Category Archives: Politics

Iran’s Bazaar Revolt Points to a Moment of Acute Regime Vulnerability

Iran is entering a period of heightened political risk as economic collapse, environmental stress, and elite defection converge in ways not seen for decades. The latest wave of unrest, which began on December 28 in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, has spread across more than 100 cities, evolving from local economic protest into a broader challenge to the Islamic Republic’s authority.

While demonstrations are not new in Iran, the participation of the bazaar merchant class marks a potentially decisive shift. In Iran’s modern political history, the withdrawal of support by the bazaaris has tended to occur at moments of acute regime vulnerability and has coincided with major political realignments — most notably in 1978–79.

The Bazaar as a Political Barometer

The Grand Bazaar is the backbone of Iran’s domestic economy. Its dense networks of traders, wholesalers and importers connect supply chains, liquidity and social influence across the country. Historically, bazaar merchants have not functioned as a permanent opposition force. Instead, they have acted as pragmatic political actors, aligning themselves with whichever system appeared capable of guaranteeing stability, access and predictability.

In 1979, they withdrew support from the Shah and aligned with the clerical opposition. For more than four decades thereafter, they formed part of the Islamic Republic’s core economic coalition.

That coalition now appears to be fracturing.

When bazaar merchants close their shops, the impact goes far beyond symbolism. Commercial shutdowns disrupt distribution networks, freeze working capital and send a powerful signal that confidence in the state’s economic management has eroded. In Iran’s political system, such signals matter — not because they immediately bring down governments, but because they indicate that the regime’s traditional mechanisms of consent are weakening.

Economic Breakdown as the Catalyst

The immediate driver of unrest is economic collapse.

Over the past year:

  • The Iranian currency has lost approximately 60 per cent of its value
  • Food prices have risen by around 72 per cent
  • Medicine costs have increased by roughly 50 per cent
  • Inflation is estimated to be near 50 per cent

For many households, life savings have been effectively erased. For merchants dependent on imports, business has become unviable. The government’s decision to abolish subsidised exchange rates, combined with higher taxes, has sharply increased costs while currency volatility has made price-setting nearly impossible.

Compounding the crisis is a breakdown in basic infrastructure. Water reservoirs in several regions are reportedly at critically low levels, electricity supply is unreliable, and public services are deteriorating. The state is increasingly unable to provide core public goods: water, power, food security or employment.

In practical terms, the implicit social contract between state and society has collapsed.

From Economic Stress to Political Exposure

The scale and composition of the protests suggest that this is no longer a narrow economic dispute. Demonstrations now include merchants, workers and middle-class families, while confrontations with security forces have intensified. Dozens have reportedly been killed in clashes with the Revolutionary Guard.

The government’s response has oscillated between repression and improvised economic concessions. One widely reported offer — a small monthly payment to encourage protesters to disperse — was interpreted less as relief than as an admission of fiscal exhaustion.

Externally, the regime also faces heightened geopolitical pressure. Former US president Donald Trump has publicly warned of retaliation should violence against protesters continue. While such statements should be interpreted cautiously, Tehran remains acutely aware of Washington’s capacity to escalate economic and strategic pressure.

Political Realignment and the Search for Alternatives

As confidence in the Islamic Republic erodes, political symbols long considered marginal are resurfacing. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last Shah, has declared that the current system is approaching the end of the road and has called 2026 “the year of change”.

There is no clear evidence that monarchist forces are directing the protests. But the re-emergence of such figures reflects a deeper vacuum: a growing search for legitimacy outside the clerical system itself. In moments of systemic stress, Iranian politics has historically gravitated toward realignment rather than reform.

Even within elite circles, unease is evident. Persistent reports of contingency planning by senior figures underscore the perception that the current unrest represents more than a temporary disturbance.

A Regime Under Structural Pressure

The Islamic Republic retains formidable coercive capacity, and regime change is far from inevitable. But the convergence of economic collapse, environmental stress and elite defection suggests that Iran has entered a phase of structural instability.

The withdrawal of bazaar support does not in itself determine political outcomes. Historically, however, it has signalled moments when existing power arrangements were no longer sustainable.

Iran may now be approaching such a moment.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The Western Alliance and the Risk of Civilizational Erosion

In recent remarks, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio addressed what the White House and the State Department have described as “civilizational erase”—a term used to express concern about long-term pressures facing the Western alliance. The argument is not primarily about military strength or immediate security threats, but about the cultural and civilizational foundations that bind the United States and Europe together.

According to Rubio, the West is more than a network of states linked by defense treaties such as NATO. It is a civilization shaped by a shared history, a shared legacy, shared values, and shared priorities. These include commitments to individual liberty, human rights, democratic self-governance, and the rule of law. If these common foundations are weakened or dismissed, the alliance risks being reduced to a purely technical defense arrangement—functional, but fragile.

