[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord
ReturnCatalogBottom

 No.469030

Here is a interesting video with Jodi Dean
https://invidious.baczek.me/watch?v=RkAfrcN5hpw
there are a few rambling bits in the first 10 mins but after that it gets concise and worth while

<One of the reasons why Marx's analysis is so powerful, is that the proletariat are strong, they aren't a bunch of victims, they are the producing class, they have the power to overturn the system. But now, in the northern economies, the majority of workers are a bunch of servants, while they still have the strength to bring the system to a halt, it doesn't seem like we are creating a power full future.

<What happens is a declining rate of profit, the capitalists laws of motion turn into their opposite, and the Capitalists as a class turn to politically motivated upward redistribution of wealth, taking not making.

She brings up an interesting point about changes in the economic system. That many see as having certain similarities to feudalism.

<Capitalists are becoming a kind of mediator, all these gig-work platforms are not the employers they are middle men that break the relations of production between workers and employers, that's different, that's not like industrialists owning a factory and hiring labor. This logic of separation has a Neo-feudal quality.

Is she right about this ? are these mediator separation layers, and the breaking of processes into little pieces the harbinger of a feudalization tendency.
>>

 No.469035

capitalism literally died circa 1900
>>

 No.469036

capitalism is where ppl aquire capitals and become burgeosie or some sort

only ppl who can do that today are american boomers maybe and thats because free oil from texas in the 60s or whatever

if you don't accumulate wealth max. you can think of is running flower shop / restorant for two years then sell it to capitalists (landlords)
because its not profitable

if its not feudalism i don't know what is
>>

 No.469037

small buisiness basically go bankrupt all over the planet

and in west it doesn't even play its role anymore

basically small shops where you can buy overpriced something
>>

 No.469038

>>469030
>that's not like industrialists owning a factory

they're instead rent-seekers (like in shitholes)
>>

 No.469039

landlord have some sort of rent-capital, that he seeks renting or w/e

its not exactly something productive

think of something shittly like spain
>>

 No.469040

File: 1683077736112.jpg ( 27.29 KB , 474x534 , th-993640334.jpg )

and obviously you get rent from your land (thus landlord)
or just beraucracy today and various state corruption and mafia
while there are still some productive forces like peasants (land-less ppl)

government itself is a landlord
>>

 No.469042

File: 1683085372381.jpeg ( 68.64 KB , 1242x684 , 980601DD-DF37-4CB8-B2C2-3….jpeg )

I Dont think that neofeudalism is a different mode of production than capitalism. The transition from feudalism and capitalism was extremely different and feudal reactionaries were very common and apparent. I think it’s just a different variant of capitalism just like how financial capitalism is different from industrial capitalism and how that’s different from mercantile capitalism. Any decent historical analysis can show that capitalism can possess different forms of capital accumulation. The way I see it is
<mercantile capitalism is an infantile capitalism
<industrial capitalism is the most “productive” capitalism that develops the MoP the most and is the only way to transition to socialism
<financial capitalism represents the most collusive and parasitic form of capitalism. Essentially expanding its capital accumulation through hoarding assets
<neo feudal capitalism is a new form of capitalism (possibly a regressive form) that seeks capital accumulation specifically to enable rent extraction and general profit accumulation.
My theory is that western countries are aware their currencies are going to become worthless soon. That is why they are trying to accumulate as much as possible, not to acquire capital, but to maintain it. An example would be rather than try to profit off speculative real estate , they would rather own all the properties and simply rent them out feudal style
>>

 No.469043

>>469042
the idea of capitalism is that ppl become capitalists, not some sort of slaves in slavery machine

and that mostly vanished by 1900 (when regulated markets or w/e came to power)

tldr today most people 99.9999999999999999818181817171711111 % can't become capitalists
>>

 No.469044

>>469043
People who say capitalism somehow ended and doesn’t exist anymore are revisionists at best and at worst trying to obscure reality. No we don’t live in a completely new Mode of production because of a few bullet points that you can make. Unless you can completely map it out in very clear manner, then it simply isn’t true.
>>

 No.469045

>>469044
>Dogmoid with dunning kruger syndrome triggered
>>

 No.469046

>>469045
You’re just a charlatan who think they found a new political position because you picked something to be a contrarian about
>>

