SA: What does this have to do with feudalism?
CD: Feudalism is completely different from technofeudalism, in which farmers worked with their own tools and brought some of their products to the feudal lords. They effectively worked for the feudal lords for some days, but the dominant form of their labor process was solitary or familial. In technofeudalism, labor is socialized on a large scale, and the digital world plays a very important role in this increasing socialization.
Two important dimensions of techno-feudalism echo the medieval period. The first is similar to feudalism in which there is a relationship of dependence politically and economically. Simply put, our dependency today is based on the fact that no one can live without Google or Microsoft. I mean, my mom can, but she’s 82. For her, it’s no drama if she can’t access Google, but it is for most of us. This is an obvious fact of dependency, but it goes further than that. Think about the states. Nations are becoming increasingly dependent on these technofeudalists. There is a wealth of literature on how these companies are providing critical infrastructure for the operation of states and their communications networks. Take submarine cables for example. Until the 2000s, they were state owned. But now most of them are owned by private corporations. The same applies for cloud services. German ministry signed a contract with AWS [Amazon Web Services] For example, for its cloudiness last November. Private companies are playing an increasingly important role in the running of the world, which means state sovereignty is declining; They are under corporations. Other companies also depend on them. Even large companies like Walmart rely on their cloud services, meaning these cloud monopolists are taking an increasing share of the value created along the chain. And this is very strange. In the beginning, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Tesla were all completely separate companies. They were not in the same business. They were selling books or search engines or word processing or cars. But now, they are all moving towards monopolizing the means of coordination. And thus we are going back to feudalism. They are monopolizing something from which no one can escape. They are both preserving and regulating that space. There is a political aspect to it, but there is also an economic aspect, because they can make money from it.
SA: Maybe it’s a roundabout thing, but how did feudalism end?
CD: It ended because of trade routes and the ability to escape to Glebe
Dependence on regional fusion of economic and political power.
The transition between feudal lords and peasants shifted from pure domination to market relations, leading to a move towards productivity.
SA: If trade routes led to the end of feudalism, it also had to do with the spread of goods and communications, right? But now, all the trade routes are owned by these companies. So would you say that the root of all evil is the result of decades of privatization without market regulation?
CD: I think that’s a pretty good way to summarize the state’s rising comeback.
Validity and action. One of the biggest mistakes policymakers made was to say, “Okay, let’s see what they can do. Let’s trust them. Let’s follow them.” In fact, this was the same mistake that was made in the financial industry. Before 2008, it was a very complex financial product, and at the end of the day, no one was able to regulate it because no one understood what was going on. This is a similar process. And so, if there is any lesson to be taken from this, it is that it is very important for the state apparatus – the public institutions, the commons, or whatever you want to call it – to maintain efficiency by understanding what is being done.
SA: Isn’t this related to the high level of specialization across industries?
CD: I agree that the increasing sophistication associated with specialization makes it difficult for people from different regions to connect with each other, but I do not think it has any impact on the organization of states. You can have public bodies where people are able to understand what’s going on and talk to each other. There is the idea of an academic nation, where few people are able to articulate the discussion, and the idea of innovation systems that link the private and public sectors. There are people who are able to build bridges and help organize institutions. Of course, it’s more expensive, because you need more and more institutions. But we should not take a fatalistic view on this. Do you remember Libra?
SA: No.
CD: This was a project to have currency on Facebook in 2019. Can you imagine? It would have been unbelievable. The most used currency in the world. But policymakers and foreign bankers said, “No way.” That unit will have a lot of power. Tula was stopped. And so, we can stop things like this. Another positive example is China. They’re at the frontier of technology, but they’re regulating it. They discipline their technical bosses. In many Chinese companies, there is a thing called the Golden Chair, which is a share that allows you to veto strategic decisions of the company without receiving dividends. It’s a form of political control, and I think things like this need to be considered.
In the big picture, I think China would seem to be the most appropriate way to approach tech businesses in the 21st century. It is more stable. He also has a strong ecological agenda, international ties, and thinks the private sector should exercise some oversight. I’m not too excited about the pluralism there, or the lack of privacy and so on. Not that I like it, but China seems less crazy.
SA: What do you make of what’s happening in America?
CD: You know, I used to play music and read novels, but for the past months I haven’t been able to do that, because it takes too much energy to try to understand what’s going on. My interpretation is that they’re really trying to embody this vision of techno-feudalism. They are weakening the state, transferring state capabilities to the private sector, and giving it more space. For example, it is completely unbelievable that Trump, on his first day in office, signed an executive order suspending federal state oversight of AI. Then, of course, there’s DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency]Who [has been] Weakening regulation capabilities and screening out civil servants who would oppose the power of companies. They are actually trying to implement technofeudalism and allow companies to create their own sovereign space without any restrictions imposed by the state. However, this will fail. This is my hypothesis. It is very complex to manage society without political mediation. Again, people are already responding internationally, and this will grow. Political capabilities will be strengthened. To be honest, I’m not that pessimistic, because I don’t think they will succeed. However, they are trying.
SA: Aren’t you nervous? I mean, isn’t this what they set out for Project 2025?
CD: There’s definitely a plan. And this is a very systematic dismantling to create confusion –