Rubio emphasizes that the American political system did not emerge in isolation. Many of its core ideas were inherited from Europe and from Western civilization more broadly. Concepts such as liberty, the value of the individual, and self-governance trace their origins to classical antiquity. Greek reflections on democracy and citizenship, combined with Roman legal and political thought, formed the intellectual groundwork for later European institutions and, ultimately, the founding principles of the United States.

Roman ideas such as libertas—the understanding that citizens possess rights protected by law—along with notions of civic duty, constitutional order, and legal equality, were central to this inheritance. These ideas were refined over centuries and carried forward into modern Western political culture. In this sense, freedom and liberty are not merely contemporary political slogans, but the result of a long civilizational development stretching back to Greece and Rome.

The concern Rubio raises is that if this shared cultural and historical understanding is eroded or denied, the transatlantic relationship could weaken over time. Discussions within NATO, he notes, increasingly extend beyond military coordination to broader questions of societal cohesion, mass migration, and cultural continuity. Some leaders address these issues openly, while others acknowledge them more privately. Either way, Rubio argues they represent a factor that cannot be ignored if the alliance is to remain durable.

From this perspective, the idea of “civilizational erase” is not about exclusion, but about memory. It is about whether the West continues to recognize the principles that gave rise to its institutions in the first place. Rubio contends that the United States—explicitly founded on Western principles such as liberty, individual rights, and self-governance—should be unapologetic in acknowledging and defending this shared inheritance.

If that inheritance is reduced to something secondary or optional, the alliance risks losing its deeper rationale. What would remain, Rubio suggests, is a defense agreement without a civilizational core. In the long run, that would place the ties between the United States and Europe under strain, not because of external enemies alone, but because of an internal loss of shared meaning.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Will AI Destroy Capitalism? What Marx Predicted, and Why It Feels Relevant Today

Artificial intelligence is advancing so fast that some economists, technologists, and futurists believe we are heading toward a historic breaking point. Predictions range from 300 million jobs being automated to AI systems replacing everything from lawyers and teachers to software developers and journalists.

This raises a fundamental question:

If AI takes over most labor, where will people get money from, and can capitalism survive?

Interestingly, this debate echoes ideas written more than 150 years ago by Karl Marx, who warned that capitalism might ultimately be undermined by its own technological progress. Today, his predictions are being pulled back into the spotlight.

This article breaks down what Marx said, what AI is doing, and what the future of labor, and money, might look like.

1. What Marx Actually Predicted

Karl Marx believed capitalism had a built-in conflict:
the drive to replace human workers with machines.

He argued two key points:

A) The “Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall”

Marx said that profit comes from human labor.
But capitalists constantly try to replace human labor with machines because machines:

  • don’t get tired
  • don’t strike
  • don’t demand wages or rights

The more companies automate, the fewer workers they need.

But the paradox is:

If you replace too many workers, you remove the source of profit — human labor.

This, Marx believed, would eventually destabilize capitalism from within.

B) Automation makes workers “superfluous”

Marx predicted a future where technology becomes so advanced that:

  • masses of workers become unnecessary
  • unemployment grows
  • inequality rises
  • social tensions explode

For most of history, this sounded theoretical.
Today, with AI able to perform cognitive work, Marx suddenly feels more contemporary than ever.

2. The AI Shock: Why This Time Is Different

In the past, automation replaced muscle:

  • factory robots
  • tractors
  • machinery

Those technologies eliminated many physical jobs but created others.

AI replaces the brain:

  • analysts
  • accountants
  • teachers
  • programmers
  • designers
  • writers
  • marketers
  • customer support
  • even medical diagnosis

White-collar workers, once considered “safe”, are now at risk.

Reports from groups like Goldman Sachs estimate that 300–800 million jobs worldwide could be automated in the coming years.

For capitalism, this is enormous.
Capitalism is built on two pillars:

  1. Labor → creates value
  2. Wages → let people buy things

If AI replaces too much labor, wages disappear, and the system loses its customers.

This is what worries economists.

3. The Core Economic Problem: No Jobs = No Money = No Capitalism

Here’s the simple logic:

  • Companies automate work → fewer workers
  • Fewer workers → less income
  • Less income → less spending
  • Less spending → companies lose customers
  • Companies lose customers → profits fall
  • Profits fall → economic system breaks

Capitalism needs consumers.
Consumers need wages.
Wages come from labor.
Labor is disappearing.

This is the exact contradiction Marx warned about.

4. What Happens to Society if AI Wipes Out Jobs?

Three major scenarios are being discussed in global economic circles:

A) Capitalism survives but transforms

Governments introduce:

  • Universal Basic Income (UBI)
  • AI and robot taxes
  • redistribution policies
  • national “AI wealth funds”
  • profit-sharing models

This keeps consumers alive even without traditional jobs.

