The idea that we are entering an era of techno-feudalism that will be worse than capitalism is chilling and controversial. We asked former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to elucidate this idea, explain how we got here, and map out some alternatives.

  • Alien Nathan Edward
    link
    fedilink
    English
    110 months ago

    Silicon Serfdom?

    No that’s still capitalism. Capitalism is still the problem. To call it anything else is apologetics, the core issue is that the private ownership of the means of production leads to a concentration of power in the hands of precisely the wrong kind of people after selecting for and reinforcing the most selfish behaviors in them. It then allows them to essentially usurp whatever form of government exists.

    • @cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      110 months ago

      There is a difference however. The techno feudalists are no longer about the means of production. Instead they increasingly show rent-seeking behaviour. Businesses looking to own “market places” and becoming brokers of other people’s services is a techni feudalist trend. Take Amazon for example. They sell top spots in their search directly to business customers. An app store monopoly is more akin to land ownership than classic factory capitalism.

  • @Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    110 months ago

    This is always the goal of capitalism, no need to give it some alternative name on order to white wash the brand.

    The answer is Democratic socialism. It’s our stuff they’re stealing, we can take it back.

    • Neuromancer
      link
      fedilink
      -110 months ago

      Democratic socialism is run by capitalism. Sweden is actually more capitalist than America.

      • Poggervania
        link
        fedilink
        010 months ago

        Also the Netherlands is still very much capitalistic while having much more protections for their citizens.

        This isn’t a blanket “capitalism bad”, it’s the fact we allowed our country to be bought out by capitalism.

        • Neuromancer
          link
          fedilink
          -110 months ago

          Hell I am a Republican and I think we have given corporations too much power. I am not opposed to wealthy people or billionaires or whatever. What I am against is the companies running the show and having undue influence over the government. People like Zuckerberg have way to much power over the government and that isn’t good.

          I used to be against heavy regulations but we have gone to the other extreme of too little regulations. Things like outsourcing jobs to other countries, building all our crap in China, union smashing, etc all should be stopped. A strong middle class is important to the success of the country. Most of these companies are built on a house of cards and need more regulation to keep the economy safe. I hate the term too big to fail because we shouldn’t let any company get that large. I am tired of all the mergers that lead to layoffs, higher prices, and less choice.

          I am tired of my insurance being tied to my employer. I am tired of forced arbitration agreements. While I have never been laid off, I am tired of the mass layoffs. Companies should be forced to pay 1 year of severance to anyone laid off. I am tired of executives of companies milking the company for their benefit. Boards are not held accountable.

          The problem isn’t capitalism but human nature. We see it in every type of government or economic system. People get greedy and jack crap up. I want companies to make a profit, that is how to fund our retirement systems but I don’t want it done in a way that destroys the company long term or causes thousands to lose their jobs.

          While I have many benefits from my job, as a nation, we don’t even have mandatory vacation, sick days, etc.

          • @Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            010 months ago

            I am not opposed to wealthy people or billionaires or whatever. What I am against is the companies running the show and having undue influence over the government. People like Zuckerberg have way to much power over the government and that isn’t good.

            It’s the same picture.

            If you’re against people like Zuckerberg. You’re against billionaires etc. If you’re not against billionaires you’re not against people like Zuckerberg. You just want one you agree with. Musk maybe?

            I used to be against heavy regulations but we have gone to the other extreme of too little regulations.

            If only we knew who pushed for, and funded this. I mean it absolutely was not the wealthy or chad billionaires. They’re just good honest bros. They wouldn’t use that vast wealth to manipulate and lie to us.

            I am tired of my insurance being tied to my employer. I am tired of forced arbitration agreements

            Guess who. Guess who. Those things are in the vested interest of the wealthy and especially billionaires. Though they would never leave themselves subject to them.

            The problem isn’t capitalism but human nature.

            Oof, cognitive dissonance wins again. Capitalism that isn’t so tightly regulated that it struggles to exist. Only reinforces and encourages the worst of human behavior. They’re both a problem. Together they’re a perfect storm. Literally every one of your complaints can be directly attributed to your voting habits. (If you are truly Republican) You’ve enabled it all. (So have Democrats to a much lesser extent) And still stick with identifying as the problem. Note, I’m not saying Democrats are the solution. Slightly better problem perhaps. But certainly not a solution as they currently exist. But friend, you really need to work through the cognitive dissonance and indoctrination issues. In the end you will thank yourself if you do. And that’s what matters right?

            • Neuromancer
              link
              fedilink
              -110 months ago

              Not at all. Have you ever been to a communist country? You see the same thing but on a worse scale. Lots of poverty and the small wealthy group. Capitalism isn’t the issue. Had you left your moms basement you’d know that.

              • @Eldritch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                010 months ago

                No. Communist countries don’t exist. There are ML countries. And yes, they’re as problematic as the unregulated capitalism countries.

                Capitalism is an issue. Has been for over 100 years. As has Lenin’s malformed ideologies for almost the last 100.

                You should stop digging for antiques in your mom’s basement. Before projecting on to others.

                I was sincere in advising you to address your cognitive dissonance.

                • Neuromancer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -110 months ago

                  I bet you say all this unironically in your head while wearing a Che shirt.

                  I don’t have any cognitive dissonance. Thank you very much.

                  Lenin, look how great that turned out.

          • @Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            010 months ago

            I’m a progressive and think conservatism is a totally valid political viewpoint - to continue doing what worked. And that is the social systems that worked so well for many decades. Unfortunately the GOP has become more and more reactionary for decades now (“paleo conservative”). So social democrats should be seen as conservatives really. And capitalists have accumulated so much money and power that it isn’t working any more.

