Political systems are not the only forces that shape civilizations. Beneath the surface lies a deeper consideration: where reason is located, who is entrusted with thinking, and how execution is distributed across elites, institutions, and ordinary people.

Some civilizations centralize reason within a technocratic class.

Some develop it among the broader populace.

Some abandon it in favour of tradition.

And some permit reason only within individuals, never within the collective body.

This essay examines four societies — United State, China, Japan and Sweden — through this lens, revealing how their civilizational designs differ and what trajectories these differences imply for their future.

United States

The United States is a society where reason exists mainly within individuals — particularly within the capitalist class — but rarely coheres into any sort of collective wisdom.

It is a civilization built to maximize individual autonomy, often at the expense of social cohesion. This philosophy shapes the physical and cultural landscape, for example:

• Car-centrism: The car is a reflection of American’s desire for sovereignty and symbolizes individual achievement and reliance. It isolates the individual against “others” whilst degrading cities and polluting others in the process.
• Suspicion of public infrastructure: In America, public transport is seen as a sign of poverty or “socialism.” Collective systems, instead of being perceived as socially useful tools, are viewed with suspicion and as constraints on personal freedom.
• Politics as spectacle: American media profits from engineered division and polarity, converting politics (which is supposed to be boring) into entertainment. The result is each individual having absolute certainty in the perceived “rationality” of their own dogmatic, regurgitated political views, whilst dismissing the possibility of any rationality in the views of the “other side” whatsoever.

In America, the clearest example of individual rationality manifesting as purely self-serving can be seen in the capitalist class. In American-style capitalism, profitability is equated with efficiency, and efficiency with virtue. Yet what is rational for Monsanto, Coca-Cola, or Purdue Pharma often becomes irrational — even catastrophic — for the public. In these cases:

• Harm is externalized
• Addiction is engineered
• Regulators are captured
• Public health is sacrificed

The result is a society where reason is atomized. Individuals are “rational” in the pursuit of self-interest, but collectively irrational. Civic trust collapses. People become slaves to what they consume, perpetuating the feedback loop of further self-interest, often unaware they have been captured by it.

The problem here is that the market has replaced good governance. America is one of the only places where what is profitable is considered to be of the highest good for society. Morality is measured in terms of profits, GDP and extraction, not in terms of the general good of the population. The market becomes a moral compass, not because it is inherently moral, but because no alternative collective framework exists.

American-style capitalism thus becomes zero-sum: the gain of the capitalist often coincides with the degradation of the consumer. The “win” of the Trump supporter comes at the expense of the “woke” liberals. The newly elected Democratic president is gloated in the face of the Republicans.

This sheer lack of collective unity is what leads to ceaseless in-fighting where one side declares they’ve “won”, whilst the other side bemoans their “loss”. A society like this deludes itself into believing its own “progress” whilst slowly realizing its own downfall.

China

China diverges from the United States in its civilizational structure. Here, reason is centralized at the top, and execution is delegated downward.

Individuals are not encouraged to think independently, but defer and follow orders of authority figures. Authority — whether the state, parents, or superiors — is treated as the legitimate locus of reason. The populace becomes collectivist, obedient, and mimetic; the elite becomes technocratic, strategic, and long-term oriented.

This two-tier hierarchy predates the CCP. It is rooted in Confucian thought, which sees individuals not as autonomous units but as nodes within a larger organism — playing their role to serve the whole. Chinese culture thus prizes humility and duty to the collective over personal assertion.

However, this structure has a double edge. When internalized correctly, it produces stability and cohesion. When distorted, it produces individuals who doubt their own capacity for thought and turn instead to imitation. This is why modern Chinese society, due to its highly collectivist nature, can exhibit spectacular episodes of crowd-driven excess: the 2015 stock bubble, the 2021 property boom-and-crash and the recent Labubu mania etc.

But China’s saving grace is its rational elite. When excesses emerge, they intervene. When industries stagnate, they engineer innovation from the top down. The state acts as the centralized “mind” of civilization, correcting the irrationalities of the populace.

This makes China fast, pragmatic, and adaptive — but also fragile. Its fate depends on the competence of those at the top. When elites falter, crisis ensues. Yet historically, China has endured because, at the macro level, it embodies the yin–yang dynamic: irrationality may persist in the minds of individuals, but this is balanced out by a rational elite, rendering China as a whole relatively well balanced in terms of rationality.

So unlike America, China is collectivist first, with reason instilled at the top. My projection is that China will become the future global hegemon. However, whether the dynasty of the CCP will last is yet to be seen. All civilizations rise and fall, but it’s clear China is still in its ascent, whilst the USA is on a clear trend down.

Japan

Japan shares China’s hierarchy and collectivism but differs crucially in its orientation toward tradition. Whilst China does away with tradition when tradition gets in the way of progress, the Japanese preserve tradition by any means necessary.

They prioritize continuity over reinvention, stability over disruption. This cultural philosophy produces beautiful, orderly and harmonious but brittle systems highly susceptible to failure.

After World War II, Japan dominated the world of electronics and manufacturing through its assortment of world-class companies like Sony, Panasonic, Toyota, Honda etc.

But then the world shifted toward software, AI, biotech, green energy — and that’s where Japan failed to pivot.

