I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure what we have now is 100% capitalism. It's exactly how many people predicted capitalism would look like if given enough time.

Many years ago, a libertarian classmate asked me how I think the world would look like if corporations were unregulated. I told him (again, without being an economist) that corporations would probably become the new countries, that they would own everything like monarchs used to, as a few corporations monopolized everything. (I still find his answer funny: "And wouldn't that be better?". I just told him "Of course not!" thinking "WTF?").

My point is that this idea that the current system is "worse than capitalism" and "capitalism is dead", stems from some kind of idealization of what capitalism is supposed to be like, and not from the realities that many people have been pointing out throughout the XX and XXI centuries about how capitalism works and what its end-goal is. This is exactly what capitalism looks like. "Technofeudalism" seems like yet another way of not addressing the issue, like when people say "the problem is not capitalism! it's crony capitalism!". As if there is some form of capitalism that has ever put people over money.

Also:

It might look like a market, but Varoufakis says it’s anything but. Jeff (Bezos, the owner of Amazon) doesn’t produce capital, he argues. He charges rent. Which isn’t capitalism, it’s feudalism.

Again, I'm no economist, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the capitalists (i.e. the owners of the means of production) have never produced capital. The workers do. The capitalist have always taken the profits of their worker's labour in exchange for using those means of production. You could call that "charging rent".

There is nothing new about what's going on right now, except on the superficial level, the specific tech that's being used to achieve the monopolistic goals of any corporation. Given enough time, the inevitable concentration of power that capitalism leads to, will always look like feudalism.

What's funny about this opinion of his, however true it is or feels, is that it strikes me, form my naive armchair, as something that's been obvious or obviously coming for a while.

I remember having "shooting the piss" conversations in the 2000s about how big corps would become the "new nations", which is dumb and simplistic but still touches what could very well be an essential truth ... that when an ecosystem of massive corps, with monopolies, near-monopolies or oligopolies, becomes ingrained, the dynamic they create comes to dominate the so called markets they and we are supposed to operate in. And so you quickly/easily get "grey-letter law" and "too big to fail" institutions.

If there's anything to this, which I suspect is the case, then it becomes strange that it's what, one popular/public economist talking about it? Whether you're left or right, it's conspicuous and problematic, and surely it's middle-class centrists, those who are effectively "citizens" of the fiefdoms, or "super-serfs" if you will, who are relatively highly employable and well networked in the major big-corp employment networks and so doing well in the system, that don't quite notice it or care that it might be a wider problem.

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles: