this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
357 points (92.2% liked)

Technology

34894 readers
952 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The idea that we are entering an era of techno-feudalism that will be worse than capitalism is chilling and controversial. We asked former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to elucidate this idea, explain how we got here, and map out some alternatives.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 99 points 9 months ago (7 children)

This is always the goal of capitalism, no need to give it some alternative name on order to white wash the brand.

The answer is Democratic socialism. It's our stuff they're stealing, we can take it back.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Capitalism isn’t a form of government the way democratic socialism is? But to your point, even Adam Smith realized the problems with a legal and governmental system that is controlled by corporations to be a terrible idea. He was well aware that profit motives without limit leads to mistreatment of individuals.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I'm not implying capitalism is a form of government. I'm saying the form of government best suited to containing the excesses of capitalism is Democratic socialism.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I’d like to think most democracies would enact some socialist policies if there was less money involved in politics… but I’m not sure what the best way to prevent that is.

You can craft laws but the legal system is also profit driven. And you’d need some way to either prevent corruption or get the motivations to line up correctly. But I can’t think of any practical solutions that also align with freedoms.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

My perspective is that the larger the organization is, the more likely it'll get a carve-out in the law. The more complex the law, the more carve-outs special interests get.

So making more laws isn't the solution here, we should be striving to make simpler laws. For example, instead of a complex system of carbon emissions standards for vehicles based on type, just charge a carbon tax that approximates the cost of removing that carbon. The former gave us massive SUVs because they're regulated as light trucks instead of passenger cars (so they have lighter regulations), the latter would encourage higher efficiency without a slew of regulations.

get the motivations to line up correctly

That's the preferred solution imo.

But I can’t think of any practical solutions that also align with freedoms.

A lot of leftists look at government as the hammer to solve problems. Sometimes that's the right approach, but often it's not.

What seems to work consistently is to make bad things expensive/criminal. If people die due to negligence (e.g. irresponsible cost cutting), put anyone involved in jail. If the payoff is higher than the penalty for bad behavior, increase the penalty.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Democratic socialism is run by capitalism. Sweden is actually more capitalist than America.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Social democracy is a system that is completely different from democratic socialism. SocDems are capitalists, DemSocs are absolutely not.

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 19 points 9 months ago (22 children)

Also the Netherlands is still very much capitalistic while having much more protections for their citizens.

This isn’t a blanket “capitalism bad”, it’s the fact we allowed our country to be bought out by capitalism.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 62 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Silicon Serfdom?

No that's still capitalism. Capitalism is still the problem. To call it anything else is apologetics, the core issue is that the private ownership of the means of production leads to a concentration of power in the hands of precisely the wrong kind of people after selecting for and reinforcing the most selfish behaviors in them. It then allows them to essentially usurp whatever form of government exists.

[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

There is a difference however. The techno feudalists are no longer about the means of production. Instead they increasingly show rent-seeking behaviour. Businesses looking to own "market places" and becoming brokers of other people's services is a techni feudalist trend. Take Amazon for example. They sell top spots in their search directly to business customers. An app store monopoly is more akin to land ownership than classic factory capitalism.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago

okay but land ownership and rent seeking are inherent, inevitable parts of capitalism. Even Smith talked about how rent-seeking is an unavoidable outcome of a system where one person can own what another needs, and about how in order to succeed capitalism will require some way of discouraging or taxing rent-seeking. “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” This isn't a new phenomenon and it's not a return to pre-capitalism, it's capitalism doing what we all new it was going to do from the beginning.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Problem I have with calling this a feudal arrangement is a lot of serfs actually had family rights to their land/means of production under land tenure agreements. It's more the notion of private ownership of land and production that has led to these private technology increasingly mediating more of our lives. I've seen the concept of technofeudalism used in good ways but the overall thing is capitalism and they are more elements of feudal type arrangement within that.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

Precisely this. The few rights that feudal peasants did have are being ferreted out as "inefficiencies"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 50 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Wait. Capitalism isn’t silicon serfdom?