The reason is the lack of risk-taking within Japanese companies. Taking risks was seen as recklessness, and creative destruction was viewed as a loss of dignity. Innovation was stifled under the weight of tradition.

The principle of Kaizen — continuous improvement — is useful only if the industry in question is still relevant. But in a dynamic, fast-changing world, the ability to pivot becomes as important as perfecting a craft.

Japan failed to see that many of the products they refined were headed straight for the history books.

China’s legacy firms, by contrast, reinvented themselves despite their roots, embracing AI, robotics, green tech, and more.

Japan thus mirrors China structurally yet diverges in outcome. It embodies:

• Strict hierarchy without pragmatism
• Collectivism without adaptability
• Polite execution without intellectual challenge

The result is stagnation wrapped in efficiency — a civilization that functions smoothly but moves nowhere.

Tourists often note that Japan today looks eerily similar to Japan 20 or 30 years ago.

They still use cash, whilst the world has moved toward cashless payments.

J-pop and Japanese aesthetics have remained stagnant for decades, whilst K-pop and global pop reinvent themselves constantly.

Japanese GDP has not grown in 30 years, marked by an aging society, unwillingness to embrace migration, and lack of a viable plan to mitigate the resulting decline.

Of course, there is beauty in things which don’t change. Not all stasis is catastrophic. But economically, it’s clear the sun is slowly setting on what was once the land of the rising sun.

Sweden

Compared to the prior three countries, Sweden manages to achieve a rare balance between individualism and collectivism.

Swedes are capable of independent thought, creativity, and self-expression, yet they are also deeply attuned to the needs of the collective. For example:

• They can live alternative lifestyles without resorting to trashing public spaces.
• They believe in a strong welfare state without allowing it to be exploited.
• They are innovative and entrepreneurial without resorting to exploitation or the excesses of American capitalism.

This is because Sweden internalizes reason within the individual while simultaneously cultivating a sense of collective responsibility. The result is a society that requires neither rigid hierarchy (Japan) nor a commanding technocratic state (China).

Swedish education emphasises critical thinking, not rote memorization. Civic trust is high. Public infrastructure works because individuals consider the experience of their fellow Swedes, not merely their own.

Sweden is also highly egalitarian. Authority exists, but it’s thin. CEOs eat lunch at the same table as janitors. The prime minister behaves as a fellow citizen, not a semi-divine ruler.

This balance creates the stable essential foundations — free world-class education, clean cities, efficient transport, affordable housing — that allow Swedes to focus on creation rather than survival.

As a result, Sweden punches far above its weight: IKEA, H&M, Spotify, Mojang, Klarna, Acne Studios, Evolution, DICE, King, Fjällräven, and countless cultural outputs from Avicii to ABBA.

Where Sweden struggles is excess democracy. Too many voices can create gridlock. This was evident in the delayed response to issues arising from overly liberal migration policies.

But the same critical-thinking populace that created the problem can also fix it. Swedes demand change when needed, and politicians — acting from duty rather than ego — adjust course with minimal spectacle.

In my view, Sweden has achieved a near-perfect zen: socialism with capitalism, progress with tradition, individuality with collective duty.

Internally, Sweden has a wide talent pool capable of reinventing society for the better.

Internationally, it will continue producing world-class talent. But its best chances lie in niche sectors not dominated by global hegemons like China or the USA.

It simply lacks the resources to compete in geopolitically contested sectors like EV batteries or advanced hardware — as the failure of Northvolt demonstrates.

Where Sweden excels is in gaming, design, entertainment, and software — domains where creativity and taste matter more than mere capital.

Sweden may never be an economic superpower, but if it stays within its natural niches, it will continue to exert a quiet yet disproportionate cultural influence on the world.

Comparing the Four Civilizations

China

China is defined by strong hierarchy and a decoupling of rational thought from execution. A competent and rational leadership balances a mimetic and collectivist populace. The result is a civilization capable of driving progress, pivoting quickly, and innovating enough to maintain a leading global position.

Japan

Japan has strong hierarchy but irrational, tradition-bound elites. The populace may possess reason, but cannot express it. The result is a brittle civilization likely to decline gradually as people follow superiors into obscurity.

United States

In America, the individual is sovereign. Reason exists, but manifests as self-serving hyper-competition. Unity dissolves, progress stagnates, and culture wars replace substantive goals.

Sweden

Sweden balances rational individuality with collective unity. High trust reduces the need for authoritarian enforcement. People self-correct based on what is right.

Conclusion

Civilizations differ widely in where they place reason.

Sweden embeds it within each person.

China concentrates it at the top.

Japan suppresses it under tradition.

The United States disperses it across individuals with no collective unity to make anything meaningful of it.

Sweden is the closest real-world example of a non-dual civilization — where thinking and doing, freedom and responsibility, individuality and collectivity coexist within the same person.

China is irrational at the individual level but rational at the collective level, sustained by competent elites.

The USA instills reason in individuals but lacks the civic trust to unify it toward common purpose.

Japan has structure and obedience but no pragmatic core.

Ultimately, a civilization must balance the individual with the collective.

Hierarchy must be righteous rather than egoic.

Individuality must be expressed rather than suppressed.

Civic duty must be upheld rather than rejected.

Suppress individuality and society becomes rigid.

Suppress the collective and it fragments into conflict.

Both extremes lead to dysfunction. The ideal, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.