B) Extreme inequality + political instability

If nothing is done:

  • wealth concentrates into a few tech giants
  • middle class collapses
  • consumer markets shrink
  • social unrest rises
  • governments face pressure for reform or revolution

This is the scenario many analysts fear.

C) A transition to “post-capitalism”

This idea doesn’t mean communism. Instead, it means a system where:

  • machines produce most wealth
  • humans work less or not at all
  • value is redistributed through society
  • the wage-labor system becomes obsolete

Some predict a peaceful shift.
Others see a turbulent transition.

5. Will New Jobs Replace the Old Ones?

Historically, technological revolutions created more jobs than they destroyed.

But AI is different for three reasons:

  1. It automates thinking, not just physical effort
  2. New jobs may require skills most people don’t have
  3. AI learns faster than humans can retrain

For the first time, technology is competing with humans in creativity, reasoning, and decision-making.

This makes the future less predictable than any previous industrial revolution.

6. Will AI Destroy Capitalism?

There are three main schools of thought:

1) AI will reshape capitalism, not kill it

The system adapts by creating safety nets like UBI, or by shifting focus to new industries.

2) AI will create “hyper-capitalism”

A handful of mega-corporations control all the AI models and extract enormous profits, leading to an extreme concentration of power.

3) AI will push us beyond capitalism

If machines produce nearly all value, the traditional logic of:

work → wages → consumption

falls apart.

In that case, capitalism as we know it would need to evolve or be replaced.

7. The Short Answer

If AI eliminates hundreds of millions of jobs and nothing is done, capitalism collapses because consumers vanish.

If governments and companies adapt, we enter a new economic era. Perhaps capitalism 2.0.

Marx didn’t predict AI, but he did predict the danger of a system that depends on labor while simultaneously trying to eliminate it. That contradiction is now the central question of the coming decade.

In the end, nobody truly knows where this collision between AI, labor, and capitalism will lead. Some predict unprecedented prosperity, others foresee economic collapse, and many warn that the transition itself may be chaotic.

Even politicians in several countries have started telling people to “buckle up,” hinting that families should keep basic supplies like food and water on hand. Not because disaster is guaranteed, but because the pace of disruption is now faster than society’s ability to adapt.

One thing is sure: we are crossing a threshold into unknown territory, where the old rules may no longer apply. The question is not whether change is coming, but how prepared we are for the world on the other side.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Are Humans Still Fit to Govern Themselves?

The Case for AI and the Future of Governance

“For centuries, humans have tried to build fair systems, and failed repeatedly.”

The Human Struggle with Complexity

History shows that people have always struggled to manage complex systems. In ancient Rome, Caesar’s rise exposed deep divisions in society and the limits of human judgment. In 1848, France, King Louis Philippe I faced a population burdened by taxes and inequality, a system too rigid and tangled for leaders to reform.

Today, millions face similar struggles: cost-of-living crises, housing shortages, and economic instability. The pattern is clear; the system often overwhelms human capacity.

Partisanship, emotion, and limited attention make it nearly impossible for humans alone to optimize society’s resources fairly and efficiently.

“If history teaches us anything, it’s that no human institution, however well-intentioned, can keep up with the complexity of modern life.”

Enter AI: A New Kind of Leadership

Maybe the solution isn’t left, right, or even one-party systems. Maybe the solution is AI.

Thousands of human beings, with all their emotions, biases, and limited perspectives, can’t compete with a system that can analyze all available information simultaneously. Just look at chess or Go. AI doesn’t just play well; it plays beyond the limits of human imagination.

Take a simple real-world example: an elderly woman paying more for her apartment than she receives in pension. Who is to blame? No single person. It’s the system. This isn’t a moral failure; it’s mathematical.

AI doesn’t suffer from those human limits. It can process enormous amounts of data, detect patterns, optimize allocations, and predict problems before they occur.

“Maybe the next stage of democracy isn’t about choosing leaders. It’s about choosing the algorithms that lead us.”

A Vision of AI-Guided Society

Imagine a world where decisions about economics, healthcare, infrastructure, or the cost of living are guided by AI. No feelings, no personal interests, no corporate agendas, no short-term political games.

Decisions would be based purely on data, evidence, and long-term outcomes, optimizing for the well-being of everyone rather than the loudest voices or the wealthiest lobbyists.

Humans would still define the ethical framework. AI can calculate the best moves, but society must decide what “good” means: fairness, sustainability, equality, or prosperity.

“Compared to the endless bickering and short-term thinking of politics, AI could be the most rational and forward-looking leader humanity has ever known.”

Balancing Hope and Caution

AI governance isn’t without risks; bias in data, lack of transparency, and accountability must be addressed. But unlike human flaws, these can be debugged. Systems can be retrained, improved, and held to measurable standards of performance.

