The four horsemen of the apocalypse were traditionally conquest, war, famine and death. But what if the greatest threats to our modern world are now something very different?
I suggest that four interconnected forces are destroying our societies from within: patriarchy, colonialism, neoliberalism and individualism.
These are not simply political ideas. They are systems of power that shape our economies, undermine democracy, concentrate wealth, encourage exploitation and destroy the relationships on which human well-being depends.
Patriarchy establishes hierarchies of power. Colonialism extracts wealth from those who have less. Neoliberalism puts markets before people. Individualism denies our dependence upon each other.
Together, they threaten our collective future.
And conventional economics has helped make this possible by treating people as isolated individuals competing against each other, rather than recognising the relationships that make economic and social life possible.
In this video, I explain why these four horsemen matter, how they reinforce each other, and why the crises facing our societies are not inevitable.
We can choose equality instead of domination, cooperation instead of exploitation, and an economy that serves society rather than governing it.
The apocalypse is a political choice. So is creating a better future.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
I have a feeling we need to talk about the four horsemen of the modern apocalypse. The original four were, of course: conquest, war, famine, and death, and all of those resonate at some point somewhere in the world right now.
But are they today's greatest threats? I suggest they're probably not anymore, at least in the Western states where we're now seeing mass demonstrations. There are probably four bigger modern threats, and they are: patriarchy, colonialism, neoliberalism, and individualism. Together, they are threatening our collective future.
And let's be clear, our future is at threat. The apocalypse is already happening. Catastrophe need not arrive as a sudden event. Societies can be destroyed from within, and that is what neoliberalism has been doing. Inequality, exploitation and environmental destruction are all connected events, and these outcomes are not simply accidents. So what are the systems of power that produce them? That is the question I'm answering in this video.
The first horseman is patriarchy. Patriarchy is about power, and it's not simply about men. I have to make that clear. Women can also uphold patriarchal institutions. Margaret Thatcher is the perfect example of someone who did that. So patriarchy values hierarchy, control and domination. That is what it represents. It undermines equality, care, and cooperation. And that's precisely what we are seeing in our society now. Patriarchy is threatening our well-being.
So what is the second horseman? The second horseman is colonialism. Colonialism is all about domination and resource extraction. It has, of course, been the foundation of English wealth for centuries. It can operate internationally, or it can operate domestically. Let's be clear: wealthy regions of a country can exploit poorer communities. Wealthy people can exploit poorer people. And in the UK, one country in the union can exploit the others.
Economic power can replace direct political control, and colonial relationships persist without formal empires, even though the UK still has some of the mechanisms of empire in place. That is what our tax haven empire is all about. And this reality is still being experienced across the world. Colonial extraction is still happening, and the Global South is still suffering. But so are people in many parts of the UK as well.
The third horseman is, of course, neoliberalism. Neoliberalism makes competition the organising social principle of society. It puts market outcomes before human needs. It concentrates economic power and rewards wealth. It undermines collective responsibility, and it destroys public provision wherever it can.
It mistakes market success for social progress, and then we have no progress at all, which is exactly what people across Europe, in the USA, the UK and elsewhere, all now think. We are seeing no progress at all. And that's not just with regard to wages. That's with regard to our human rights and the respect for our rights as individuals.
And what is the fourth horseman of the modern apocalypse? That is individualism. Now, I stress this is not just about individual freedom, although, of course, that matters. The issue I'm talking about here is as much the denial of interdependence.
Individualism treats success as entirely personal. It makes poverty appear to be personal failure, and a finger is pointed at those who suffer it.
It denies the relationships that sustain society, communities, companies, and everything else. It undermines reciprocity and collective responsibility. It presumes that we are on our own when quite clearly that is not true. That is not how life is lived. But this is the assumption that underpins the world that our politicians wish to project upon us. That is why this is the fourth horseman of the modern apocalypse.
And these four horsemen reinforce each other. Patriarchy establishes hierarchies of social power. Colonialism extracts wealth through unequal relationships. Neoliberalism legitimises economic inequality through supposed free markets. And individualism undermines solidarity and collective action.
Together, they concentrate power. They weaken democracy. They undermine community. They destroy society. And they destroy collective well-being, which they deny is even a possibility. That is why they're a problem.
And economics has not only misunderstood the threats from these four horsemen. It has reinforced their threats. Conventional economics starts from the assumption that we're all isolated individuals struggling against all others. That is the basis of neoclassical and neoliberal economics, but that is not true.
No economy exists without relationships. Every economic transaction involves reciprocal obligations. We make bargains with each other, but they're not in isolation. They are more statements of intent in many cases than they are straightforward statements of exchange without obligation arising.
