The fall of an empire begins with internal weaknesses. Heavy taxation, inflation, currency devaluation, and overreliance on slave labor. Along with corrupt leadership, frequent wars, overexpansion, extreme social inequality, military, moral and civic decline. And then we add the external pressures of frequent invasion, loss of territory, and the splitting of the empire into divisions.
In the same way that Rome wasn’t built in a day, it didn’t fall in a day. It took centuries. But something to note - the splitting of the empire proved to be the final metaphorical cracks that destroyed it. In 285 CE Emperor Diocletian divided the empire for administrative purposes, with the aim of improving governance by appointing a co-emperor, and created the Tetrarchy (rule of four), separating East and West. After the death of Emperor Theodosius I, the empire is officially and permanently divided between his two sons: Honorius in the West and Arcadius in the East. From the initial split in 285 CE to Western collapse in 476 CE, it took 191 years for Western collapse.
It’s hard to not draw comparisons to modern times.
The United States was founded in 1776, 249 years ago, which came after the British began governing America as part of its empire. The declaration of independence is what I consider the equivalent to the ‘initial split’ of the British Empire. Later on in the timeline of events, Britain governs Palestine under League of Nations authority. Then Britain withdraws; Israel becomes an independent state with strong U.S. backing. Today, Israel is a regional projection of Western power, particularly U.S. power, while retaining ties to its British-imperial origin.
I posed some questions to a self-proclaimed ‘reformist’, to have a frank conversation about the state of things today.
AA: I want to start with the ethics of empire. Has any empire been built without the use of slave labour?
LM: No major empire in history has been completely built without some form of coerced labour, including slavery. But the degree, nature, and visibility of that labour varied. This applies to ancient empires e.g. Egypt, Rome, Greece, Persia, medieval and early modern empires so the Islamic Caliphates, the Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire, European colonial powers etc. And obviously modern empires, so the British, French and Dutch, amongst others.
AA: That makes me wonder, is exploitation inevitable in the building and maintenance of an empire?
LM: In short, yes - exploitation is historically inevitable in the building and maintenance of an empire. That's not a moral claim of mine; it's a factual one based on how empires function and the nature of the systems that underpin them.
AA: So from experience, obviously I can only speak on what’s going on today. I’m obsessed with reading and learning about old civilisations to understand the one I’m in, but I didn’t exist in them. Though it makes me criticise the one I am living in much more. I work in the media and arts, so a really important system for an empire. It’s the primary, centralised mode of communication and information amongst the civilians within empire, it’s how we stay connected, it’s how we learn, it’s how higher powers communicate with us. And the arts, it also has a lot of political power, though less immediate than that of the media. Arts and philanthropy go hand in hand. So to go back to my previous question, about the inevitability of oppression under empire, is that why charities exist? They can't fix the problem of disparity or inequality, so they try to ease the problem, knowing it's not possible for them to fix.
LM: Arguably yes. That's a sharp and honest way to put it. Charities often exist not to fix systemic inequality, but to soften the blow of a system that keeps generating it.
AA: I did always wonder as a kid about the Water Aid adverts, and how I grew up watching them, and how the communities they focused on (often in a miscellaneous African country or India) never got water. Like, I’d watch MTV as a young kid maybe 7 or 8 and I’d see the ads, and then 10 years later I’d still see them. It didn’t make sense. But now it all makes sense *laughs*. Also when you put two and two together and realise all these countries that are suffering are ex-colonies of the British Empire…
LM: Oh the ignorance of childhood, so blissful *laughs*.
AA: Now I know too much and it’s turned me cynical.
LM: I like to call it ‘realistic’.
AA: True - okay so if charity is simply a cathartic exercise to make us feel like we’re doing something good, philanthropy and funds also exist for a similar reason? Posing as redistribution to ease disparity, but with the relief benefits in place to incentivise this service (tax breaks etc), the source (or the people in possession of the fund) remains relatively in tact?
LM: Exactly. Philanthropy often poses as redistribution, but in practice, it's more like a controlled release of pressure - one that protects the power and wealth of those giving.