The question, then, is no longer about political parties or ideologies. The real question is:
Are we ready to let reason, not emotion, guide the future?

Author’s Note

As technology continues to evolve, the debate over AI in governance is no longer a matter of science fiction. It’s a question of readiness, trust, and design. Whether we like it or not, the age of algorithmic leadership is approaching. The choice before us isn’t if AI will play a role in decision-making, but how we’ll ensure it serves humanity, not replaces it.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The cost of living and the blame game

People are angry, and that’s why they voted for Mamdani as the next Mayor of New York.
People are sick and tired of struggling to make ends meet. In his victory speech, Mamdani said:

“We choose hope over tyranny. Hope over big money and small ideas. Hope over despair. Tonight, we have stepped out from the old into the new.”

His supporters are already marching in the streets, saying they don’t want Trump as a king or a dictator.

Hmm… I think I’ve heard this before.

More than two thousand years ago, in Rome, another man was accused of wanting to be king.
His name was Julius Caesar.

A group of Roman senators assassinated Caesar out of fear that his growing power and titles, especially dictator for life, would destroy the Roman Republic.
They claimed they were saving democracy, but their actions plunged Rome into chaos and civil war.

It was a betrayal that changed history, and a reminder of how fear, power, and instability often go hand in hand.

History Repeats Itself

Fast forward to France, 1848. The people were exhausted. Food prices were soaring, unemployment was rising, and inequality had reached unbearable levels.
King Louis Philippe I, once known as the Citizen King, had promised a fairer, more modern France. But over time, his government became detached from ordinary people’s struggles.

One of the main sources of anger was the tax system. The poor and working class bore a heavy burden through indirect taxes on essentials like food, salt, and fuel, while wealthy landowners and property owners paid relatively little. Voting rights were also tied to property ownership, meaning most citizens had no political voice. When food prices spiked in the late 1840s, ordinary people were paying high taxes on top of already expensive necessities. Economic frustration reached a tipping point.

People in New York voted for Mamdani, who wants to raise taxes and, at the same time, give people fast and free buses. How is that going to be?

When protests erupted in February 1848, the king tried to silence them. Instead, the anger exploded.
Barricades filled the streets of Paris, and after just a few bloody days, Louis Philippe abdicated the throne and fled to England in disguise.

The monarchy collapsed. The Second Republic was born.
But what came next? A new leader. Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of Napoleon I, rose to power, promising to restore stability and hope. Within four years, he declared himself Emperor.

Sound familiar?

It’s the same old story: people rise up against a system they believe is unjust, only to end up under a new one that looks strangely similar.
Each era has its slogans: “liberty,” “hope,” “change,” “the people’s revolution”, yet the same problems remain. Prices go up. Ordinary citizens struggle. The rich adapt and survive.

Take a look at France today with its Yellow Vest protesters. People are struggling with their cost of living. I wrote an article about that for the first time, many years ago. And who is to blame now? The King? Napoleon? No, it`s Macron.

So, Why Are Prices Rising Again?

The cost of living has become the defining issue of our time. Food, housing, and energy prices are rising faster than wages. Families feel squeezed, not just in New York or Paris, but across the Western world.

But who is to blame?

It’s tempting to point the finger at politicians, corporations, or billionaires. Yet the truth is more complex. The problem isn’t one person. It’s the system itself.

A mix of factors drives today’s inflation:

  • Global supply chain disruptions from the pandemic and wars.
  • Energy shocks as the world shifts away from fossil fuels.
  • Corporate pricing power in markets where competition has shrunk.
  • Decades of easy money and debt have inflated asset prices but left wages behind.

Governments print money to stimulate the economy, corporations raise prices to protect profits, and central banks hike interest rates to cool inflation, all while ordinary people pay the price.

It’s a cycle that keeps repeating, no matter the century. In ancient Rome, it was grain shortages. In 1848, in France, it was bread and taxes. Today, it’s rent and electricity.

The Real Lesson

Historically, when people struggle, they often look for someone to blame, such as a king, a tyrant, or a president. Get rid of Trump, and everything will be fine. Get rid of Macron, and the sun will shine. They think removing the person will fix the system. But as history shows us, that rarely works.

Trump isn’t the cause of America’s problems. He’s a symptom of them.
Just as Caesar wasn’t the reason Rome was collapsing, but rather the outcome of deep divisions and economic inequality that had built up for years.

When the cost of living becomes unbearable, people revolt. Sometimes at the ballot box, sometimes in the streets.

But unless we learn from history, each “revolution” just sets the stage for the next crisis.

In the end, it’s not about kings or dictators. It’s about systems.
And if we don’t fix the system, the anger, fear, and struggle will continue. Just as it has for more than 2,000 years.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics