Digital Lords or Capitalist Titans? Critiquing the Techno-Feudalism Narrative

Arif NoviantoLeave a comment

In recent years, the rise of platform monopolies such as Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft has sparked a growing discourse among scholars and public intellectuals, many of whom describe these developments through the lens of a supposed return to feudal structures. This narrative, often labeled as techno-feudalism or digital feudalism, suggests that contemporary digital capitalism is no longer driven primarily by labor exploitation, but by rent extraction and control over digital infrastructures (Varoufakis, 2021).

Prominent left-leaning thinkers such as Yanis Varoufakis, Mariana Mazzucato, McKenzie Wark, Jodi Dean, David Arditi, and Robert Kuttner have employed the techno-feudalism framework to highlight the increasing asymmetries of power and wealth in the digital age.

The term has gained significant traction, not least because of its rhetorical force and capacity to evoke historical imaginaries of servitude, hierarchy, and immobility (Morozov, 2022). Yet its growing popularity has also introduced analytical imprecision, with many adopting the label as a buzzword rather than engaging critically with its implications. At first glance, the metaphor appears appealing: today鈥檚 tech giants resemble lords presiding over digital fiefdoms, extracting value from users and workers who have little choice but to submit to the rules of the platform. However, this article argues that such analogies are conceptually flawed and politically misleading.

Drawing on the tradition of critical political economy, this paper challenges the techno-feudalism thesis by contending that the digital economy remains deeply embedded within capitalist logics, particularly in its monopolistic and financialized forms. What we are witnessing is not a reversion to feudal relations, but an intensification of capitalist accumulation strategies under new technological conditions. Platform monopolies do not derive power from land ownership or inherited status, but from their capacity to commodify data, enforce algorithmic control, and monetize access to essential infrastructures鈥攅specially through cloud computing and digital platforms. These dynamics do not mark a rupture from capitalism but rather its latest mutation, in which market domination is achieved through the mechanisms of monopoly, not feudal hierarchy.

By debunking the techno-feudalism myth, this article seeks to redirect the critique toward the enduring structures of capitalist domination that continue to define the digital economy. Understanding Big Tech as capitalist titans, rather than digital lords, offers a more precise analytical lens for grasping the mechanisms of exploitation, accumulation, and control that shape the contemporary political economy of platforms.

Read More »

Renewing Dependency Theory: The Case of Walter Rodney

dkjohnson18bd6434e0Leave a comment

The failure of mainstream development policy to deliver on the promise of eradicating global poverty is increasingly difficult to deny (World Bank 2024). As a result, theories of global development are opening to alternative and critical approaches. In this context there has been a renewal of interest in dependency theory as a rich heterodox tradition of political economy (Kvangraven 2021; Chilcote and Sal茅m Vasconcelos 2022; Antunes de Oliveira and Kvangraven 2024). In a , I turned to one of the foundational scholars of dependency, Walter Rodney (1942-1980), to work through some of the strengths and limits of dependency theory for contemporary studies (Johnson 2023).

Read More »

G20 must end 鈥渙utsourcing鈥� of multilateralism

麻豆直播1 Comment

By Charles Abugre and C.P. Chandrasekhar

In multiple ways multilateralism, or the coming together of the international community to further global good, is under challenge today. 鈥楥onflicts鈥�, not least among them the genocide in Gaza, are an obvious challenge. But there is in the economic sphere a silent subversion of multilateralism underway that also needs to be stalled and reversed. This is the view that the 鈥渇inancing for development challenge鈥� is so huge and the share of the private sector in the holding and disposal of the world鈥檚 financial surpluses so large, that it is only private initiative that can successfully implement the programmes needed to realise the SDGs and address damaging climate change.

The corollary of that position is that the role of governments is no more to try and move surpluses from private to public hands (through new forms of international tax cooperation, for example) but to use the available public resources as means to unlock private investments and expenditures. The call is to go beyond the recognition that the tasks of realising the SDGs, ensuring the needed carbon transition, and building resilience the world over, are primarily governmental or 鈥榩ublic鈥� responsibilities, and that cooperation among governments (or multilateralism) is the best means to implement those tasks. Pragmatism demands, it is argued, that these tasks and therefore multilateralism, or the conjoint responsibilities of global governments, must be 鈥渙utsourced鈥�.

Read More »

G20 Summit, Global Policy, and Internal Issues: The Economic Situation in Brazil During Lula’s Third Term

sergiomartinpaezLeave a comment

In January 2023, Luiz In谩cio “Lula” da Silva, leader of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), began his third term as the president of Brazil, the largest economy in Latin America. The economic outlook is promising, with steady growth, controlled inflation, and declining unemployment rate. Despite challenges from a difficult Congress, Lula aimed to revive social and economic policies from his earlier terms (2002-2010). Simultaneously, he is pursuing an active international agenda focused on peace in the Middle East and Ukraine, environmental protection, and reforms in global governance. Brazil’s G20 presidency will conclude in November with a meeting in Rio de Janeiro that is expected to introduce new tax measures on billionaires and initiatives to boost environmental conservation. A Global Alliance Against Hunger will also be launched to tackle global issues.

This article explores the potential for necessary changes to meet Brazilian demands, concerns about the macroeconomic trajectory’s sustainability, and political tensions leading to the 2026 elections. The central argument is that Lula’s external strategy is closely tied to strengthening the internal disputes affected by neoliberal institutions. Success in this approach is vital not only for achieving structural improvements, but also for safeguarding the democratic regime, which faced threats just eight days after Lula took office.

Read More »

Climate and Trade Explainer

Regions RefocusLeave a comment

The Gender and Trade Coalition was initiated in 2018 by feminist and progressive activists to put forward feminist trade analysis and advocate for equitable trade policy.

This article is the fourth in a series of short, Q&A format 鈥榚xplainers鈥� unpacking key trade issues produced for the Gender and Trade Coalition by Regions Refocus. It was written by Erica Levenson (Regions Refocus) with inputs from Maureen Penjueli (PANG), Adam Wolfenden (PANG), and Ranja Sengupta (Third World Network). The authors give their thanks to Mariama Williams (Global Afro-Descendant Climate Justice Collaborative), who reviewed various versions of the article and provided helpful feedback. Read the full article and catch up on past explainers .

1. How is Trade Connected to Climate Change?

For the past 500 years in which capitalism has been the dominant economic system, continuing profit accumulation has been dependent on the unsustainable use, commodification, privatization, and destruction of natural resources on the one hand, and exploitation of human resources on the other. While natural resources have always fueled the metaphorical fire of capitalism, the Industrial Revolution greatly increased the ease and speed with which they could be destroyed. It is scientifically proven that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the main cause of climate change, with carbon dioxide (CO2) that results from the burning of fossil fuels as the number one source of warming and methane (largely emitted by the industrial agriculture sector) at number two. [1] Trade in particular has contributed to climate change: international trade alone accounts for an estimated 20鈥�30% of annual GHG emissions.[2]

The current structural configuration of the economy, with trade at the center, is fundamentally incompatible with the reduction of GHG emissions. Free trade aims to expand the volume of trade in terms of production as well as consumption, so as to increase the potential gains to countries from

participating in international trade鈥� as established by Ricardo鈥檚 theory of comparative advantage.[3] But this theory pays no attention to the distributional impacts of free trade, or its environmental impacts. Trade-related production activities are often hugely detrimental to the environment and come at the price of forever contaminating or destroying essential ecosystems. Since all modes of transport鈥� air, land, sea, and train shipping鈥� are fossil fuel-dependent, an increase in consumption necessarily means an increase in GHG emissions. Gasoline and diesel power every form of shipping; maritime transport, fueled by diesel, makes up the majority of international trade in terms of both volume and value.[4]

Read More »

Back to the White Elephants 鈥� the West鈥檚 new development strategy in Africa

Farwa Sial1 Comment

“Europe鈥檚 new external investment strategy needs to reconnect with historical business models we are going back to white elephants of 1970s 鈥� because that鈥檚 what partners want“

– G7 official in a speech on Trade and Finance.

“The era of Western dominance has indeed definitely ended“

– Josep Borrell (2024).听

On 28 January 2024, three members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, announced their withdrawal from ECOWAS.  Created in 1974, ECOWAS is a regional economic community serving as a large trading bloc, to enhance the regional integration and economic cooperation of its 15 member countries.  The three countries鈥� decision to leave the trade-bloc so forthrightly, was related to a series of ECOWAS-imposed sanctions on their military governments and the countries鈥� objection to French influence in the bloc. Long-standing dissatisfaction with the ECOWAS was also an overarching factor; member countries include some of the most resource-rich nations, but on the whole members barely made any progress on socio-economic indicators linked to the ECOWAS promise of prosperity through regional integration.