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 71 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, it has to be from the silicon valley, otherwise it's just sparkling oppression.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 10 points 9 months ago

Aha. Thanks for making the distinction for me.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Silicon isn't required.

[–] rem26_art@kbin.social 35 points 9 months ago (2 children)

lol Yanis is def making the rounds cuz of his new book. He also talked about this on Adam Conover's podcast, Factually a few weeks ago.

iirc he's saying that we're at the point where some of the richest people have moved from owning the means to actually produce things to providing platforms for exchanging goods for money to happen on, while basically charging rent. He compares it to feudalism in that a company like Amazon or Apple with its app store are feudal lords who come in and collect money off of each transaction made by the "serfs" (people who sell and buy things on these markets), basically in exchange for being allowed to list. And increasingly, its getting harder and harder to do business without dealing with one of these tech giants. I think he mentioned how WeChat is another good example of this in China, where they're involved in like everything

[–] PositiveNoise@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

I read a similar article a few weeks ago, and I think your concise summary is better than the article linked in this post.

I think Yanis goes a bit overboard with stating that capitalism kinda no longer exists, since it really is about a new group of rich people simply inserting their companies as evil middlemen who leach money off the whole system.

I'm not sure the solution has to be revolutionary or super complex. I'd think that large countries and groups of countries (e.g. USA, the EU) could implement their own mega marketplaces, leaching off much less money and avoiding the sort of corrupt BS that Amazon etc do to keep prices artificially high, and these governments could also stop allowing the mega platforms to do business in their region. Big countries want to facilitate an economy, and if private industry is proving to be too broken with their current approach, governments could step in to create more functional marketplaces that still work nicely in the internet age and don't have horrible middlemen crap dragging everything down.

[–] Omniraptor@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yanis goes a bit overboard with stating that capitalism kinda no longer exists, since it really is about a new group of rich people simply inserting their companies as evil middlemen who leach money off the whole system.

The difference between rents and profits in economics is crucially important tho, and so many people in these threads seem not to get it. one is progressive and at least in theory moves us closer to post scarcity. and the other does the complete opposite. Yanis is right to emphasize that difference. And his proposals are perfectly market based- he wants to use the government to create competition for the current digital rentiers. if you force them to compete again so they might get back to providing added value instead of just being leeches.

People love to harp about Radical Marxist Muslim Obama but he was onto the same thing with his "public option". Just like it is now hard to live without interacting with big tech, it's hard to live without interacting with private health insurance. And in the same way, health insurance can never be a truly free market because the opportunity cost of not buying insurance is well, you know..

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] meyotch 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rem26_art@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

ya middlemen is a good term for it. I don't think that it really needs an entirely separate branding from capitalism, but idk i guess that also makes for an eye catching headline.

I agree that governments have the tools to deal with these kinds of things. It's just getting them to actually do something about it that's beneficial to us as average people is the tough part lol.

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 5 points 9 months ago

They are not just middlemen, they control the entire sales platform - both buyer and seller.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] onion@feddit.de 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Isn't that exactly what the EUs DMA is trying to address

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neptune@dmv.social 33 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It's really scary how much money Uber/Uber Eats/Amazon etc sucked out of local economies.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

That's reason #1 why I've never, and never will, use that ogre's taint of a service.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

One of the things not addressed in this interview is how the ideology of libertarianism is central to the transition from markets to fiefdoms. All the big tech bros are huge libertarians and that's not an accident.

And I do think this is a new phenomena unlike classic capitalism. Marx thought that a post-scarcity society would mean more leisure, he didn't anticipate that that leisure was just another source of value to exploit. Think of reddit selling it's "content" to an AI company. That content wasn't produced by coerced labor paid unfairly, it was produced by voluntary labor paid nothing.

