It is easy to see capitalism as natural to humanity. The system seems so ordinary that hierarchy, ownership and competition look less like enforced societal conditions and more like the natural architecture of life. We work, we rent, we borrow and we compete our way through systems we rarely control. This mechanism is all too familiar to human civilization, and shares an eerie resemblance to capitalism’s predecessor. America’s present crisis is not only capitalist, but also Neo-feudal. Feudalism refers to a social and political structure that is built around land, hierarchy and obligation. Power was not concentrated as it is today, but spread throughout lords and estates. Those beneath, peasants and serfs, were not simply poor; they were practically owned by their superiors. Their humanity was bound to the land in which they worked, with their labour being traded for food and survival. Feudalism was not just an economic system; it was a way of cementing class into unescapable conditions. Neo-feudalism does not signify the return to medieval Europe. It refers to the reemergence of feudal-like conditions within modern contexts under capitalism, where citizens are forced to navigate concentrated power, stagnant class mobility and a life organised through dependency. It is not the death of American democracy, but rather a slow migration to what once was. While it may be a stretch to imagine that feudalism will return as the dominant social mechanism, it is not difficult to see why the comparison can be drawn so closely with modern America. The United States is not becoming feudal because it has left capitalism behind; rather, the conditions of living are producing new forms of dependence that are strikingly similar to feudalism. Public authority is weakening due to political fragmentation and economic crises, while the private sector continues to prosper and even builds further wealth from the class disparity. Citizens remain formally free, but more of daily life is increasingly governed by corporations, landlords and digital platforms that all contribute to the restriction of true freedom. This contradiction is not new. Keidrick Roy’s work on “racial feudalism” highlights that America has carried feudal shadows within its democratic discourse for a long time. Dartmouth’s discussion of Roy’s American Dark Age discusses how while American thinkers rejected the feudal hierarchies spreading across Europe, slavery sustained anti-liberal relations at home. Black abolitionists understood this contradiction and used words like “feudalism” and “serfdom” to name the republic that promised freedom while preserving racial hierarchies. Cullen Murphy’s Atlantic essay, “Feudalism is Our Future”, captures this shift into modern privatisation. He argues that these feudal-like conditions become visible when governance, laws, rights and wealth are channelled unequally and decentralised into private hands. Brookings notes that before Trump’s second term, there were roughly twice as many people employed by private contractors to carry out federal government activities than there were federal employees.DOGE and the Trump administration pushed to prioritise running government business through private avenues, including proposals around federal buildings, the post service and foreign aid. This is of paramount danger because democracy depends on equality and accountability. But when public work is funnelled through private chains of contractors, those two things become harder to trace. This represents one of Neo-feudalism’s most dangerous qualities:where the state rules not through open coercion but through obscure tactics that do not serve public interest. It rules through diffusion, where power is fragmented into pieces, distributed to private bodies and protected by contracts, incentives and complete opacity. A democracy cannot survive on mantras of freedom alone. It requires public power that is visible and genuinely shared by everyone. When power is dissected into concentrated hands and private actors, democracy is compromised. Neo-feudalism refers to a country that still uses discourse coherent with democracy while surrendering more of democratic life to private rule.