Power, though, determines how benefits are distributed, and economics, as well as political economy, must therefore recognise our fundamental interdependence if both are to be of relevance now. Right now, economics does not do that, and that is why it supports the modern four horsemen of the apocalypse.
We could, however, choose a different future.
We can replace domination with equality and mutual respect.
We can replace exploitation with cooperation between communities and nations.
We can make markets that serve society and not govern it. That is within the power of governments to do.
We could recognise our shared responsibilities and our interdependence and build them all into our approach to managing mutual well-being.
This is how we could recreate the democratic institutions we need. We can decide to do that because apocalypse is a political choice. The four horsemen are human creations. Their power depends upon institutions and beliefs. What people have created, people can change. Our future depends on the relationships that we build. These four horsemen can be slain, and it's time that they are. It's time that they are consigned to history. We do not need to replace them. We need to focus upon human well-being and how we can work together for a better future.
That's what I think. What do you think? There is, of course, a poll down below. Please do take part in it. Please do let us have your comments. Please do like and share this video. Please do subscribe to the channel and do hit that bell button. You will then be told when we make a new video. And if you would like to support our work, there is a link down below and up above to the Ko-fi network where you can make us a donation. Thank you very much.
Poll
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I like this revision of the four horseman. Because the patriarchy, Neo-liberalism, individualism and colonialism are all under human control – we have chosen these and chosen badly – whereas some of the traditional ones cannot be said to be so.
We’ve got to accept that we’ve done all of these revised ones to ourselves.
And these means that we can change them.
Agreed
Nice write-up for a Sunday morning.
It was not at all clear how to respond (pick one?) in your poll. But PSR’s assessment that they are all human made, and can be unmade, pushes me towards the worst being Individualism.
Without Solidarity we are likely unable to make the changes to the others that are needed.
Noted, and I think that might be right.
“must therefore recognise our fundamental independence” – should read “interdependence” presumably!
Yes.
A transcription error.
Thank you.
I would go further and list 4 human traits that I believe underpin many of the outcomes that we see today. Traits which may have helped ensure our early survival as a species, but which now act against the need for 7bn of us to live cooperatively and sustainably on a planet of finite resources. These are:
Selfishness
Entitlement
Tribalism
Short-termism
Perhaps I’m being overly pessimistic. Clearly humans are clearly capable of altruism, cooperation, empathy and fairness. But I see too little of those attributes in today’s world.
The four listed are social in aspect & consequence. In the case of “individualism” as applied to society, one could apply a scale: societies which gives more or less importance to individualism. The other aspect is the power structures embedded in a given soc’ & their resistance to change. These have little to do with “individualism” (the ability to think for ones self) and a great deal to do with group-think and adherence to a given ideology (neolibtardism – anybody that “believes” in neoliberalism is an imbecile & thus … etc). Thus there is an inbuilt contradiction between, individualism rah rah rah! and group think/religious belief wrt neoliberalism. Couple that to well developed cognitive dissonance amongst our supposed “rulers” (& the political systems that keep them in power) which is used to ignore those that ask difficult questions (no sorry can’t hear you – what was that?) and you have the current system. Individualism? a way to keep us disunited & diverted (ref: Mr Brand a sort-of “Saville 2”).
Thanks, Mike.
Might an antidote to the negative aspects of individualism which separate, divide and weaken, be the “Liquorice Allsort Dynamic”.
”Like Liquorice Allsorts, we are all different and we always stick together!” (?)
Even the most ‘primitive’ societies uphold the concept of the ‘equality of unequals’: everyone is equal -they have the same rights to agency, mastery, autonomy, purpose, community and status, but how those rights are achieved are necessarily different for each person. That’s what ‘To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities’ actually means.
They also uphold the concept of ‘the irreducible minimum’ – that everyone gets fed, clothed, housed and cared for. Even if they are an absolute shit to live with.
Thank you
Interesting. Can any one of these four stand independently of the other three? Or, if one of them is truly slain, must the others also fall? If so, what is the best place to start? Maybe it’s from wherever we are? Whichever of the four seems to be oppressing us most in our lives right now, that can be the one we choose to fight against? If the answer to the first question is “no” then we’ll be fighting all four of them at the same time anyway!
A fair point. But colonialism and patriarchy most definitely preceded neoliberalism, and so I do see them as separable.
I see your point. I guess when writing that comment I had in mind the broader ideological basis for neoliberalism, rather than its recent incarnation as neoliberalism. Clearly the trap of putting markets and their needs ahead of everything else goes back a lot further than just the past 45 or so years. For example, Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount saying that “no one can serve two masters”. Maybe it fits better with the other 3 horsemen when seen in that light?
