Peter Atkinson …. for deep thinking


Limits of Expansion: what Western Civilization can Learn from its Past

Peter Atkinson 25th April, 2025

If we want to know what will happen in the future, there is no better guide than what has happened in the past. This is not to say that any particular outcome is inevitable but only that, if you aren’t prepared to learn from the past, and especially the mistakes made in the past, history is, by and large, doomed to repeat itself. Both Why Empires Fall by Heather and Rapley (2023) and David Harvey’s The Enigma of Capital (2010) see history as a process of change, of flows of people, goods and money, and that attempts to prevent change will inevitably fail.

There are notable thematic convergences between these books, particularly in their analyses of systemic vulnerabilities, economic overextension, and the dynamics of crisis in imperial and capitalist systems. Although their methodological frameworks diverge – Heather and Rapley adopt a historical-comparative approach while Harvey draws from Marxist political economy – both works suggest that unsustainable growth, structural inequality, and institutional inertia play decisive roles in the unravelling of dominant powers.

A central point of alignment between the two texts is the emphasis on the imperative of continuous expansion. Harvey (2010) argues that capitalism relies on perpetual growth to avert crisis, often resorting to “accumulation by dispossession” – a process that fuels financialization, speculative bubbles, and geopolitical overreach. Heather and Rapley (2023) draw a historical parallel in their analysis of imperial systems, contending that empires such as Rome and, by extension, the United States, become overextended militarily and economically, placing increasing strain on state resources and administrative capacity. This dynamic, they argue, renders empires vulnerable to both internal collapse and external shocks.

Both works also identify inequality as a major destabilising force. Harvey (2010) highlights how wealth concentration undermines aggregate demand and fosters systemic instability, often leading to social unrest and economic fragility. Similarly, Heather and Rapley (2023) describe how Roman elites, through hoarding wealth and evading taxes, contributed to a breakdown in state cohesion and administrative effectiveness – phenomena echoed in the widening disparities of modern capitalist societies.

The issue of governance and institutional adaptability features prominently in both texts. Harvey (2010) critiques capitalist states for relying on short-term policy measures – such as bailouts and austerity – that fail to address, and often exacerbate, deeper structural contradictions. Heather and Rapley (2023) trace how Rome’s bureaucratic rigidity and failure to implement reform weakened its capacity to respond to evolving geopolitical and economic pressures. Both analyses underscore the risks posed by institutional stagnation in the face of dynamic challenges.

While Harvey focuses on capitalism’s internal contradictions – such as declining profitability, overproduction, and labour exploitation – Heather and Rapley place greater emphasis on external shocks, including barbarian invasions and the emergence of rival powers like China. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that such shocks are often magnified by internal fragilities, including economic stagnation and elite fragmentation, suggesting a convergence in explanatory frameworks.

A final area of overlap lies in the role of finance and debt. Harvey (2010) views financialization as a temporary “fix” for capitalism’s recurring crises, noting that it often obscures more fundamental economic problems, as exemplified by the 2008 global financial crisis. Heather and Rapley (2023) offer a historical analogue in Rome’s growing reliance on debased currency and burdensome taxation, which they argue eroded the fiscal integrity of the state and contributed to its decline.

Despite these convergences, the authors differ in theoretical orientation. Harvey offers an explicitly Marxist critique, situating capitalist crisis within a framework of class struggle and systemic contradiction. Heather and Rapley, by contrast, adopt a historical-empirical approach that emphasises geopolitical rivalry and institutional decay without asserting a deterministic model of collapse.

In synthesis, both works converge on a critical insight: systems – whether imperial or capitalist – enter decline when their modes of accumulation become extractive rather than generative. Harvey’s (2010) notion of “spatial fixes,” in which capitalism seeks new territories for capital deployment, mirrors Heather and Rapley’s (2023) account of imperial overreach. Both suggest that unchecked expansion, unaddressed inequality, and institutional rigidity not only weaken a system’s resilience but actively hasten its collapse. Whether examining the fall of Rome or the fragilities of modern capitalism, the underlying message is consistent: without structural reform and adaptive governance, dominance becomes self-undermining.

References

Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. Oxford University Press.

Heather, P., and Rapley, J. (2023). Why empires fall: Rome, America and the future of the West. Penguin Books.

Reference for this article

Atkinson, P. (2025) Limits of expansion: what Western civilization can learn from its past. Available at: https://atkintekblog.com/limits-of-expansion-western-civilization/ (Accessed: [insert date]).