Didn’t have time to go into details in my last post. I think the most important traits of technofeudalism are regulatory capture of the government and ubiquitous rent-seeking—“you’ll own nothing” (I highly doubt in the “…and be happy” part).
The big corpos have realised that extracting value is easier and more profitable than creating value. Hence subscription everything including heated seats and better acceleration in cars, platform economy (Uber, Air BnB et al.). The latest Unity fiasco is also an example of a company trying to extract as much value from the game developers as possible, and it will not be the last attempt at this.
What makes technofeudalism possible is the IT infrastructure of the world (hence “techno”). Uber-like platforms and subscription services for hardware were not practical half a century ago, but ubiquitous Internet access, smartphones and DRM makes it easy today.
In short, just like the peasants in the old feudal ages had to pay to the lord to have a place to live and make a living off the land (and realistically had nowhere to go to where this was not the case), in technofeudalism you have to pay for your techno-lord corporate middlemen to have a place to live and be able to use the tools (software or hardware) you need to make a living with no realistic alternatives due to regulatory capture.
There’s quite a bit outside of the urban and tech. The corpos have been extracting value instead of creating it for centuries without needing computers to do so. I’ve gotta say that I also don’t necessarily buy it as a thing, seems like another incarnation of dickensian conditions under capitalism.
That’s not to say that I don’t think that there are some ultra wealthy that are pushing for a neo-feudalism, like the Kochs or the fellow who killed Gawker but I think that “technofeudalism” is a poor description for their aims as advanced tech isn’t necessarily involved.
I will say that the gig economy is actually distinct from the job market. Rather than being a worker employed by a business owner, you have no employer and are forced instead to buy all your own equipment and fuel to perform work. That’s not distinct from capitalism, though.
Once Uber starts demanding loyalty pledges from drivers and forbidding them from working for Lyft, it may start to look more feudalist. As it stands, though, Big Tech doesn’t demand exclusivity. Under feudalism you couldn’t serve multiple Lords - you had to choose.
Also, feudal competition wasn’t market based. It’ll be feudalism when Uber drivers start killing Lyft drivers for being godless heathens.
Didn’t have time to go into details in my last post. I think the most important traits of technofeudalism are regulatory capture of the government and ubiquitous rent-seeking—“you’ll own nothing” (I highly doubt in the “…and be happy” part).
The big corpos have realised that extracting value is easier and more profitable than creating value. Hence subscription everything including heated seats and better acceleration in cars, platform economy (Uber, Air BnB et al.). The latest Unity fiasco is also an example of a company trying to extract as much value from the game developers as possible, and it will not be the last attempt at this.
What makes technofeudalism possible is the IT infrastructure of the world (hence “techno”). Uber-like platforms and subscription services for hardware were not practical half a century ago, but ubiquitous Internet access, smartphones and DRM makes it easy today.
In short, just like the peasants in the old feudal ages had to pay to the lord to have a place to live and make a living off the land (and realistically had nowhere to go to where this was not the case), in technofeudalism you have to pay for your techno-lord corporate middlemen to have a place to live and be able to use the tools (software or hardware) you need to make a living with no realistic alternatives due to regulatory capture.
There’s quite a bit outside of the urban and tech. The corpos have been extracting value instead of creating it for centuries without needing computers to do so. I’ve gotta say that I also don’t necessarily buy it as a thing, seems like another incarnation of dickensian conditions under capitalism.
That’s not to say that I don’t think that there are some ultra wealthy that are pushing for a neo-feudalism, like the Kochs or the fellow who killed Gawker but I think that “technofeudalism” is a poor description for their aims as advanced tech isn’t necessarily involved.
I will say that the gig economy is actually distinct from the job market. Rather than being a worker employed by a business owner, you have no employer and are forced instead to buy all your own equipment and fuel to perform work. That’s not distinct from capitalism, though.
Once Uber starts demanding loyalty pledges from drivers and forbidding them from working for Lyft, it may start to look more feudalist. As it stands, though, Big Tech doesn’t demand exclusivity. Under feudalism you couldn’t serve multiple Lords - you had to choose.
Also, feudal competition wasn’t market based. It’ll be feudalism when Uber drivers start killing Lyft drivers for being godless heathens.