The Marxist Case for the Technofeudal Hypothesis
jacobin.comAs the article points out, the classical economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo in particular did predict the growth of monopoly (land) rents and there are political schools of thought which make this observation central (Georgism in particular). It stands to reason that as capitalism develops the capitalists will monopolize further markets previously thought impossible (private equity buying out all the plumbers, vets, etc). But Marx was generally critical of this line of thinking, to the point of publicly feuding with Henry George.
I think it is better to view techno feudalism as a case against Marx's unidirectional progressive view of history, and in favor of the classical economics take on this topic.
Disclaimer that I haven’t read any Marx, but I wonder if the technology was a barrier to understanding how our modern environment is made possible.
At some point in time it probably would have been seen as operationally impossible for a single company to buy thousands of local practices due to means of communication and travel.
Marx (who I haven't read much of either, not for lack of trying) viewed capitalism as so exploitative and so powerful that on the one hand it totally displaced feudalism, but on the other hand it could not exist long before people would demand a rebalancing of society.
In Adam Smith's economics though the same market forces / human nature determined returns on labor, capital, and monopoly rents, etc throughout feudalism, capitalism, etc. Previous eras were simply less 'free' due to interference of elites/special interests - something we should strive to prevent primarily for economic and moral reasons.
In the second view, of course it seems reasonable that rents and monopoly profits will compete with returns on capital even in a highly developed capitalist system, because that has always been a defining feature of commerce. Some even considered it likely that (land) monopolies would beat capitalism (e.g. Georgism). In the Marxist view though, capitalism should be 'winning faster' and a return to a 'techno feudalism' state should essentially be impossible because of competitive forces driving capital returns to zero, abundance, etc. So this article is by a Marxist revising that assumption (brining it more in line with the earlier model of Smith, IMHO).
The 1700s/1800s were a time of extreme technological development and commentators certainly considered AI-like levels of labor saving.
> And, as we can assign no limits to the progress of invention, neither can we assign any limits to the increase of rent, short of the whole produce. For, if labor-saving inventions went on until perfection was attained, and the necessity of labor in the production of wealth was entirely done away with, then everything that the earth could yield could be obtained without labor, and the margin of cultivation would be extended to zero.
^ Henry George analyzed the full robotics + AI case for interest/wags/rents in his 1879 book Progress and Poverty.
I have not much to say besides “your comment is very interesting,” thank you!