Welcome to the "neomedieval era": are states becoming obsolete?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Commenters use a Vox piece on a “neomedieval” world order as a springboard to question whether traditional nation-states and classic international relations theory still explain power in an era of tech platforms, weakened US hegemony, and resurgent strongman leaders. They debate the persistence of human nature versus new technological constraints, the role of US geography and history in its dominance, and whether populist figures like Trump and Modi reflect a backlash against elite-driven globalization and social liberalization. Several contributors also argue that democratic institutions are becoming brittle—from the meaning of the January 6 Capitol attack to recurring US governance gridlock—raising the prospect of a shift toward “techno-feudalism” or a fragmented post-state order.

Classics, Human Nature, and International Relations

  • One line of discussion rejects traditional IR analogies (e.g., between modern tech states and early-modern powers) as obsolete.
  • Others argue classical humanities (Greek, Roman, Indian, Persian, Chinese, etc.) still give deep insight into enduring human nature.
  • Claim: people’s core impulses don’t change; circumstances do. Studying ancient texts helps explain modern corporate and state behavior.
  • Counterpoint: nothing stops people from studying classics, but some say serious understanding still requires structured instruction.

US Power and Historical Contingency

  • Several comments stress that US hegemony was partly “forced” by others’ self-destruction (European wars, Soviet/Chinese communism, decolonization chaos).
  • Geographic advantages (large, resource-rich, ocean-buffered continent) and a “democratic enough” system that avoided meltdown are highlighted.
  • Others warn against straight-line projections: public opinion can flip from dovish to hawkish after shocks (terror attacks, incidents), making states more aggressive again.

January 6: Severity, “Deadliness,” and Political Meaning

  • One camp downplays January 6 as a serious insurrection: no military/police backing, disorganized, and they emphasize that rioters directly killed no one.
  • They argue “deadly” is misused, since deaths were mainly medical events or later suicides; object to perceived media double standards.
  • Opponents emphasize:
    • Over 140 injured officers.
    • Seditious conspiracy convictions of organized groups.
    • Coordinated political context (rally rhetoric, pressure on Congress/VP, “fake electors” plans, pipe bombs).
    • Clear intent to disrupt certification and threats against officials.
  • Disagreement over whether suicides and strokes should be counted as riot-caused, and whether the label “insurrection” fits if it was incompetent.

Strong Leaders, Populism, and Elite Backlash

  • Many express concern about the global return of strongman-style leaders; others note such figures never really disappeared and politics is cyclical.
  • Explanations offered:
    • Reaction to top-down liberalization, globalization, immigration, and secular/elite projects.
    • Public preference for delegating hard democratic work to a “great leader.”
  • Some defend certain leaders as non-war-starting and aligned with majority views on immigration, law-and-order, and affirmative action.
  • Others focus on authoritarian tendencies, refusal to accept electoral losses, and threats to peaceful transfer of power.

Democracy, Electoral Systems, and Elites

  • One thread argues democracy’s core value is peaceful transfer of power, not efficiency; autocracies eventually produce disastrous rulers.
  • Debate over prosecuting former leaders: historical analogies to the Roman Republic are raised, with disagreement over how they apply.
  • Intense back-and-forth on:
    • Popular vote vs. Electoral College as a measure of the “average American.”
    • How campaign incentives distort these metrics.
    • Whether professors and other knowledge workers function as a “clerical elite” at odds with majority opinion.

Are States Becoming Obsolete? Neomedieval / Techno-Feudal Themes

  • Several comments link the article’s thesis to works arguing that digital technologies weaken nation-states and move us toward “sovereign individuals” or “techno-feudalism.”
  • Some describe growing cynicism about national politics: Congress seen as gridlocked and performative, with career bureaucrats perceived as doing most real governing.
  • Others note that borders can mislead; maps of population density better capture where people actually live and where power might concentrate.
  • One commenter criticizes framing today’s world as “democracy vs. autocracy” as empty and unhelpful.