By Adia May
Over four years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This followed eight years of conflict between the Ukrainian government and Russian proxy forces, as well as the annexation of Crimea in 2014, which drew massive international outrage. In response to Putin’s actions, Russia was sanctioned economically, diplomatically isolated and culturally shamed through banning Russian athletes from the Olympics. But since 2022, this conflict has lost the world’s attention due to wars in Israel, Gaza, Sudan and Iran. Despite Russia’s actions, a close look at Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelensky’s motivations for continuing the war—which has been a stalemate since 2023— reveals a silent invasion of his country. Since the invasion, Ukraine has relied on conscripting its working-age men to repel the Russian military and has prohibited most men from leaving the country. Ukrainian women, children and seniors, in contrast, have undergone a mass exodus in Europe’s worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. It is estimated that this exodus will constitute over 30% of its pre-war labor pool, which was already shrinking rapidly due to emigration to European Union member states like Poland. In addition to this, a low fertility rate and a rapidly aging population is creating a massive labor shortage in the coming decades. And with the Ukrainian army suffering casualties in the hundreds of thousands, the country’s pool of adults who still live in the country will shrink even further. To make up for this labor shortage, Zelensky could force businesses to pay Ukrainian workers fair wages and lure the diaspora back home. But instead of preserving Ukraine as a nation state for the East Slavic ethnic group, he plans to import laborers from less developed countries to fill the gap. Many of these countries from the Middle East, Africa and South Asia regions have already sent numerous migrants to European countries, especially within the past decade. When looking at the results of allowing mass migration, it can safely be said that it constitutes an invasion. Migrants from the Middle East, Africa and South Asia are much more likely to commit a wide range of crimes, use excessive welfare and remain in low-skill occupations than native Europeans, all across the continent. This should not come as a surprise, given how Europe’s institutions and cultures contrast greatly from those of migrant countries, which are often governed by Sharia law, are rife with corruption and fail to protect the liberties of women and minorities. In contrast, Russia, like Ukraine, is an Orthodox Christian country, and its ethnic group and culture have centuries of shared history with Ukrainians. Putin’s intent is not to wage war on the Ukrainian people, but rather reintegrate their country into Russia. He merely rejects the political and social separation of the two groups, not the existence of either one. Given the similarities of both East Slavic countries, Russification of Ukraine would hardly change anything about the former Soviet state. Yet Zelensky nevertheless considers annexation by Russia, even of only Ukraine’s southeastern region that is currently occupied, a threat to the Ukrainian nation. But why doesn’t he apply this same logic to demographic replacement of Ukrainians via mass migration from societies with radically different cultures and institutions?
By Edward Kim
You may be thinking, the title of this article is a bit dramatic; you’d be both right and wrong in two different senses. The answer to the question of whether everything is inherently political depends on the context used. In the case of movement, however, there are significant reasons why your love for exercise may invoke a need for recognition of the politics behind the sports you play. The rationale for why your 9:00 AM pilates class should segway into a mid-day protest is rooted in what exercise really is. Every exercise, short of simple movements like walking or waving your arms around, was invented by a person. That very person lived in a specific time in history with a specific lens which they viewed the world. For some, exercise was a form of protest, and for others community or expression. Nevertheless, when doing someone’s exercise, it’s appalling that we seldom stop to think about its creation, or the era it was born in. Take soccer, for example. FIFA describes “cuju” – a Chinese Han Dynasty game used for military training – as the predecessor to soccer (https://www.fifamuseum.com/en/explore/fifamuseumplus/blog/origins-cuju-in-china). The sport was said to be a positive morale booster for the army. However, when the Ming Dynasty came into reign, the sport was entirely banned with the punishment of losing a foot for playing it. This example demonstrates how soccer/football has origins in the gamification of training, which is most certainly political. Another example is how baseball was shaped by colonist migrants to America. While the original sport has origins across Europe, blending various traditions (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2023/02/07/who-invented-baseball/8124497001/), America played a distinct role in the influence of baseball, and baseball in America was more than a game. Baseball became a way by which politics interacted with sports. Take the Civil Rights Era. Jackie Robinson was so distinctly recognized in baseball that his calls for equality greatly influenced the success of Martin Luther King Jr. (https://baseballhall.org/baseball-history-american-history-and-you) If that isn’t enough of a reason to seek education on your chosen sports’ history, here are the other facts. Your movement is a privilege. One study published under the National Library of Medicine in 1990 found that amongst San Diego residents surveyed, those who exercised more than three times a week were likely to have exercise facilities near their homes (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1580056/). This was reconfirmed in 2010 by a study published under the Journal of American College Health which found that college students were more likely to exercise when they had close facilities or more home exercise equipment (https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.53.6.285-290). Next time you partake in exercise, think about the history of your activity, and what allows you to do it today. Whether it’s legal rights, privileges, or accessibility, there’s more to your physical activity than you think.
By Megan Fincher
Follow Us