Absurd, idiotic headline. Apart from being pure slander of the Soviets, the whole premise vulgarizes socialist economic theory and what economic planning even means. The more i read from Varoufakis the more i’m beginning to think he’s really a moron.
He thinks he’s so clever coming up with these comparisons, with nebulous concepts like “neofeudalism”, as if he’s just discovered something completely new that no one discovered before, when all it is, is just monopoly capitalism. All to avoid applying a good old fashioned Marxist analysis which is more than enough to explain these phenomena without resorting to estoteric theories about a new “feudalism”.
The more you read him and others like him the more you start noticing the conspicuous, Marxism-shaped hole in their analysis. Because of course we can’t be seen to be talking in Marxist terminology and applying dialectical analysis can we? That wouldn’t be respectable, our liberal academic peers would call us names…
The result of this Marxism-phobia is that he has to vomit up onto the page sentences like:
So, just as the Soviet Union generated one kind of feudalism in the name of socialism and human emancipation, today, Silicon Valley is generating another kind of feudalism — technofeudalism, I have called it — in the name of capitalism and free markets.
No, you pretentious wannabe, the Soviet Union was not “feudalism” and neither is monopoly capitalism.
Idk why anyone ever thought this guy, who is clearly an anti-communist radlib, had anything intelligent to say.
So there we have it, at last. Varoufakis has outed himself as an anticommunist. I waited for this. Anticommunists are but fascists in a complicated dress.
I’m acrually glad he has outed himself as another fascist sympathizer. It takes another diversion out of the game.
The quote “Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism” keeps aging like fine wine.
I think we should distinguish between social democracy in the imperial core and in the Global South. The first will inevitably capitulate to reactionaries, while the second is objectively pushed into revolutionary actions (even if they are completely unprepared for them and usually fail).
I’m actually glad he has outed himself as another fascist sympathizer.
I mean, he celebrated when Al Qaeda took over Syria. I think that qualifies as already outed.
I actually only today heard of this. To me it wasnt that much of a clear sign as i dont have deep knowledge of syria. But anti sovietism is a very clear sign. Even maoists arent that brutal.
Varoufakis always part of the “consumable left” breadtube sphere. People just jump on everybody that uses a certain number of marxist shibboleth.
Yeah. Thats a recent thought of mine as well.
Instead of asking “what are communist/marxist dogwhistles i can use” we should ask “who would use especially communist phrases at all?” and “can we even identify marxists by their wording reliably” to which i would answer “probably not”.
People who use dogwhistles are usually demagogues who try to communicate to an audience they are not openly working for, which recently has been described with the word " crypto" as in cryptical communist ot cryptical fascist.
I would argue that there are no “cryptocommunists” in a capitalist regime. It just goes against historical precedence. But there are tons of cryptofascists. I would even argue that there are cryptolibs in “communist” groups.
But i might be missing something here. Probably there is someone who can explain this in a materialist way.
I am hence very distrustful of people who use marxist language alongside non marxist language. Because it is easy to use “working class” and “bourgeoisie” while not committing to dialectical materialism which is what we need to not get backstabbed.
Feel free to criticise and suggest different or more developed ideas.
Rather than “cryptocommunist” or “cryptolib”, I think “pseudocommunist” works better. They’re not necessarily similar in their hidden beliefs (there’s a whole range of reactionarisms), but instead for what they pretend to be.
Yes of course. Both are correct. There are no cryptocommunists but a lot of pseudocommunists or opportubists use communist language.
I would even argue that there are cryptolibs in “communist” groups.
I’m wondering if more cryptolibs are because of intent or lack of education?
Good question. I would argue that a lot of people are libs in their heart because its their whole identity. There is such a huge variety of issues where liberalism creeps in. Asking someone who has lived like this for 30+ yrs to pretty much accept that they have been living a lie and unnecessary took responsibility for everything is probably very dangerous. If you break an identity like that, it may become life threatening. Thats why I think that we all hold some lib thoughts here and there and some are dedicated at eradicating such thoughts in themselves at any cost and others think they need to be marxists because its what is expected of them or it helps them atm. And even worse, some might think they are the former but their subconcious will make them the latter at the earliest chance.
Just a bunch of thoughts though. Feel free to work with them.
Ego death is real and most people will fight the collapse of their identity as if it’s a physical threat, maybe harder. There is a point where that becomes inevitable, for a great many of us. That would be the place to introduce Marxist ideas, I think. But forcing the subject too soon will almost certainly be counterproductive and more than a betrayal to communism, a betrayal of the individual.
I’m a little sleepy, yesterday was long and exhausting, but I finally took melatonin to get to sleep; I’ve never heard of a melatonin hangover, so I guess I either slept too much or not enough.
Good point. i recently witnessed someone living through a cruel breakup and they broke down. dialectical materialism helped a little but liberalisms foothold was very strong.
With liberal tendencies I catch with my own thinking, I shudder to think how many I don’t catch.
Saying the Soviet Union was feudalistic is really one of the dumbest things a “leftist” would say. Alas, performative leftism it is. Going through the motions, critisicing this and that capitalism, coming up with new terms like “Technofeudalism”.
I agree he would openly turn against communists if it came to that. Maybe that’s why “Diem25” and “Mera25” are not Marxist parties, but “anti-capitalist”.
The French economist Cédric Durand. In German-language discussions, for instance, Durand’s 2020 book titled “Technoféodalisme” is sometimes said to have first operationalized the idea
Good point! We should have someone analyze those from a marxist perspective. That would probably help people like me to not always forget them and have an analysis ready once asked.
Rent still exists within capitalism. The dominance of rent doesn’t automatically overturn the mode of production. You can have rentier capitalism without feudalism.