Political uncertainty in the trade-bloc further deteriorated in mid-February 2024, when the Senegalese President Macky Sall, unilaterally postponed the country鈥檚 presidential elections and was later ousted. Faced with such existential challenges, ECOWAS lifted sanctions on Niger and other countries within a month of their imposition. While the potential breakdown of ECOWAS and the general trajectory of some African countries into authoritarianism, may not seem like a radical shift in the continent鈥檚 history, the incendiary global context, which compelled ECOWAS to lift sanctions is unprecedented. The neo-colonial drivers of the current crumbling political order in Sudan and the Congo as well as the ongoing genocide in Palestine, indelibly expose the reality that we are entering into an era of naked colonial violence. Backlash to US-centred imperialism is growing. In March 2024, Niger suspended all military relations with the US, citing issues related to US encroachment upon its sovereignty. Embedded in this evolving situation, the episodic and ad-hoc de-linking of Global South countries from Global North countries and their dominance in blocs such as the ECOWAS is representative of a broader shift in Africa鈥檚 resistance against political and economic subordination to G7 countries.

Against this background, the Western powers鈥� new and evolving development strategy in Africa offers important insights into how the G7 countries are failing to register the transformative changes in Africa.  In a closed-door speech on investment, trade and finance forum, a G7 official described Europe鈥檚 new external investment strategy as one that harkens back to the White elephants of the 1970s. While the speaker was using the term 鈥榃hite Elephant鈥� to signify the EU鈥檚 interest in funding hard infrastructure, imbued with a promise of investment and growth for recipient countries, he clearly failed to grasp its meaning. A 鈥榳hite elephant鈥� is an overly expensive infrastructure asset, which fails to generate value for the economy.

Considered in light of the correct definition of the term, the West鈥檚 new development strategy does seem to be going towards expensive infrastructure projects, spurred by a reactionary, performative but ultimately imagined competition with China. I make this point through a comparative analysis between the G7s contemporary development strategy vis-脿-vis the Chinese development model as it unfolds within the broader demise of US-led imperialism.

Read More »

The Nobel Illusion: Why the听Nobel Prize in Economics Needs to be Abolished

Dr. Dawa SherpaLeave a comment

Every year the Nobel Prize is awarded to different disciplines including Economics. And each year it generates a wave of euphoria and hype. But unlike literature and natural sciences, economics is the only social science where the Nobel is awarded. Even critical voices within the discipline get swayed by the hype of Nobel. Notwithstanding the problem of absolute marginalization of Blacks, Women and economists critical of Capitalism among award winners, there are other serious problems with Nobel Prize in Economics.

First of all, the Nobel Prize in Economics is not actually a Nobel Prize. The award in Economic sciences was not among the original set of disciplines included in the Nobel Prize in 1901. It was established by the Central Bank of Sweden (Sveriges Riksbank) in 1969, after 68 years, rather than by the Nobel Committee itself. The greatest irony is that this fact is mentioned even on the Nobel Prize website, which states, 鈥淭he prize in economic sciences is not a Nobel Prize.鈥� (NobelPrize.org, 2018). Hence contrary to all other Nobel prizes in different subjects/fields, the Nobel Prize in economics is called by the special name 鈥淪veriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel鈥�.Initially, members of the Nobel committee (including family members of Alfred Nobel) strongly objected to naming the prize given by the Central Bank of Sweden as the Nobel prize (Offer & S枚derberg, 2016). To quote Alfred鈥檚 great-grandnephew Peter Nobel, “Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society’s well-being. There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize”, and deliberate association of Nobel prizes in Economics is “a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation” (The Local – Nobel Descendant Slams Economics Prize, 2005).

Read More »

The nobel of influence in Economics or Why theories fail

Yaku1 Comment

The only Nobel Prize that has nothing to do with the will of its creator, Alfred Nobel, was announced on Monday, October 14th. As usual, the announcement sparked a range of reactions, and as economist . This time, the prize did its job and recognized the contribution of neo-institutionalism to economics. Its influence is undeniable, as can be seen from the fact that these authors are widely cited in macroeconomics courses. For instance, Daron Acemoglu had long been mentioned in academic circles as a favorite to win the Nobel, much like Leonardo DiCaprio was repeatedly named a favorite for the Best Actor Oscar. While we are already familiar with the kind of economics that dominates classrooms and the hegemonic media, as well as the economics that influences politics and shapes economic policies, it鈥檚 worth discussing the theoretical and empirical contributions being recognized and their main critical observations.

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson (AJR) have been awarded for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity. Their work addresses what is perhaps one of the most important questions in economics: How do we explain the economic disparity between countries? Why are some nations persistently wealthy while others remain consistently poor? We should understand prosperity as the plain and simple economic growth. If we rule out biological, cultural, or geographical reasons, what remains is dimension of the historical-political order. Development, then, is largely dependent on one key factor: In the early stages of nations, before they became modern states, what forms of government, civil codes, and laws were established? According to AJR, the root of development lies in the different types of political institutions that were established across the world. Thus, inclusive institutions are in sharp contrast with extractive institutions.

Read More »