135
Techno-feudalism: We own nothing and just pay rent to billionaires
(asiandadenergy.substack.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
135 points (100.0% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
2847 readers
79 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That doesn’t invalidate the use of the term feudalism. Under OG feudalism there were plenty exceptions to the rule. But that doesn’t discount the fact that most people had no real choice, or chose to remain where they were for usually social reasons. Even if they could have technically and physically made the jump.
Just like today. Technically it’s easy to dump Facebook, instagram, WhatsApp and whatever. In practice, it means saying goodbye to a social network (in the real sense) and not everybody can or wants to go there.
Feudalism involved swearing loyalty to a lord, usually for life. And it seems that you could not have multiple lords. Our situation is one of complete freedom, where you can leave the platforms anytime, as well as use multiple in parallel and distribute your time using them however you want. So if e.g you feel bound to the popular platforms because of followers, you can use the smaller platforms in parallel, allowing them to grow, so nothing changes other than involving a little more effort. As more people do this, the network effect equalizes. So it’s easy to do, and it solves the problem, yet it doesn’t even cross the minds of most, including of these „thinkers“. Why is that? It seems that everyone operates on the assumption that the masses don’t have free will, or are very stupid, at least.
You totally could have multiple Lords, that was nothing out of the ordinary.
Feudalism was a not some kind of top down system, it was a net woven out of relationships people negotiated all the time.
For example Enguerrand VII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enguerrand_VII_de_Coucy
He was a vassal to the French and the English king at the same time, so the fun really begins when both are at war with another.
If feudalism is a cool network where everyone can freely choose at any time who they want to partner with, what are the „technofeudalism“ authors worried about?
I just pointed out that it was more complicated than King + Church at the top and everyone else down the line. I wanted to be neutral here.