            The problem isn’t capitalism but human nature. We see it in every type of government or economic system. People get greedy and jack crap up.

            I’d say the problem is that we don’t account for human nature in systems. We’ve elevated infinite greed as a totally valid and natural viewpoint, when it’s just not. In an environment with the right rules and basic fairness and decency you can absolutely tell most people to do something not for their own benefit because it’s for the public good, for your country, for your patients, and most people will be quite happy doing that.

            That gives cover to the few percent of people who are eternally greedy, see nothing but materialism, the “sociopaths” and narcissists and narrow minded ideologues. That really requires a kind of reconstruction.

            We need to specifically start thinking and talking about politics and business as systems that must be safeguarded against excess, and actively prevent people who care about nothing but money or power from advancing.

            And specifically because of climate change we need to start thinking about a plan. Because it’s an emergency similar to a war “all or nothing” economy we need to create a “limited planned economy” for certain sectors and allow for eminent domain to transfer sectors into public hands - at least for sectors that you can’t reasonably assume they can be induced with market regulations and things like carbon taxes. Because capitalists will always game the system and maximize profit. That has to be understood and CEOs put in charge that understand that besides profit, they are not to oppose regulations or rules of the game set by society.

            I’d be very curious if you think conservatives in the GOP could be convinced by any of this?

            • Neuromancer
              link
              fedilink
              -110 months ago

              I’m a progressive and think conservatism is a totally valid political viewpoint (“paleo conservative”)

              The main problem I have with my party is they are not for things as much as they are against what the other side wants to do. That to me is annoying as hell. It’s not longer both sides submitting ideas and working towards a middle, it is Democrats throwing out items and the Republicans just trying to block it. I want compromise. There are many things I side with the progressive on but honestly, they shouldn’t be “progressive ideas”. They should idea that both parties should support to varying degrees but as you said the paleo conservatives which I can’t argue against really. A good example is a national healthcare program and abortion. As a conservative, historically freedom of how to live your life was a core value. That should mean the Republican party should support abortion to some degree which they don’t. National Health care Republicans care just want to veto rather than work for a compromise.

              I’d be very curious if you think conservatives in the GOP could be convinced by any of this?

              The younger generation is much inline with that but the older generation, no. I think as they age out you will see a very different party. Right now we are the “MAGA” party many of them have nothing in common with the Republican party and oddly seem to be religious conservatives. I would like to see a purge of the religious conservatives from the party as part of our healing process. Get back to the true roots of conservatism and not this overly religious, idiotic version we have now.

              It is frustrating when you have the average person claiming the climate isn’t changing. It is something we can watch in our own lifetime. The first step is to get them admit something is different which has been next to impossible to do. I honestly am not sure if it’s a cycle or do to man-made activity and I don’t think the debate is important when we can’t even get people to accept, the climate has changed. I look forward to a less polluted planet. I don’t care if it’s a cycle or man made, I think less pollution is good either way. You see that attitude in younger republicans but the older ones will drive ICE Trucks just because the Democrats want them to go electric. That in a nutshell the problem with the party. It isn’t about being for something as it is against something.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
    link
    fedilink
    -110 months ago

    To refer to this as feudalism gives an impression that capitalism functions effectively and we are transitioning away from it; however, in reality, we are merely progressing into the advanced stages of the same system. Let us simply acknowledge that it is indeed capitalism.

    • @Tak@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      010 months ago

      Capitalism is just feudalism with more steps, of course as capitalism completes those steps it will feel like feudalism. Wealth can’t grow infinitely yet in the attempt to do so our basic needs have been withheld from those who need.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
        link
        fedilink
        -110 months ago

        I’d say capitalism is an evolution of feudalism that was facilitated by the industrial evolution. However, the two systems share most of the negative aspects, and in later stages of capitalism differences become increasingly negligible.

        • @Tak@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          010 months ago

          It’s meant to be an evolution of feudalism as the people creating capitalism are effectively the remnants of power from feudal society. There could be absolutely no industry and it would still be the system the non-royal but powerful would select.

          Look at the transition from the articles of confederation to the US constitution and the focus on the creation of currency in article 1. The “rights” people talk about were pushed for by the opposition to the constitution. The US constitution created effectively a capitalist version of the British empire and is analogous to the house of commons/lords/king. There was no term for the presidency, it could be for life and federal senators weren’t even voted for.

          I’d argue it’s effectively just an iteration of feudalism.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
            link
            fedilink
            -110 months ago

            Well, specifically what changed was that under feudalism power in society was determined solely by birth. Either you were born a noble or you weren’t. Capitalism was rich merchants overthrowing the nobles and democratizing the oppression of the workers. I do agree that for the most part it is an iteration of the same system though.

            • @Tak@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              010 months ago

              In capitalism as long as there isn’t a way to keep wealth from passing down each generation it is effectively just like nobles. I don’t see much of a difference between the two if both are systems of inheriting massive land or assets that allow you to exploit the lower classes to perpetuate your status.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                link
                fedilink
                -110 months ago

                I agree, late stage capitalism starts to look a lot like feudalism because all the wealth ends up being concentrated in the hands of a few people, but there are some differences in the way the two systems function.

                • @Tak@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  010 months ago

                  Totally agree. I’m not trying to say terms should have no meaning but that the difficulty distinguishing the two can be pretty easy because of how similar they are.