How do they keep making later and later stages of late-capitalism
through innovative, synergistic solutions that align strategic stakeholders along key performance indicators
fun fact: there are quite a few academics and scholars nowadays who argue that we are no longer in the late stages of capitalism, but in fact the early stages of something completely different. david graeber puts it thus:
Any number of names have been coined to describe the new dispensation, from the "democratization of finance" to the "financialization of everyday life." Outside the United States, it came to be known as "neoliberalism." As an ideology, it meant that not just the market, but capitalism (I must continually remind the reader that these are not the same thing) became the organizing principle of almost everything. We were all to think of ourselves as tiny corporations, organized around that same relationship of investor and executive: between the cold, calculating math of the banker, and the warrior who, indebted, has abandoned any sense of personal honor and turned himself into a kind of disgraced machine.
varoufakis calls this new era "technofeudalism", and in his book of the same name he describes it this way:
So, what is my hypothesis? It is that capitalism is now dead, in the sense that its dynamics no longer govern our economies. In that role it has been replaced by something fundamentally different, which I call technofeudalism. At the heart of my thesis is an irony that may sound confusing at first but which I hope to show makes perfect sense: the thing that has killed capitalism is … capital itself. Not capital as we have known it since the dawn of the industrial era, but a new form of capital, a mutation of it that has arisen in the last two decades, so much more powerful than its predecessor that like a stupid, overzealous virus it has killed off its host. [...] Markets, the medium of capitalism, have been replaced by digital trading platforms which look like, but are not, markets, and are better understood as fiefdoms. And profit, the engine of capitalism, has been replaced with its feudal predecessor: rent. Specifically, it is a form of rent that must be paid for access to those platforms and to the cloud more broadly. I call it cloud-rent. As a result, real power today resides not with the owners of traditional capital, such as machinery, buildings, railway and phone networks, industrial robots. They continue to extract profits from workers, from waged labour, but they are not in charge as they once were. As we shall see, they have become vassals in relation to a new class of feudal overlord, the owners of cloud capital. As for the rest of us, we have returned to our former status as serfs, contributing to the wealth and power of the new ruling class with our unpaid labour – in addition to the waged labour we perform, when we get the chance.
so, to put it another way: perhaps we are no longer in the later stages of capitalism, a system whose defining feature is that power belongs to those who own the means of production and can therefore profit off the labor of people they hire to work their machines and factories - but rather in the early stages of an entirely new hegemony, characterized by the fact that power is largely held by feudal overlords who have claimed dominion over specific segments of daily life through technology.
for example, under varoufakis' view, platforms like Amazon or Etsy aren't really markets in the traditional capitalist sense; they're more akin to fiefdoms, where everyone who wants to participate must do so subject to the whims and desires of the overlord, who takes a cut of everything and carefully controls what people are allowed to buy, sell, or even be shown. these corporations don't just make money by taking a cut of a worker's paid labor; they make money by charging rent for any activity that takes place within their domain. sure, your employer siphons off some of the profits you generate when you work your job - but both you and your employer are also constantly paying rent, paying tribute, to Amazon Web Services to be able to host a website, to Google for advertising, to PayPal every time you make a transfer with a surcharge... thus these companies are primarily characterized by their ownership of specific domains of everyday life, rather than by their ability to profit from what their workers sell and produce.
this is obviously not the only way to understand our current economic and political climate, just one particular lens through which to view it, but. food for thought!
Yes!! Also anything gig economy also feels VERY feudal-ish:
companies like Uber act almost like lords who control access to the "land" (the digital marketplace of customers)
workers provide their own tools and resources (cars, phones, maintenance) similar to how peasants owned their own tools
the platform takes a portion of earnings in exchange for access, just like feudal dues
workers bear most of the risk while the platform maintains control over pricing and rules and there's an illusion of independence, but workers are effectively bound to these platforms for survival
also a core idea of capitalism is the “free market” and in a lot of industries the free market is now much more myth than mechanism. When companies are so huge they are functionally monopolies, or they control entire vertical of production, and are “too big to fail” the free market no longer exists and just becomes an illusion.
