Lately, I’ve found myself staring at the headlines and wondering: Are the United States and the United Kingdom losing their grip on capitalism—or is something deeper going on? 

Tariffs fly in the face of free trade. Migration is vilified despite chronic labour shortages. Brexit sacrificed economic logic for the promise of “sovereignty.” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are attacked as existential threats, while monopolies grow unchecked. The media screams culture war while wages stagnate and wealth concentrates. 

Is this easy to call this confusion? I am pondering. 

What I think we are witnessing isn’t chaos or ideological drift. It seems to me that this is the capitulation of liberal capitalism—not its collapse, but its strategic retreat from the very principles it once claimed to embody.

Capitalism’s Two Souls

I am not a student of pure economics but can still recall that capitalism has always carried two logics in uneasy coexistence: 

1. The economic logic: open markets, free movement of capital and labour, competition, rule-based predictability. 

2. The political logic: borders, national identity, social cohesion, and the need to keep voters feeling secure—even when the economy isn’t working for them. 

Looking at the ways, these leaders of capitalism have operated, for decades, these logics held together—thanks to strong growth, rising living standards, and the illusion (or partial reality) of shared prosperity. But as growth slowed, inequality widened, and wages flatlined, the political logic began to overpower the economic one. 

Not because leaders forgot how markets “work,” but because they realised: the version of capitalism that benefits everyone is no longer necessary for the version that benefits the powerful.

The Anglophone Experiment: A Tale of Two Nations

Two leaders of capitalism capitulating?

In the United States 

·                    Trumpian tariffs defy classical economics—but they protect politically connected industries. This isn’t anti-capitalism; it’s capitalism with state favouritism replacing market discipline. 

·                    Migration crackdowns hurt economic efficiency but soothe voter anxiety. Labour mobility is sacrificed to preserve political order—because it’s easier to blame “outsiders” than owners. 

·                    Backlash against DEI reflects a deeper crisis: when integration fails, markets lose moral legitimacy. People stop seeing opportunity and start seeing rigged systems. Capitalism responds not by expanding inclusion, but by retreating into identity politics—deflecting blame, not fixing structures. 

·                    Big business isn’t shrinking—it’s consolidating. Monopolies thrive in regulatory environments shaped by lobbying, data dominance, and scale. Profits soar, but prosperity doesn’t trickle down—it’s hoarded at the top. 

·                    Media polarisation isn’t anti-market; it’s anti-accountability. When public discourse is consumed by culture wars, few ask who really controls wealth, wages, or the means of production.

In the United Kingdom 

·                    Migration debates mask economic stagnation. The UK economy runs on migrant labour—especially in care, hospitality, and agriculture—yet migration became the symbolic scapegoat for austerity’s failures. 

·                    Brexit was the ultimate triumph of political sovereignty over economic rationality. Free trade was abandoned not because it failed, but because it felt like surrender. Capital adapted instantly—relocating operations, rerouting flows—while workers bore the costs. 

·                    A hyper-concentrated media landscape (think Murdoch, right-wing tabloids, amplified outrage) didn’t just shape opinion—it shielded economic elites by channelling public anger toward cultural enemies, not ownership structures.

So—Are They “Confused” About Capitalism?

I think “No.” I posit that they’re making a choice. 

The confusion isn’t among policymakers or capital holders. It’s among the public—still taught a fairy-tale version of capitalism where hard work leads to success, markets are fair, and globalisation lifts all boats. 

But that story no longer holds. And rather than reform the system to make it more inclusive or equitable, elites are reshaping capitalism to protect themselves from democratic demands. 

The I view that what’s emerging isn’t socialism. (The panic over that word in UK political discourse reveals more about elite fear than popular desire.) 

I think that it isn’t even anti-capitalism. 

Could this be described as authoritarian capitalism? With characteristic like these 

·        Markets for capital, barriers for people 

·        Competition for the small, protection for the big 

·        Global finance, nationalist rhetoric 

·        Democratic language, oligarchic outcomes

One can call it nationalist capitalism. Oligarchic capitalism. Or simply capitalism without conscience.

The Real Capitulation

I note that the word capitulation usually means surrender in defeat. But here, it looks like it’s surrender to preserve power. 

Liberal capitalism—rooted in openness, pluralism, and shared growth—is being abandoned not because it failed economically, but because it became politically inconvenient for those at the top. 

When returns narrow and inequality widens, universalist ideals like free movement, meritocracy, and international cooperation become liabilities. So, they’re discarded. Not to destroy capitalism—but to save its core engine: concentrated wealth and unaccountable power.

What’s Left?

Well, I think this isn’t the end of capitalism. It’s the end of the story that was told about it. 

And that’s the real crisis. Not that markets are failing—but that democracy is being hollowed out to keep them running for fewer and fewer people. 

Therefore, it looks as though the US and UK aren’t confused. They’ve chosen which version of capitalism survives. 

The question now is whether the rest of us will keep pretending—or start demanding a system that serves more than just capital.

Published on Sunday, December 14, 2025.