Capitalism has not regressed into “technofeudalism”

Here’s the deal folks. The infrastructure necessary for the accumulation of capital has always had a degree of private ownership during capitalism. We see the owners and thus controllers of platforms being described with the label of “technocrat” as if we had shifted away from democracy. There is nothing legitimate in this idea, this is simply more liberal democracy.

Take corruption (or “lobbying”) which dictates the direction of public spending. Should you need to be reminded, a company would only buy the powers of the state if it was deemed profitable for that company. Also, should you forget, profit must definitionally come from a pocket that isn’t the company’s. The technocratic and feudalistic effect of lobbying goes much deeper than digital platforms.

Or take a transport company. A business selling through a transport company is still using a “platform”, no? Amazon is feudalist because you’re selling on their platform? Give me a break, what about a housing agency? Are they not digital enough to be feudalist?

You can argue that profit has become dependent on central banks, but the point still remains that the growth of right-wing economies must come from the extraction of surplus value, forever and always. You cannot print more money and generate more value, it doesn’t work. At best, it is theft from the consumer (reallocation/distribution of wealth), which is everyone and thus majority working class.

Capitalism will remain authoritarian, only more overtly so in the coming years. I don’t mind that much if we give it the name techofeudalism, but I fear doing so would only prompt the support for a “return to capitalism” in a post-ecofascist world. Nonetheless, if the means of production aren’t owned by the people that use them it's capitalism and if they’re coerced its authoritarianism and markets that are regulated and or privatised have always existed.