this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
96 points (96.2% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

2841 readers
336 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
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/43439862

Modern oligarchs like Musk, Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerberg are exactly like medieval lords. The top 1% controls all resources, and it is almost impossible to buy an apartment today. We own nothing and just pay rent or subscribe to their platforms. These billionaires have total power to fire thousands of workers anytime and buy politicians for their own interest. They say they work for humanity, but it is just fake marketing. For example, they are silent on wars in Palestine and Ukraine. Majority of ordinary people and developers are too naive. They believe these lies and fail to see the real system

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] linule@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

I‘ve never liked the analogy to feudalism, because it leaves out the elephant in the room that people can open accounts on alternative platforms very easily and comfortably in about 2 minutes. It seems more productive to discuss why they don’t do it. Acting like the possibility doesn’t even exist is a part of the problem and reinforces it.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

The oligarchy allows social media, regardless which one, because it provides an empty outlet which releases pressure

[–] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] linule@lemmy.world -3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Brummbaer@pawb.social 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] linule@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

If feudalism is a cool network where everyone can freely choose who they want to partner with, what are the „technofeudalism“ authors worried about?

[–] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 1 points 12 hours ago

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.

[–] lithiumground@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Why people dont do it ? why people dont use opensource and decentralize alternatives? I think people are weak , and money can easily money people. We are too weak to resist against oligarchs. you and me may be strong but majority are not. People cant resist not use instagram,whatshapp

[–] morto@piefed.social 2 points 7 hours ago

I wouldn't say weak, but lazy. People are literally willing to give power o oligarchs in exchange of a minor convenience. Also, most people don't even think about such things and just go with the flow. They use what "everyone else is using".

[–] linule@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

What kind of weakness prevents you from clicking through a register flow in 2 minutes and swiping between apps? The problem is apathy. Which is fixable, but articles like these that act like people are just stuck there and there’s nothing that can be possibly done, effectively prevent anything in that direction from happening.

[–] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 0 points 12 hours ago

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.