this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
86 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
4974 readers
52 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.