The Quiet War: Capital, Populism, and the Collapse of Consensus

URL has been copied successfully!

Modern Warfare: Why the Real Battles Are Now Economic

In the 21st century, the idea of “war” has changed.
Gone are the days when nations simply marched armies across borders to settle disputes. Today, war is fought in quieter, but equally devastating arenas: economics, technology, information, and ideology.

We are living in the era of economic warfare, and whether we realize it or not, we are all participants.

From Tanks to Tariffs: How Warfare Evolved

Since the end of World War II, and especially after the Cold War, direct military conflict between major powers has become far too risky. Instead, countries have learned to weaponize economic systems:

– Trade wars replace naval blockades.
– Sanctions take the place of sieges.
– Currency manipulation and tech bans serve as modern artillery.
– Cyber attacks sabotage critical infrastructure without a single soldier crossing a line.

The goal remains the same as traditional war: weaken your adversary and strengthen your own position. The methods, however, are stealthier and more systemic.

Are We At War Right Now?

In a very real sense: yes.

The world is locked in a sprawling, multi-front conflict — but not with open declarations of war. Instead, it’s fought through:

Economic coercion (e.g., sanctions on Russia and Iran)
Technological decoupling (e.g., chip bans to China)
Financial warfare (asset freezes, debt pressure)
Information warfare (disinformation, algorithmic propaganda)

While traditional wars still rage, in places like Ukraine and Palestine, bringing devastating loss and suffering, a parallel kind of warfare is also being waged in silence.
No bombs fall, but societies fracture.
No armies march, but economies collapse.
No headlines declare war, but every day decisions are made as if we were deep into a global conflict.

This article does not diminish the horrors of conventional warfare, but seeks to highlight that conflict today often takes many simultaneous forms.

The Global Ideological Battlefields

Here’s a snapshot of today’s geopolitical front lines:

United States – Populist nationalism vs. liberal democracy
European Union – Liberalism vs. right-wing populism
Russia – Authoritarianism vs. Western influence
China – State capitalism vs. liberal capitalism
India – Hindu nationalism vs. secular democracy
Brazil – Populism vs. institutional democracy
Africa – Great power competition for resources

These are not simply domestic tensions — they’re ideological fault lines in a new kind of world conflict.

A New Kind of Cold War?

Many analysts argue we are already in Cold War 2.0, but this version is multi-polar and chaotic:

U.S. vs. China in trade, tech, and global influence
Russia vs. Europe through energy, cyber, and military power
Internal ideological wars within democracies themselves

Unlike the last Cold War, there are no clear alliances, no iron curtains — only fraying democracies, rising autocrats, and hyperconnected markets.

Who Wins Modern War? Populism, Neoliberalism, and Transnational Power

If modern warfare no longer relies on boots and bombs, who’s actually winning?

Not nations – but networks.

The real victors are:

Tech giants (Meta, Google, Tencent) who shape information
Financial giants (BlackRock, Vanguard) who control markets
Energy/defence firms (ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin) who profit from instability
Billionaires who use lobbying, philanthropy, and media to mold policy

They exist above national law, thrive in crisis, and often shape the very rules by which conflicts unfold.

Populism and Neoliberalism: Dual Engines of Instability

Today’s instability is powered by a paradox:

Populism undermines institutions, weaponizes distrust, and tears at the social fabric.
Neoliberalism has weakened the state, enriched the few, and hollowed out democracy, all while claiming to “liberate markets.”

Together, they form a cycle: populism is the backlash to neoliberalism, and neoliberalism thrives in the chaos populism brings.

A Marxist Lens: Predictable Collapse or Adapted Power?

From a classical Marxist perspective, much of this was predictable:

Capitalism concentrates wealth and power.
It exploits labour and externalizes costs.
It globalizes markets and erodes sovereignty.

But revisionist thinkers, like Gramsci, Bernstein, and Luxemburg , offer an updated lens:

Gramsci warned of cultural hegemony, where ideology, not violence, controls the masses.
Luxemburg foresaw capitalism’s need for endless expansion.
Bernstein predicted slow reform, not revolution.

In short: the crisis is Marxist in structure, but neo-Marxist in form.
Capitalism has not collapsed, it has adapted. But not without consequence.

Varoufakis: Technocracy, Capitalism, and the Post-Democratic Order

Economist and ex-finance minister Yanis Varoufakis adds another layer of insight.

In the Eurogroup, he was told bluntly: “Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy.”
This is not a flaw of the system, it is the system.

His key arguments:

Technocracy replaces democracy – especially in crises.
Capitalism needs the state – despite pretending it doesn’t.
Liberal democracy and capitalism are not natural partners – but an unstable marriage.
There is no such thing as apolitical economics – all models serve power.

He warns that automation, AI, and 3D printing may soon dissolve the labour market – and with it, the very mechanism of capitalism.

In that world, even elite networks may no longer be able to profit. The next war may be about who controls meaning, survival, and the future itself.

Conclusion: A War with No Front Line

We are no longer simply fighting over land or oil. We are fighting over narratives, algorithms, and systems of belief.

Modern warfare has evolved, and so have its victors.
To understand what’s coming, we must stop looking for tanks on the horizon and start examining who owns the code, the capital, and the culture.

Because in this war, the battlefield is everywhere, and the fight is already here.

TAP 02/05/2025