[–] hglman@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Marx didn't anticipate information technology. Because of IT, we are moving to a new regime of humanity. The automation of action is part of the reason, but the most important is the ability of any group of people to communicate. The control of broadcast underpins the prior structures of power. Now, anyone can reach everyone, and we are watching the power of the state erode in the rise of fascism globally.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

We don't serfdom well. Rich techbros can expect feces in their food and spittle in their drink, and eventially a guillotine party. Maybe armies of patrol drones will slow it down but the opportunities for mischief will be exciting.

FDR's New Deal was to prevent a communist revolution. And here we are, again.

Now serfdom would work if they recognized people need bare minimums that keep them warm, fed and comfortable. But aristocrats always take thr serfs for granted.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

To refer to this as feudalism gives an impression that capitalism functions effectively and we are transitioning away from it; however, in reality, we are merely progressing into the advanced stages of the same system. Let us simply acknowledge that it is indeed capitalism.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're saying that capitalism isn't serfdom?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Clearly, y'all need to play more Shadowrun. 🤘🏽🤷🏼‍♂️

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 5 points 9 months ago

What a load of hogwash.

I understand the railing against rent seeking. It’s my land too, so why am I paying for it, and all. I mean, I disagree with the notion, but I understand it.

This is entirely different. Cloud services haven’t been built for nothing - they are massive investment projects and like anything else we build that many use, capital allows us to distribute the cost. Yes there’s a profit motive and one could argue against it or not, but these services didn’t exist as natural resources that the cloud-lords dominated by force and then rented back to us. They built new lands and asked if anybody want to come live there.

[–] LKPU26@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

[–] Flumpkin 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Not sure if I understand this correctly:

Cloud capital is fundamentally different because it can be copied infinitely like a digital copy and requires exponentially less labor. This is different from owning and operating a factory (requires labor) or owning or renting land (limited). There might still be labor but it's insignificant and it scales almost infinitely. That is why it's rent on capitalism. It's this infinite scalability that is the difference.

You could develop a perfect alternative to amazon, ebay, paypal, facebook or google, messaging apps, app stores: The cloud capital isn't in the software or the servers, it's in the account network. Everyone can theoretically move services but that incurs costs by loosing your connections in the network. And marketing makes it so that the majority of people won't do it. So once the network is established it extracts wealth without being productive.

Another example would be paypal - they take something like 1.5% to 3% of all online transactions, practically a tax on all consumer transactions.

And you use digital services all the time and are increasingly dependent on them. And they extract wealth without them having to produce content or advertising, they just rent their ad spaces.

AI generation and robotics will become much more advanced in the coming decades. This too could become cloud capital and wealth extraction without requiring significant labor. Especially once we reach "robots building robots".

I'm also seeing a power grab for the means of generation coming. If public learning data has to be licensed especially for AI to learn from them, it will mean that the cloud capitalists will own the generative AIs. In their anger about big AI "stealing muh data", people will help that IP law will change so that serfs will not be able to use generative AI freely. Maybe LLMs and generative AI are over hyped but they've come a long way in just a few years, in one or two decades it could be incredible cloud capital that extracts wealth to no end, without any labor involved at all.

The feudalism bit I'm not sure about - presumably the scale of social media creates not just cloud capital and massive rents, it also creates political power. By subtly shaping how algorithms present content, we are being ruled by algorithms. The content we see makes us think certain things, argue about this and that and distracts us. MAGA is an example of a sub population mostly disconnected from reality and trapped in a prison for the mind. This is political power similar to a serf under a lord. Not sure how well that relates.

He also mentions the global financial system, I imagine that globalization and increasing refinement of "financial products" also serve as a form of cloud capital that is no longer really tethered to real labor. It's more and more speculative. The central bank constantly prints money and injects it and somehow it ends up in the hands of the cloud capitalists? But that existed before.

Not sure if patents or IP fit into this. And again, not sure if I understand any of this correctly or if I buy any of this. But it's certainly possible that the scale of certain forms of capital create completely different emergent structures. Even if it's fundamentally the same mechanisms, technology might turn it into a completely different beast.

He definitely didn't do a great job explaining this - presumably Yanis Varoufakis wants us to buy his book. That old capitalist trick!

load more comments
view more: next ›