GenZedong

4978 readers

62 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

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

Elara@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml

Yanis Varoufakis: "Big Tech are the new Soviets. We’re in a planned economy now" (archive.ph)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzedong@lemmygrad.ml

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

"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."

Alright this logic has clearly gone off the deepend.

I think is issue is a market first analysis of society. And some if this stuff is critique of the Gotha Programme level stuff. I.e, he describes Amazon as a feudal fief because they control the market place through which other Bourgeois producers sell their products. This really bugs me because in his book he has this really long and winding explanation to why he calls technofeudalism feudalism and not capitalism. He goes on and on about "oh well if you would have looked at society in the 1800s then you would've called it "market feudalism" instead if capitalism." But he's literally the one doing that. I mean, from Marx himself, "In England, the capitalist class is usually not even the owner of the land on which his factory stands." I get it's not a 1-1 example but I feel like it's apt. What's even more apt is a quick explanation of how marxist economic analysis actually works by an economist with more than two braincells, Cheng Enfu.

"these ownership forms, under the definite and distinct conditions of Chinese society, are not necessarily the same as their formally identical equivalents in Western society, in exactly the same way that land ownership in 18th-century England, though formally the same as that prevailing in the French ancien régime of the same date, had already assumed capitalist characteristics far removed from those swept away in the revolution of 1789." [Edit: -Cheng Enfu, the creation of value by living labor]

So I really don't understand how Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. Have "technofeudal" characteristics, outside of just focusing on rent. Which was already a big part of society. I mean, why not call banks a "money rent." If I can extend it, banks don't provide a service or good, they simply rent out money for a fee. Considering that basically every big company has needed to get loans and pay a money rent, presumably we have been living in Banker-feudalism forever.

I'm 2/3rds of the way through the book rn. Maybe he answers more questions, and I'll make a post if he becomes more coherent, but I think it's telling that he has talked more about Adam Smith's vision rather than Marx's.