From strict Marxist criteria, feudalism is defined by: • serfs bound to land • extraction of surplus labor through extra-economic coercion • personal legal dependency ties
Platform users are not legally bound, nor biologically tied to the land, but they are structurally dependent on platforms for access to markets, communication, and social reproduction.
Thus the debate: Is dependency “as if feudal” enough to change the mode of production, or is this metaphorical inflation?
Even if sovereignty is fragmented, all these platforms remain capitalist firms, operating under capitalist competition, dependent on global capital flows, and hiring wage laborers. So the base looks more like monopoly capitalism than feudalism.
However, Durand’s supporters argue that: • platforms have become para-state entities, • capable of enforcing rules through algorithmic governance, • exercising non-democratic authority over economic life.
That is reminiscent of feudal personal authority, but technologically scaled.
Some Marxists argue that “technofeudalism” mystifies: • the role of global finance, • the extraction of surplus value from labor, • the capitalist structure enabling platforms.
Others argue the term clarifies: • the intensification of dependency, • the privatization of governance, • the enclosure of the digital commons.
Durand’s contribution is thus politically charged: “technofeudalism” is not a neutral descriptor but a theoretical weapon to highlight domination, enclosure, and monopoly power.
I think it’s sarcasm
How do you figure?
This is explains why he failed in Syriza. If, you build a party with Eurocommunists, eco-socialists, Trotskyists, social democrats, left populists this is the result…
Greek people should understand the staying in EU and NATO is not a path to be chosen.
The more i read from Varoufakis the more i’m beginning to think he’s really a moron.
If shit isn’t going okay, Western economists have to mentally contort up their own ass: Capitalism would be great if only those mega capitalists would stop doing stuff (that was apparently learnt from Marx).
Now “Planning” is evil too? So capitalists can’t even make plans. Checking your supplies? Bad. Monitoring if there is customer demand? Bad. It’s imitating the Gosplan from the USSR! Markets just magically make decisions without plans in true capitalism. You can’t use an “algorithm”. That would be a form of planning! That’s like Communism (I mean feudalism)!
And that’s why he get the talking gigs he gets
Capitalism does something capitalisty so it must be socialist, and that’s bad because we all hate Russia. It also sounds like feudalism (it has bosses and minions) and the solution I propose is markets because of all this scary technology! Proudhon? Operation Gladio? Never heard of them, sounds Greek to me. Anyway, I’m one of Europe’s most famous and serious socialists and please listen to my amazing new concept of Techno-Feudalism.
“techno feudalism” isn’t a mode of production; we live under capitalism
He doesn’t understand feudalism, capitalism, or technology
It’s been obvious that he’s not capable of doing serious material analysis ever since he started peddling the whole tech feudalism thing. It’s been a transparent attempt to sanitize capitalism by claiming that what we’re seeing is somehow a deviation from the way capitalism functions as opposed to just the natural progression of the system. Here we’re seeing more of the same, except now he’s mixing in some red scare as the mask finally drops.
helps Valve design a system for kids to spend thousands of dollars gambling
spends career demonizing socialist projects
oh yeah, it’s european leftist time
He designed what?
Yep. Sounds unbelievable but it’s true. Look it up. He helped design their so-called “virtual economies”, in-game trading systems and the Steam market place. Basically helped them sell fake virtual items for real money to vulnerable, addicted people (mostly kids).
After that he got appointed as Greece’s Finance Minister, which now in hindsight explains a lot about why Syriza failed so badly…
oh thank god it wasnt tf2 (which has the most moral child gambling in the world)
oh thank god it wasnt tf2
It’s funny you mention it, because…
And here he is talking about in-game trading as if it was a real life economy
It’s actually hilarious to read the whole thing, it’s truly peak economist brain. And you know why this topic of fake digital economies is so attractive for economists, right? It’s because their theories only work in an artificially constructed reality.
idk if i’m about to make an ass of myself but i kinda see tf2 as the platonic form of the imperial core economy, in that it’s all fake bullshit nobody needs, with all the remaining issues of production and food security and whatnot abstracted away
I completely agree.
He is nothing more than a serious slavok zizek, never been a fan of his but i started to despise him since his vocal support for HTS takeover.
Varoufakis has always been an idiot. He’s going to stick around, though. I mean, look, people can’t even let go their sentimentality toward Zizek after he stepped across the line of open bigotry numerous times. Inscrutable but completely wrong economist gossip just floats in one ear and out the other.
Oh no, why do all the ‘leftists’ who shit on wokeness and anti-racism also turn out to not give a fuck about materialism?
corpos do centrally plan a lot, and they eat shit (sears) when they don’t.
would be much better to bring that up as a defense of doing central planning on a nation-state level. calling the SU feudal is bonkers.
How it’s even debatable that large systems benefits from planning is mind boggling.
And I do think he actually believes that capitalism would be better without central planning given that’s a big part of the Valve flat hierarchy myth. The obvious insight is that Valve is not a large systems, it’s hugely profitable by extracting surplus value produced by workers in other companies. There there is less need for planning at Valve.
fellow people’s republic of walmart head
Another huge L for Western Marxisists. He’s trying everything to say anything except capitalism. I’m sure that those rats sponsored and funded by the foreign intelligence.
Soviet Union generated one kind of feudalism in the name of socialism
so…urss was feudal, and anthropic is feudal too? everything is feudal now? long live the king!
If you want to be a really fashionable Western academic, you have to completely fuck up the concept of a mode of production beyond all repair.
This but unironically, preventing resurgence of marxist thought is their actual job.
Just like for many chauvinists big country doing stuff is imperialism, for Yanis anyone controlling anything makes them a feudal lord.
This whole “technofeudalism” nonsense he keeps spouting is very convenient for reformists like him, because that way they can keep selling capitalism as a solution.
