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

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 It is really everything that is wrong with bitter overintellectual leftism: endless babble littered with pointless historical references and a neverending adoration of 'theory' while totally misunderstanding the rest of the world's moral opinions on, well, anything.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).