>an increasingly large proportion of economic surplus
I'm not sure that's the case, honestly. Surveilance appears to me to be a cost-cutting tool that reduces the amount of human oversight that needs to be employed to keep workers working. Can't afford guards? Install cameras! Can't afford managers? Install tracking software on all of the workers' work computers! Can't afford to have cops investigate actual crimes? Sell people an "internet of things" to watch their every move and listen to their every conversation!
>aspects of the economy not directly tied to production
It is indeed tied to production. It is part of the cost of getting bodies in seats to do work.
>the growth of a subscription based model of extracting individual consumer rents from the various strata of people
It's creating markets where there were none before. In that sense, it is just a continuation of what capitalism has always done. In another sense, it is an adaptation to the fact that the proletariat has no money above and beyond that which pays for its necessities and can only acquire commodities by way of debt against future labor.
>What are the political implications of this not only growing out of monopoly capitalism but also existing on a somewhat systemic worldwide or perhaps civilizational or epochal scale.
Political? Politics will just serve to justify the status quo and to facilitate the flow of capital as it always does.
And you apparently don't understand how commodity production works.>>462304
Then what is the change?
One that comes to mind is in class structure. A large PMC of financial paper pushers and cogs in the spectacle complex of modern society are a constituent in perpetuating the rule of modern capital. These people are typically corporate yes men in an existential sense. Other sections aid in technical ins and outs of media-finance communication-education, and other aspects of the rentier state. This is effectively the modern equivalent of yesteryear's labor aristocracy.
>>462311>A large PMC of financial paper pushers
It doesn't appear to be any larger. Show me that it's larger.>This is effectively the modern equivalent of yesteryear's labor aristocracy.
That thing which never existed according to Marx?