I get your point, but I think it’s a stretch to say that Jesus was referring to a 20th-century political movement.
I accept that the effects of colonialism are still with us, but I am not entirely sure it still exists per se. Possibly the same with patriarchy. Have they both been replaced with entitlement?
I don’t think so. Entitlement is arrogant individualism. Patriarchy and colonialism are still real. Thou shalt not ask inconvenient questions is the first, and just ask Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland about the second.
It is a sad fact that war, famine, and pestilence remain all too prevalent in the world, despite us often having the means to prevent them or reduce their impact. Rather than the economy becoming a way to achieve things for society, it becomes a barrier to progress. There is no alternative, where is the money coming from, etc.
Agreed
I wonder if it would make it more logical to replace patriarchy with hierarchy and then include it as an element of hierarchy, Hierarchy covers all those aspects of life where there are people at the top ‘to look up to’ – monarchy, the wealthy, celebrities etc.
Aren’t many of them patriarchal too?
And aren’t some people worth looking up to? Why condemn all with influence when some may be appropriate?
There’s a distinction to be made between better than you at something and just better than you (no qualification). You could refer to the former as hierarchy of expertise or competence and it could be legitimate (provided it can be limited to its appropriate specific domain)
Beautiful post. Music to my ears 🙂
I would argue that all hierarchical power structures are fundamentally harmful and patriarchal power is an extension of the same domination we apply to Nature. See Murray Bookchin’s work for more on this, I especially recommend The Ecology of Freedom.
Thank you
I think it has to be Individualism. The cult of self dominates our cultural landscape. This cult has within it the classic traits of psychopaths: superficial charm, grandiosity, and self-importance; a need for constant stimulation, a penchant for lying, deception, and manipulation, and the inability to feel remorse or guilt.
This is, of course, the ethic promoted by corporations. It is the ethic of unfettered capitalism.
It is the misguided belief that personal style and personal advancement, mistaken for individualism, are the same as democratic equality.
In fact, personal style, defined by the commodities we buy or consume, has become a compensation for our loss of democratic equality.
We have a right, in the cult of the self, to get whatever we desire. We can do anything, even belittle and destroy those around us, including our friends, to make money, to be happy, and to become famous. Once fame and wealth are achieved, they become their own justification, their own morality.
How one gets there is irrelevant. Once you get there, those questions are no longer asked.
There’s something called the Hofstede index that indicates that individualism is especially prevalent in the UK. I’m having a “links” day, so here’s another one! Interesting.
https://brandminds.com/what-is-hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory-uk-vs-china-a-comparison/
Dont forget Kaos, the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse
https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Kaos
Given whats happening right now Mr Pratchett seems bang on the money
Awesome!
Been wondering how these social constructs relate to concentrate power and erode solidarity, and now you’ve given us this video.
Yes, what’s socially constructed can be socially deconstructed
Despite how these processes are pushed as certainties, to be protected at our peril like ‘ the market’ on a level with ‘the king! God save the market! They are social constructs.
Agreed
“The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make and could just as easily make differently.” ~ David Graeber.
One of my favourite illustrations of this point by David Graeber is where he points out that the king of France is only the king of France because enough people believe that he is the king of France! Also, people have to wake up tomorrow morning still believing it. That’s astonishingly fragile when you think about it. And the people in power know it; which is why they have to work so hard to maintain people’s perceptions.
Much to agree with
There is an implicit assumption here that we live in a democracy. But we clearly don’t, it is merely a facade. When the West had revolutions they were led by merchants and industrialists who disliked the power of the monarchy and feudal orders. So now we have a pretend-democratic system owned by financiers, tech giants, and inherited wealth.
So the 4 horsemen really just boil down to the plutocracy – which is far more wealthy than any feudal lord – seeking ways to extract more wealth from unequal trade with other countries or from domestic populations. The -isms of your of 4 horsemen are a distraction from the underlying causal forces.
In 1979, the first election in which I was old enough to vote, I voted Conservative. Partly because I didn’t know any better, partly because the current mob in power didn’t seem to be doing much good but mostly because I thought that a woman Prime Minister would bring a more humanitarian, caring aspect to government than the patriarchal tradition had done.
I GOT THAT F***ING WRONG, DIDN’T I?!!
We all make mistakes.
David Byrne says.
Poundland is the current example of extraction at its worst. It is not surprising that Gordon Brothers are avoiding open and objective discussion.
We are looking at a repeat of the BHS scandal with a similar level of social cost, but Philip Green and his wife did quite well out of it, so that’s ok then?