Throughout the 20th century, global conflicts were explained through ideologies. Democracy versus fascism. Capitalism versus communism. The free world versus totalitarianism. This framework seemed obvious — each side had its own idea, its own doctrine, its own leader who embodied it.
But if you look not at ideology, which changed across different periods of history, but at the real mechanics of governance — the picture changes completely.
The Basic Law of Political Economy shows a simple thing:
Personality → Behavior → Choice → Demand → Money
When viewed through this chain, one key point becomes clear — every system ultimately seeks to shape behavior.
This is where the real line of division lies — the point from which conflicts, tensions, and wars emerge.
It did not run between ideas. It ran between systems. Between those where the environment shapes behavior independently of any individual, and those where an individual shapes the environment around themselves.
This distinction explains more than any ideology. And it remains just as relevant today as it was a hundred years ago.
The First World War — it was not a war of ideologies, but a clash of systems that shaped human behavior in different ways
The First World War is usually explained through nationalism, imperialism, and a system of alliances. That is simpler — there are causes, countries, and a chain of events.
But if we look deeper, a different picture emerges. It was not a conflict of ideas, but of ways of governing people.
On one side were Great Britain and France (the Third Republic). These were parliamentary systems where rules and institutions limited the power of any single individual. No leader could fully subordinate the system to themselves. Human behavior was shaped through laws, procedures, and a stable environment.
On the other side were the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. These were centralized systems where key decisions depended on the monarch or a narrow circle of power. There, it was the individual who set the direction — the entire system and people’s actions depended on that person.
It is important to understand: they were not fighting because of opposing ideologies. This was not a struggle of “freedom versus oppression” in the way it is often presented.
It was a clash of two different principles of governance — governing the state versus governing through the individual.
- In one case, people’s behavior was shaped by a system of rules that existed independently of any specific leader.
- In the other case, people’s behavior was determined by the will of a specific individual who could change the rules to suit themselves.
This difference became the foundation of the conflict.
As a result, Great Britain, France, and their allies prevailed — that is, the systems where rules and institutions proved stronger than the power of a single individual.
The Second World War — the same line of division
The Second World War is usually described as a struggle between democracy and fascism. This is a familiar explanation, but it does not show how things were actually structured.
If we look at the real configuration, the picture becomes different.
At the beginning of the war, the USSR acted together with Germany and took part in the division and occupation of independent states in Eastern Europe. This is important because it shows that the issue was not ideology.
Both the USSR and Nazi Germany were centralized systems with power concentrated in the hands of a single individual. Both Stalin and Hitler followed the same systemic logic — the individual shapes the environment, and the environment suppresses any behavior that does not align with the will of the center.
After Germany’s attack, the USSR found itself in a vulnerable position, sought support, and joined Great Britain, the United States, and their allies.
The conflict between Germany and the USSR did not arise from ideological differences. The reason was systemic: two centralized models cannot exist within the same space, because each seeks full control over the environment.
Here again, the same division between systems became visible.
- On one side — systems where behavior is shaped through the individual and centralized power.
- On the other — systems where behavior is shaped through rules and a stable environment, independent of any single person.
In the end, Great Britain, the United States, and their allies prevailed — not because of ideas, but because their systems proved more resilient. The environment continued to function even as individual leaders changed.
The Cold War — Not Capitalism vs Communism
The Cold War is usually described as a confrontation between capitalism and communism. Free market versus planned economy. Individualism versus collectivism. This is a familiar framework, but it does not explain how the system actually worked.
If we look deeper, a different picture emerges. It was not a clash of ideas, but a clash of systems of governance.
On one side were the United States, Western Europe, Canada, and Australia. These were parliamentary systems (in the United States — a presidential republic with separation of powers) where institutions created a predictable environment independent of any single leader. Presidents and prime ministers changed, but the system itself continued to function.
On the other side were the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea. These were centralized systems where the personality of the leader determined the direction of the entire system. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim — society’s behavior was shaped through the will of the center.
Ideology was only an outer layer. Behind it stood the real model of governance, where the decisive factor was who shapes behavior — the system or the individual.
That is why, when the USSR began to collapse, the system fell apart quickly. Occupied countries restored their independence, and the centralized model of governance itself began to break down along with the loss of control over the environment.
At the same time, the Baltic states did not emerge as new entities — they restored their statehood that had existed before the occupation and quickly began integrating into the global community, as their institutional foundations were re-established.
At the same time, 12 new states emerged from the collapse of the USSR, and they began building their systems from scratch, in conditions where a stable institutional environment did not yet exist.
And here the same fundamental division appeared again.
Where power remained concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a narrow circle, countries continued along the same centralized model and remained within Moscow’s sphere of influence.
Where institutions and rules began to form independently of any single individual, or where the powers of authority were reduced, countries gradually moved away from this logic and changed the direction of their development.
Today — the same dividing line, just without ideology
Today, the ideological façade has almost disappeared. No one openly promotes fascism or communism as a global model anymore. But the dividing line between systems has not gone anywhere.
If you look at it through the system itself, one thing becomes clear: the world is still divided not by ideas, but by how behavior is controlled.
On one side are the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Japan, and South Korea. These are systems where the environment shapes behavior independently of the leader’s personality. Politicians change, but the rules remain. That is why these countries move closer to each other — not because of ideology, but because their system logic is the same.
On the other side are Russia, China, North Korea, as well as a number of countries in the Middle East and Africa. These are centralized systems where the personality shapes the environment. Here, behavior is set from the top, and stability depends on the center. These countries also move closer — not through ideas, but because they are structured in the same way.
And this is where the edge cases matter most — they clearly show how the rule works.
France is a presidential republic with a strong role of the leader. But it exists within the EU environment, which limits sharp and unpredictable decisions. This environment keeps the system stable.
Poland is a similar case. Attempts to strengthen power and shift the system toward personality immediately run into constraints from the EU environment. The system does not allow a full move toward a centralized model.
Turkey is the opposite example. A country with a parliamentary tradition, under the influence of a strong leader, began moving toward a centralized model. The result is less stability and stalled integration into the European environment.
The United States is a separate and complex case. The system was built on institutions and separation of powers. But today it is increasingly visible that personality is starting to shape the environment more than the environment limits personality. This is a movement toward centralized logic, and the system is already showing signs of tension.
In the end, the picture remains the same. The dividing line has not disappeared. It is the same as it was a hundred years ago.
You can understand it through a simple chain:
Personality → Behavior → Choice → Demand → Money
Every system begins with a person. But then the key question arises — what actually controls behavior?
In some countries, this is done by rules. Laws, institutions, and procedures work independently of who is in power. The president changes, but the system continues to function. People understand what to expect tomorrow.
In other countries, behavior is set by a specific person or a narrow group at the top. They define the rules and can change them to suit themselves. The stability of the system depends on them — and only on them.
That is why countries are not divided by ideology or by what politicians say.
The real division is simple — who and how shapes people’s behavior.
- Where the system does it, predictability appears.
- Where personality does it, dependence appears — and over time, instability.
Through this same principle, it becomes clear why some countries move closer to each other while others fall into conflict.
And it also makes it possible to see the most important thing — the direction in which each system is moving.
The division is not about ideology.
The division is about who shapes behavior — the system or the personality.
Iv.Spolan
Author of the model “Basic Law of Political Economy”