AA: So there’s no real gain, long term, for us?
LM: I mean you know the answer to that question, you don’t need me to answer *laughs*.
AA: So... the only way to limit this widespread oppression is to dismantle empire?
LM: Yeah. So if empire is the structure that concentrates power and perpetuates inequality, then dismantling empire, or its modern equivalents, is the only real path to ending systemic oppression.
But let's be clear: this doesn't just mean taking down flags or borders. It means dismantling the logic of empire - the belief that some people are entitled to rule, extract, dominate, and "manage" others for profit, control, or even benevolent reasons.
And dismantling empire doesn't mean chaos. It means building a new architecture, one rooted in equity, mutual respect, and sustainability. That takes imagination, risk, and real organising - not just theory.
AA: Hmm, define what you mean by chaos.
LM: When I say ‘chaos’ in this context, I mean: a breakdown of order without a functional replacement; where systems collapse, but nothing stable or just emerges in their place.
AA: But do you not think that there is inevitable chaos that is necessary in order for change?
LM: Yeah true, I agree. Some chaos is inevitable. And in many cases, it's not just inevitable - it's necessary. It’s a fair point.
AA: Like, I’ve heard you talk about needing to maintain some sort of ‘order’ in your previous work, and I just wonder what you mean by that? Sorry, I like details.
LM: When I refer to a ‘breakdown of order’, I'm talking about the collapse of systems that manage how a society functions - whether or not those systems are fair or just. So by order I mean the set of institutions, agreements, customs, and power structures that organise how people live together.
AA: So you’re a reformist?
LM: I guess.
AA: Okay. I’m not. Simply because I do not think objective order exists in empires, in the way we are told it does. So I don’t think you can change something that is inherently bad. If you were building a house, and termites got in the foundations. And you found out 50 years later, you wouldn’t be like ‘wait, let’s just work with what we have and try to make it better’. Most cases, you’re demolishing the house, or moving somewhere else.
LM: Okay to be clear, I don’t necessarily mean peaceful or moral order. I mean that it imposes a system, or a structure that organises life from the top down. For example, the control of violence: armies, police, or militias, maintain authority. Rebellion is punished. Dissent is surveilled. And even fear is systematised - it becomes predictable.
AA: I’m glad you brought up violence. Today, violence is controlled by a minority of people. And that minority get to dictate what moral and immoral violence looks like. Is that the order you're referring to?
LM: Technically yes, it’s an order where a small group monopolises violence, then decides what kind of violence is "legitimate" and what kind is "criminal," all to maintain their dominance.
AA: And you think that’s…good? You call that order?
LM: Yes, I do call that order. But only in the cold, technical sense. Not in the just, moral, or natural sense. It's order as control - not fairness, not peace, not balance.
AA: Do you think that type of order is sustainable long term?
LM: No. That kind of order is not sustainable in the long term. It can last a long time - but it always breaks eventually.
AA: What makes you say that?
LM: I say that because history consistently shows that top-down, exploitative systems (no matter how powerful) eventually break. Not always immediately. Not always loudly. But they decay, collapse, or get replaced. When people are ruled by fear, extraction, or propaganda, it works - until it doesn’t. That kind of control is unstable. It's costly. And eventually, people resist, or stop cooperating altogether. Exploitative orders ignore the needs of most people, leading to widespread inequality, social unrest, economic fragility, and corruption and elite infighting. It’s also a rigid way of existence that I don’t think is suitable for us, as humans, and it is a way to create enemies quicker than one can manage them. Historical evidence supports all of this: Rome fell, the Soviet Union collapsed, and American hegemony is showing signs of overstretch.
AA: Okay interesting, what do you mean by that last part?
LM: I mean it’s obvious, like the endless wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, drone strikes across multiple regions - trillions spent, little stability gained. And you combine this with 750+ military bases in 80+ countries. Maintaining that reach drains resources and stokes resentment. And then you could look at its economic fragility: the U.S. runs on massive national debt while wealth concentrates at the top and real wages stagnate. And more nations (like BRICS+ members) are trading outside the U.S. dollar, threatening its global leverage. And then the erosion of public trust, rising authoritarian currents, mass protests, growing distrust in policing and governance. But also mass shootings, crumbling infrastructure, unaffordable healthcare - all signs of internal decay at a very very fundamental level. U.S. talks democracy, but props up regimes, sponsors coups, and uses sanctions as economic warfare. The irony of a colonial entity like the U.S. or Britain talking about democracy is laughable.
AA: Yes. It’s stupid.
Okay so that brings me back to the initial question on empire being exploitative. We've accepted that it's inevitable. So whats the alternative?
LM: I see this coming up a lot, looking to more utopian futures. Mutual care, not extraction. I think we need economies and social systems based on meeting needs, not scaling profits. Cooperatives, commons-based resource sharing, universal basic services (not just income) and reparations and land return where harm has occurred. And a lot of this is already happening in pieces.
AA: You lost me at utopia. I don’t see the use of striving for utopian. It’s too abstract. Secondly, you say a lot of this is happening, it’s clearly not working. Too many people are suffering and dying at the hands of the current 'order' of things. I’m not saying we need to rush, I don’t think it’s possible. But I’m extremely extremely unhappy with the current state of things, even the ‘progress’ that is happening. I just don’t think it’s enough, considering the cost that we are up against. Too many people are dying.
LM: In a sense, yes. I see what you’re saying. But also no, this isn't about chasing some clean, idealistic utopia. It's about interrupting a system that is actively killing people, and asking: what kind of world would be less brutal than this?
AA: So you’re the one asking questions now? *laughs*
I mean I can answer that question but I want you to. Most people don’t like my answer *laughs*
LM: *laughs* Well yeah, to be honest it’s quite simple: redistribution. And I’m not just referring to wealth - but access to land, decision-making, media, education.
AA: Okay be clear, redistribute to who?
LM: Marginalised people. People historically denied power - because of class, race, gender, geography, disability, or colonial status - should have real authority over decisions that impact their lives.
AA: So it’s as simple as that? What if some of these communities have been altered by the conditions of empire and they're no longer fit to make decisions?
LM: I mean yeah, living under domination, for generations, alters mindsets; cultures; and relationships to power. People can internalise inferiority. Communities may be fractured by poverty, trauma, or survival politics. Leadership structures may mimic the oppressor’s model - hierarchical, corrupt, extractive. It’s a fair argument, cause empire doesn’t just extract resources - it reshapes people.
AA: I really don’t think people think about this. And the mechanisms to attempt to move forward today simply aren’t realistic. Which is also why I’m not a reformist. Cause to me, when you say ‘redistribute power to marginalised people’ I think of Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel, Margaret Thatcher. All women, one Black, one South Asian. All oppressive and reactionary in their politics. All of whom have had significant impacts on, to varying degrees, the tolerance for ethnic minorities in the UK and care very little for the working class. I don’t like identity politics as much as I don’t like reformation. I just think people need to be specific, but also real with themselves when looking ahead to the future.
LM: I hear everything you’re saying. The bottom line is we need to decentralise power. We need to prioritise needs over profit, implementation of regenerative and sustainable cultures, and introduce more adaptive systems that are built to evolve.
AA: I was actually having a conversation today about whether sectarian laws can or should exist in a secular nation. My short answer is I don’t think it’s possible. Hence why we see so much disparity in our current judicial system, which ultimately boils down to ethics when you think about it. Recent policies in the UK taking away transgender rights, passing policies for euthanasia etc. Anyway, long story short, I do believe that laws and ruling systems must be more adaptive. British common law has loosely been informed by Sharia Law (a full legal and ethical framework rooted in divine command), along with ruling systems from Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Britain is now secular, in what world does it make sense for us to have a law system rooted in divine command? So much has changed in terms of people and dynamics, and so little has changed in terms of structures. And we wonder why there’s so many issues. It’s why I keep coming back to this quote of which is my favourite:
“To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born, is to remain always a child” (Cicero (106 B.C. -43 B.C.)
LM: It’s a great quote.