 No.469047

>IN CAPITAL IS DEAD, McKenzie Wark asks: What if we’re not in capitalism anymore but something worse? The question is provocative, sacrilegious, unsettling as it forces anti-capitalists to confront an unacknowledged attachment to capitalism. Communism was supposed to come after capitalism and it’s not here, so doesn’t that mean we are still in capitalism? Left unquestioned, this assumption hinders political analysis. If we’ve rejected strict historical determinism, we should be able to consider the possibility that capitalism has mutated into something qualitatively different. Wark’s question invites a thought experiment: what tendencies in the present indicate that capitalism is transforming itself into something worse?
>Over the past decade, “neofeudalism” has emerged to name tendencies associated with extreme inequality, generalized precarity, monopoly power, and changes at the level of the state. Drawing from libertarian economist Tyler Cowen’s emphasis on the permanence of extreme inequality in the global, automated economy, the conservative geographer Joel Kotkin envisions the US future as mass serfdom. A property-less underclass will survive by servicing the needs of high earners as personal assistants, trainers, child-minders, cooks, cleaners, et cetera. The only way to avoid this neofeudal nightmare is by subsidizing and deregulating the high-employment industries that make the American lifestyle of suburban home ownership and the open road possible — construction and real estate; oil, gas, and automobiles; and corporate agribusiness. Unlike the specter of serfdom haunting Friedrich Hayek’s attack on socialism, Kotkin locates the adversary within capitalism. High tech, finance, and globalization are creating “a new social order that in some ways more closely resembles feudal structure — with its often unassailable barriers to mobility — than the chaotic emergence of industrial capitalism.” In this libertarian/conservative imaginary, feudalism occupies the place of the enemy formerly held by communism. The threat of centralization and the threat to private property are the ideological elements that remain the same.
>A number of technology commentators share the libertarian/conservative critique of technology’s role in contemporary feudalization even as they don’t embrace fossil fuels and suburbia. Already in 2010, in his influential book, You Are Not a Gadget, tech guru Jaron Lanier observed the emergence of peasants and lords of the internet. This theme has increased in prominence as a handful of tech companies have become ever richer and more extractive, turning their owners into billionaires on the basis of the cheap labor of their workers, the free labor of their users, and the tax breaks bestowed on them by cities desperate to attract jobs. Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet (the parent company name for Google) together are worth more than most every country in the world (except the United States, China, Germany, and Japan). The economic scale and impact of these tech super giants, or, overlords, is greater than that of most so-called sovereign states. Evgeny Morozov describes their dominance as a “hyper-modern form of feudalism.”
>…
>…
>Neofeudalism does not imply that contemporary communicative or networked capitalism identically reproduces all the features of European feudalism. It doesn’t. In fact, as historians have successfully demonstrated, the very idea of a single European feudalism is a fiction. Different feudalisms developed across the continent in response to different pressures. Viewing contemporary capitalism in terms of its feudalizing tendencies illuminates a new socioeconomic structure with four interlocking features: parcellated sovereignty, new lords and peasants, hinterlandization, and catastrophism.
>…
>Under neofeudalism, the directly political character of society reasserts itself. Global financial institutions and digital technology platforms use debt to redistribute wealth from the world’s poorest to the richest. Nation-states promote and protect specific private corporations. Political power is exercised with and as economic power, not only taxes but fines, liens, asset seizures, licenses, patents, jurisdictions, and borders. At the same time, economic power shields those who wield it from the reach of state law. Ten percent of global wealth is hoarded in off-shore accounts to avoid taxation. Cities and states relate to Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, and Google/Alphabet as if these corporations were themselves sovereign states — negotiating with, trying to attract, and cooperating with them on their terms. Cash-strapped municipalities use elaborate systems of fines to expropriate money from people directly, impacting poor people the hardest. In Punishment Without Crime, Alexandra Natapoff documents the dramatic scope of misdemeanor law in the already enormous US carceral system. Poor people, disproportionately people of color, are arrested on bogus charges and convinced to plead guilty to avoid the jail time that they could incur should they contest the charges. Not only does the guilty plea go on their record, but they open themselves up to fines that set them up for even more fees and fines should they miss a payment. We got a brief look into this system of legal illegality and unjust administration of justice in the wake of the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, that followed the murder of Michael Brown: “[T]he city’s municipal court and policing apparatus openly extracted millions of dollars from its low-income African American population.” Police were instructed “to make arrests and issue citations in order to raise revenue.” Like minions of feudal lords, they used force to expropriate value from the people.
>…
>…
>Feudal relations are characterized by a fundamental inequality that enables the direct exploitation of peasants by lords. Perry Anderson describes the exploitative monopolies such as watermills that were controlled by the lord; peasants were obliged to have their grain ground at their lord’s mill, a service for which they had to pay. So not only did peasants occupy and till land that they did not own, but they dwelled under conditions where the feudal lord was, as Marx says, “the manager and master of the process of production and of the entire process of social life.” Unlike the capitalist whose profit rests on the surplus value generated by waged workers through the production of commodities, the lord extracts value through monopoly, coercion, and rent.
>Digital platforms are the new watermills, their billionaire owners the new lords, and their thousands of workers and billions of users the new peasants. Technology companies employ a relatively small percentage of the workforce, but their effects have been tremendous, remaking entire industries around the acquisition, mining, and deployment of data. The smaller workforces are indicative of digital technology’s neofeudalizing tendency. Capital accumulation occurs less through commodity production and wage labor than through services, rents, licenses, fees, work done for free (often under the masquerade of participation), and data treated as a natural resource. Positioning themselves as intermediaries, platforms constitute grounds for user activities, conditions of possibility for interactions to occur. Google makes it possible to find information in an impossibly dense and changing information environment. Amazon lets us easily locate items, compare prices, and make purchases from established as well as unknown vendors. Uber enables strangers to share rides. Airbnb does the same for houses and apartments. All are enabled by an immense generation and circulation of data. Platforms don’t just rely on data, they produce more of it. The more people use platforms, the more effective, and powerful these platforms become, ultimately transforming the larger environment of which they are a part.
>Platforms are doubly extractive. Unlike the water mill peasants had no choice but to use, platforms not only position themselves so that their use is basically necessary (like banks, credit cards, phones, and roads) but that their use generates data for their owners. Users not only pay for the service but the platform collects the data generated by the use of the service. The cloud platform extracts rents and data, like land squared. The most extreme examples are Uber and Airbnb, which extract rent without property by relying on an outsourced workforce responsible for its own maintenance, training, and means of work. One’s car isn’t for personal transport. It’s for making money. One’s apartment isn’t a place to live; it’s something to rent out. Items of consumption are reconfigured as means of accumulation as personal property becomes an instrument for the capital and data accumulation of the lords of platform, Uber and Airbnb. This tendency toward becoming-peasant, that is, to becoming one who owns means of production but whose labor increases the capital of the platform owner, is neofeudal.
>The tech giants are extractive. Like so many tributary demands, their tax breaks take money from communities. Their presence drives up rents and real estate prices, driving out affordable apartments, small businesses, and low-income people. Shoshana Zuboff’s study of “surveillance capitalism” brings out a further dimension of tech feudalism — military service. Like lords to kings, Facebook and Google cooperate with powerful states, sharing information that these states are legally barred from gathering themselves. Overall, the extractive dimension of networked technologies is now pervasive, intrusive, and unavoidable. The present is not literally an era of peasants and lords. Nevertheless, the distance between rich and poor is increasing, aided by a differentiated legal architecture that protects corporations, owners, and landlords while it immiserates and incarcerates the working and lower class.
>…
>…
>For those on the left, neofeudalism lets us understand the primary political conflict as arising out of neoliberalism. The big confrontation today is not between democracy and fascism. Although popular with liberals, this formulation makes little sense given the power of oligarchs — financiers, media and real estate moguls, carbon and tech billionaires. Viewing our present in terms of democracies threatened by rising fascism deflects attention from the fundamental role of globally networked communicative capitalism in exacerbating popular anger and discontent. Underlying the politicization toward the right is economics: complex networks produce extremes of inequality, winner-take-all or winner-take-most distributions. The rightward shift responds to this intensification of inequality. When the left is weak, or blocked from political expression by mainstream media and capitalist political parties, popular anger gets expressed by others willing to attack the system. In the present, these others are the far right. Thinking in terms of neofeudalism thus forces us to confront the impact of extreme economic inequality on political society and institutions. It makes us reckon with the fact of billionaires hoarding trillions of dollars of assets and walling themselves into their own enclaves while millions become climate refugees and hundreds of millions encounter diminished life prospects, an intensifying struggle just to survive.
>The neofeudalism wager also signals a change in labor relations. Social democracy was premised on a compromise between labor and capital. Organized labor in much of the Global North delivered a cooperative working class in exchange for a piece of the good life. Labor’s defeat and the subsequent dismantling of the welfare state should have demonstrated once and for all the bankruptcy of a strategy requiring compromise with capitalist exploitation. Yet some socialists continue to hope for a kinder, gentler capitalism — as if capitalists would capitulate just to be nice, as if they, too, weren’t subject to market logics that make stock buybacks more attractive than investment in production. The neofeudal hypothesis tells us that any labor struggle premised on the continuation of capitalism is dead in the water. Capitalism has already become something worse.
>In the service-dominated economies of the Global North, majorities work in service sectors. Some find that their phones, bikes, cars, and homes have lost their character as personal property and been transformed into means of production or means for the extraction of rent. Tethered to platforms owned by others, consumer items and means of life are now means for the platform owners’ accumulation. Most of us constitute a property-less underclass only able to survive by servicing the needs of high earners. A report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that over the next 10 years the occupation that will add the most jobs is personal care aides, not health workers but aides who bathe and clean people. The dependence of the ruling class on the vast sector of servants — cleaners, cooks, grocers, cashiers, delivery persons, warehouse personnel, et cetera — suggests new sites of struggle, points of weakness where workers can exert power. Strikes of nurses, Amazon workers, and others target the neediness of the wealthy by blocking their access to the means of survival. If labor struggles under capitalism prioritized the point of production, under neofeudalism they occur at the point of service.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neofeudalism-the-end-of-capitalism/
>>

 No.469048

>>469046
>Super duper intelligent and r-r-r-radical
>>

 No.469049

>>469047
Personally I'd define neofuedalism in more simple terms
>An economic system in which an increasing and fundamental proportion of economic surplus is directed toward expanding the means of social control, in which the reproduction of social relations increasingly occurs directly, politically, and for its own sake, and in which profitization through rent, subscription, fees, and similar arrangements take precedent throughout much of the economy.
Don't listen to the mouthbreathing unoriginal dogmoids who have never accomplished anything politically significant in their lives. They are just latching onto something to give themselves with a sense of certainty and significance
>>

 No.469132

>>469045
>My response to info I don't like is ignoring said info and replying with ad hominems and snarky gotchaposts

Unique IPs: 7
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome