4 ms·

Evgeny Morozov wrote a very interesting, but also quite long, critique of the "technofeudalism" concept from a Marxist perspective in the New Left Review back i

Evgeny Morozov wrote a very interesting, but also quite long, critique of the "technofeudalism" concept from a Marxist perspective in the New Left Review back in 2022: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii133/articles/evgeny-morozov-critique-of-techno-feudal-reason https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii133/articles/evgeny-moroz... > In the case of well-known figures like Varoufakis and Mazzucato, tantalizing their audiences with invocations of feudal glamour may provide a media-friendly way to recycle arguments they have made before. In Varoufakis’s case, techno-feudalism seems to be mostly about the perverse macroeconomic effects of quantitative easing. For Mazzucato, ‘digital feudalism’ refers to the unearned income generated by tech platforms. Neo-feudalism is often proposed as a way to bring conceptual clarity to the most advanced sectors of the digital economy, where the left’s brightest minds still find themselves very much in the dark. Are Google and Amazon capitalists? Are they rentiers, as Brett Christophers’s Rentier Capitalism suggests? What about Uber? Is it just an intermediary, a rent-taking platform that has inserted itself between drivers and passengers? Or is it producing and selling a transportation service? These questions are not without consequences for how we think about contemporary capitalism itself, heavily dominated by technology companies. > The idea that feudalism is making a comeback also coheres with left critiques condemning capitalism as extractivist. If today’s capitalists are mere lazy rentiers who contribute nothing to the production process, don’t they deserve to be downgraded to the status of feudal landlords? This embrace of feudal imagery by media- and meme-friendly figures of the left intelligentsia shows no signs of ceasing. Ultimately, though, the popularity of feudal-speak is a testament to intellectual weakness, rather than media savviness. It is as if the left’s theoretical framework can no longer make sense of capitalism without mobilizing the moral language of corruption and perversion. In what follows I delve into some landmark debates on the distinguishing features that differentiate capitalism from earlier economic forms—and those that define political-economic operations in the new digital economy—in hope that a critique of techno-feudal reason may throw fresh light on the world we’re in.

ajkjk 3y ago
Wow, I tried to read it and mostly managed to, although I ended up skimming the end. It is really everything that is wrong with bitter overintellectual leftism: endless babble littered with pointless historical references and a neverending adoration of 'theory' while totally misunderstanding the rest of the world's moral opinions on, well, anything. The worst passage I found was this: >If these are lazy waterfall-owning rentiers, they are peculiarly masochistic ones: why not just rest on their laurels, fire everyone and stop spending? And who, looking at these numbers, could really believe—together with the post-workerists—that capitalists are now external to production? What then are they spending all this r&d money on? The gist: if you choose the dumbest possible interpretation of what 'technofeudalism' is referring to and couch it in enough verbiage and citations you can dismiss the concept without ever having to see why people find it so appealing or realize that you're missing the point. It's really simple. It's the monopolies and their walled gardens and moats and manipulations... and the lack of accountability to the public. What's feudalistic is the lack of accountability. It only incidentally has to do with any particular model of what capitalism or feudalism is according to some random texts or endless theory and everything to do with the fact that everyone hates the system but can't seem to change it and make it follow prosocial dignity-preserving rules. More specifically: although theorists have opinions about whether this is some sort of 'alternative' to capitalism (if what we're 'in' can even be called capitalism anymore, even before the internet...).. The reason the concept rings true and has staying power is not those theories; it is that the modern world emotionally pattern matches to aspects of feudalism. No doubt people felt the same way circa 1900 in the first big era of capitalist monopolies. Regardless, labeling what 'mode of production' we're in is really not the appeal of the phrase (or, imo, a very useful concept at all).
- happytiger 3y ago
  Not taking the position personally, but the major critiques of capitalism are that capitalism is inherently exploitative, alienating, unstable, unsustainable, and creates massive economic inequality, commodifies people, and is anti-democratic and leads to an erosion of human rights and national sovereignty while it incentivizes imperialism (Wikipedia). These are very old arguments. The difference in my mind is merely the label. Morozov said it well: https://jacobin.com/2023/04/evgeny-morozov-critique-of-techno-feudalism-modes-of-production-capitalism https://jacobin.com/2023/04/evgeny-morozov-critique-of-techn...
- kagakuninja 3y ago
  Techno-feudalism is more than that. I noticed in the early 2010s that a friend of mine was essentially a loyal vassal of a former EA exec "game industry legend", and followed him to multiple startups. There were a couple other such retainers, including the nobleman's brother and receptionist / HR manager. I've never played in the start up major leagues, but it sure isn't a meritocracy in regards to who gets funding (or can self-fund). After working in and adjacent to multiple startups of this "game industry legend", I concluded that a lot of his ideas were crap, and his one successful startup had succeeded in spite of him.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    Interesting, I hadn't considered that that could be seen as another aspect of technofeudalism. I don't think it's really what people are talking about with the word, but it is an interesting connection.
happytiger 3y ago
How delightful to see your comment. I just finished reading the review and it’s quite a good critique and well worth the time. I actually had to print it out to read it as it’s a bit of a tome and I just couldn’t read it on screen. Why is that? Anyways, he also has a long critique of Thomas Picketti's Capital in the 21st Century (another good read btw, though I did this book on Audible which was quite good). http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue69/Varoufakis69.pdf http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue69/Varoufakis69.pdf Great comment.

ajkjk 3y ago

Wow, I tried to read it and mostly managed to, although I ended up skimming the end. It is really everything that is wrong with bitter overintellectual leftism: endless babble littered with pointless historical references and a neverending adoration of 'theory' while totally misunderstanding the rest of the world's moral opinions on, well, anything. The worst passage I found was this: >If these are lazy waterfall-owning rentiers, they are peculiarly masochistic ones: why not just rest on their laurels, fire everyone and stop spending? And who, looking at these numbers, could really believe—together with the post-workerists—that capitalists are now external to production? What then are they spending all this r&d money on? The gist: if you choose the dumbest possible interpretation of what 'technofeudalism' is referring to and couch it in enough verbiage and citations you can dismiss the concept without ever having to see why people find it so appealing or realize that you're missing the point. It's really simple. It's the monopolies and their walled gardens and moats and manipulations... and the lack of accountability to the public. What's feudalistic is the lack of accountability. It only incidentally has to do with any particular model of what capitalism or feudalism is according to some random texts or endless theory and everything to do with the fact that everyone hates the system but can't seem to change it and make it follow prosocial dignity-preserving rules. More specifically: although theorists have opinions about whether this is some sort of 'alternative' to capitalism (if what we're 'in' can even be called capitalism anymore, even before the internet...).. The reason the concept rings true and has staying power is not those theories; it is that the modern world emotionally pattern matches to aspects of feudalism. No doubt people felt the same way circa 1900 in the first big era of capitalist monopolies. Regardless, labeling what 'mode of production' we're in is really not the appeal of the phrase (or, imo, a very useful concept at all).

happytiger 3y ago
Not taking the position personally, but the major critiques of capitalism are that capitalism is inherently exploitative, alienating, unstable, unsustainable, and creates massive economic inequality, commodifies people, and is anti-democratic and leads to an erosion of human rights and national sovereignty while it incentivizes imperialism (Wikipedia). These are very old arguments. The difference in my mind is merely the label. Morozov said it well: https://jacobin.com/2023/04/evgeny-morozov-critique-of-techno-feudalism-modes-of-production-capitalism https://jacobin.com/2023/04/evgeny-morozov-critique-of-techn...
kagakuninja 3y ago
Techno-feudalism is more than that. I noticed in the early 2010s that a friend of mine was essentially a loyal vassal of a former EA exec "game industry legend", and followed him to multiple startups. There were a couple other such retainers, including the nobleman's brother and receptionist / HR manager. I've never played in the start up major leagues, but it sure isn't a meritocracy in regards to who gets funding (or can self-fund). After working in and adjacent to multiple startups of this "game industry legend", I concluded that a lot of his ideas were crap, and his one successful startup had succeeded in spite of him.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  Interesting, I hadn't considered that that could be seen as another aspect of technofeudalism. I don't think it's really what people are talking about with the word, but it is an interesting connection.

happytiger 3y ago

How delightful to see your comment. I just finished reading the review and it’s quite a good critique and well worth the time. I actually had to print it out to read it as it’s a bit of a tome and I just couldn’t read it on screen. Why is that? Anyways, he also has a long critique of Thomas Picketti's Capital in the 21st Century (another good read btw, though I did this book on Audible which was quite good). http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue69/Varoufakis69.pdf http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue69/Varoufakis69.pdf Great comment.