselves on a conflict we voted against getting involved in.

I remain with my first comment.

You disingenuously focus on more visible autocrats, and ignore the technocratic elites who operate in the shadows and have impoverished Europe and endangered its cultures. (im a still-living example of freedom of speech having been ended here)

I see you avoid my questions about Marx - who has corrupted the spirit of revolution, made it into is own form of tyranny. Dispossession, material and spiritual, is the key.

You also avoid the question of violence.

Try to live in the present and see how the world is being taken apart by the megalomaniac in the whitehouse, cheered on by the people who several years ago characterised him as a modern Hitler, and cricised his tariff policies, and aided and abetted by oligarchy.

He is trying to make the whole world even more dependent than many countries already are, exploited and impoverished by the global market. He wants fealty, and is causing chaos to have them all come begging for mercy.

I like your basic idea of revolutions against kings. But I think it is more complicated than that now - ‘the people’ are no longer workers and peasants with a simple, clean mind, but brainwashed urbanites who have been colonized by all sorts of intellectual parasites, full of contradictions.

Trump gives such a clear figure of what to rebel against, but the problems already existed and were more systemic, such as increasing chronic disease and deteriorating education. Bernie, for example, the only real peoples man, defending the insane amount of vaccinations American children are forced to deal with. 90 percent of which are purely about profit.

I am in the present - I can see what Trump is doing - and I can see how he vitalizes you and others online, inspires them to speak out and feel like good patriots. I just wonder about what can actually be done to really free the people.

Getting rid of Trump wont be enough. Getting rid of Putin could even be very dangerous, seeing what might replace him.

I guess I am just more pessimistic than you are.

The ‘pedantics’ are your argument not mine… this is the real argument behind their/such regular GLA/PCC meetings/exchanges… the failure of the police to act. There’s even a whole series on it… “Murdered By My Boyfriend/Stalker/etc.”.

recent data published by the Office for National Statistics showed that police recorded 912,181 offences related to domestic abuse in the past year, up 8 per cent compared with the year before.

The research, which consulted over 1,000 domestic abuse victims, found:

  • Over half of all respondents (53%) reported an instance of domestic abuse at least twice before they felt appropriate action was taken by the police.
  • Nearly a quarter (24%) reported an instance of domestic abuse to the police three times or more before appropriate action was taken.
  • More than one in ten (12%) of respondents said that they do not feel appropriate action was ever taken.
  • When reporting an instance of domestic abuse, almost half (48%) of Black and ethnic minority respondents felt that the police treated them differently to other people because of their ethnic background or heritage.

I’ve never been a victim of (any) violence, but I can sympathise with those who have been or who have lost their lives due to the lax police approach towards VAWG, as in the Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa cases.


.

That doesn’t invalidate any of them though, so why keep repeating it?

Why do you refuse to acknowledge them, seeing that just a few years ago such scenes of sword and knife street-fights didn’t exist?

…like this one:

.

The fact that you call people, and even small children, being slaughtered on our streets “…bad things” is troubling.
.

As a lawyer, are you not interested in new trends in crime? …especially in correlation with the influx in immigration…

Is this why civilisation is collapsing?

The EU is pure tyranny. The entire idea of the EU, at its core, requires little else.

I would see revolution as a “turn around” (from the Latin revolutio) rather than simply an act of violence, which opens up space for a richer, more nuanced understanding of what a revolution could be — especially a peaceful one.

At its heart, revolution is not merely overthrowing a regime; it’s a transformation of who holds power, how power is exercised, and what values guide a society. Violent revolutions often get the most attention because of their dramatic impact, but the essence of revolution is systemic change. Whether by guillotine or by grassroots movements, the pivot is always about redistribution of agency — moving it from the few to the many.

The ingredients of a peaceful revolution involve deep structural transformation without the collapse into chaos or bloodshed. Peaceful revolutions begin first of all with a change in consciousness. People begin to see through inherited myths, question norms, and imagine new possibilities. This can come through education, literature, social media, or spiritual movements. Think of Gandhi’s Satyagraha or the role of the Black church in the Civil Rights Movement — both fostered inner revolutions that led to outer shifts.

Secondly, the refusal to participate in unjust systems — economic boycotts, civil disobedience, walkouts — can erode the legitimacy and functionality of oppressive power without lifting a weapon. When a system loses the consent of the governed, it begins to falter.

Thirdly, instead of replacing one elite with another, a peaceful revolution involves reimagining governance itself — participatory councils, cooperatives, citizen assemblies, and community-based decision-making. It’s not just about who rules, but about how decisions are made. This is where decentralisation becomes revolutionary.

True revolution is sustained not only through policy but through cultural transformation. Art, language, ritual, and story shape the values that underpin society. A peaceful revolution embeds new values — solidarity, equity, ecological balance — into the collective imagination.

