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.

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.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
    10•4 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
      6•4 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 ☆
        2•4 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
          3•4 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 ☆
            4•4 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
              2•4 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 ☆
                1•4 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
                  2•4 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.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                    1•4 months ago

                    I agree that there are more similarities than differences, and in most tangible aspects two systems behave in a similar fashion. Both are fundamentally predicated on a small privileged class of people living off the backs of the working majority.