Of course, revolution must touch institutions: education, economics, healthcare, law. It retools these to serve the common good, not elite interests. This might look like:

  • Demilitarising police
  • Localising food systems
  • Rewriting constitutions to include ecological rights
  • Reparative justice processes

Previous examples show us possibilities for the future. For example:

  • The Solidarity movement in Poland began as a labour protest and became a nonviolent revolution that reshaped Eastern Europe.
  • South Africa’s transition from apartheid, though deeply flawed and incomplete, was a peaceful handover of power backed by global solidarity and internal mass mobilisation.
  • The Zapatistas in Mexico didn’t overthrow the state but created autonomous communities with radically different governance — a “slow revolution” still unfolding.

Today, peaceful revolution might take the form of:

  • Mass ecological transition led by communities, not corporations.
  • Universal basic services replacing consumer-driven economics.
  • Restorative justice replacing punitive justice.
  • Post-national governance models based on ecosystems and watersheds, not borders.

Perhaps most radically, a peaceful revolution reclaims the inner world—dismantling the empire within—such as fear, domination, and hierarchy—and replacing it with compassionate strength, mutual aid, and shared purpose.

It’s rarely the revolutionaries who start with violence. More often, peaceful grassroots movements are met with violent repression, and that violence — from the state, from entrenched elites, from corporations or militarised police — becomes the spark that ignites radicalisation.

Yanis Varoufakis has been very vocal in recent years about his perspective on the U.S.-China rivalry , and his critique cuts deep into the structure of global capitalism , imperialism , and the illusion of Western liberalism . Here’s a structured rundown of his broader critique, particularly concerning the current geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China:

  1. It’s Not About Ideology — It’s About Capital

Despite what mainstream media say, Varoufakis argues the U.S.-China conflict isn’t fundamentally about democracy vs authoritarianism or capitalism vs communism :

  • China is no longer a “communist” economy in the Marxist sense. It runs a state-capitalist model , tightly controlled but deeply integrated with global markets.
  • The U.S. also engages in authoritarian behaviour (e.g., surveillance, sanctions, regime changes) under the guise of liberal democracy.

“It’s not a clash of ideologies. It’s a clash over who gets to control the plumbing of global capitalism.”

  1. The Dollar Empire Is the Root of U.S. Power

Varoufakis argues that U.S. hegemony rests on its ability to control the global financial system , especially:

  • The U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency
  • The SWIFT system , which handles most global transactions
  • Control of the World Bank, IMF, and global debt instruments

China’s construction of an alternative economic infrastructure — digital yuan, bilateral trade deals in local currencies, the Belt and Road Initiative — threatens this.

This is why the U.S. sees China’s economic expansion as an existential threat, not just competition.

  1. Neoliberal Globalization Was a Trap

He often criticizes how the U.S. and EU supported China’s entry into the WTO in the 1990s and 2000s under the assumption that:

  • Opening China’s markets would lead to political liberalization.
  • China would become just another cog in the Western-led global economy.

Instead, China:

  • Leveraged global trade rules to become the world’s manufacturing hub .
  • Built its own parallel system of capital and supply chains .
  • Invested in state-owned technological advancement , not Western-style privatization.

The West now regrets this, but they wrote the rules , and China played by them—just better.

  1. The New Cold War Is a Dangerous Distraction

Varoufakis warns that a new Cold War narrative :

  • Obscures real global crises like climate change, inequality, and global debt.
  • Justifies increased military budgets and nationalism in the U.S. and China.
  • Risks a nuclear confrontation driven not by aggression, but by structural competition.

“This is not a Cold War like the last one. This time, the economies are deeply intertwined — and unraveling that can create catastrophic shocks.”

  1. The Military Industrial Complex Needs an Enemy

Drawing on Eisenhower’s warning, Varoufakis sees the U.S. military-industrial complex as a structural driver of tension:

  • It thrives on fear-based foreign policy.
  • With the Cold War over, Islamic terrorism filled the void for a while.
  • Now, China is being cast as the new existential threat , despite lacking military ambitions beyond its region.

“The Pacific is filled with American bases. China has none near the U.S. So who’s encircling whom?”

  1. Surveillance, Tech, and the Data Arms Race

Varoufakis also critiques the hypocrisy of Western outrage over Chinese surveillance:

  • The NSA, CIA, and Five Eyes alliance run vast global surveillance programs .
  • U.S. tech giants have become tools of state influence.
  • China developing its own digital systems is seen as resisting Western control , not committing a unique evil.
  1. The Solution? Democratize the Global Economy

Varoufakis doesn’t just critique — he proposes:

  • A new international financial architecture not dominated by any single power.
  • Digital, democratic networks for trade and capital flow.
  • Multilateralism that respects sovereignty , not forced alignments like NATO vs BRICS.

He’s also part of the Progressive International (alongside figures like Noam Chomsky) advocating for a third way between U.S. empire and Chinese autocracy.

You are confusing “logic” for reason, and opinion.

Who says that’s “Liberal” anyway.
You just compared the US and Russia as doing the same thing. Neither of thes behaviours are “liberal”.
Liberality is not part of the issue here. You are not thinking clearly or logically.

LOL..
And you think you are “logical”. Such childish hyperbole.
If you want an example of tyrrany, you might want to look at your own President who has initiated a state of exception and by-passed the Democratic process, acting without scrutiny or oversight.

If there is any thing to say about the EU is that it is moderated, even hampered by democracy. You obviously no nothing about the EU

1 Like