Feudalism does not have a middle class
Feudalism does not have a middle class
That should be the biggest argument against the rise of tech bro neo feudalism. Feudalism only has a hierarchy of lesser and greater lords that hold a right to ownership of any kind and have a licence to exploit the peasantry, and everyone else is a serf of no relevance or rights of autonomy or ownership.
The only way feudalism can possibly play out is empoverishment of the masses in the long term.
This isn't quite accurate. I appreciate trying to call attention to Capitalism turning more and more towards rent extraction (something I consider a natural consequence of the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, but that's another can of worms), but there are fundamental errors here.
Feudalism had a middle class, and it was the bourgeoisie, who are now the Capital Owners at the top. Seeing feudalism as a closed system purely of peasants and aristocracy isn't really an accurate view, and thus erases the revolutionary potential of the bourgeoisie during feudalism, who were an emerging class. In modern society, we have the revolutionary potential of the proletariat as a class that has grown alongside and much larger than the bourgeoisie, and this continues. We are not turning into peasants, the way we work is still based on commodity production, but the means of consumption is changing.
Neofeudalism is simply a term used to describe Capitalism's evolution in Imperialist countries where most real production is outsourced, it isn't a genuine form of feudalism but simply an even higher stage of Capitalism, likely signs of its death throes in the face of Socialism.
I counter that the bourgeoise and proletariat are post feudal and have a right to ownership. The proletariat may own their home, tools, and personal effects. Feudalism, in the medieval sense, was driven by the thieves and bandits in the countryside, and eventually the henchmen and private forces of the feudal lords. The relevant majority forfeited their property or sold it in order to relocate their lives in proximity to a feudal lord and their private security forces. In the beginning it was out of necessity with no nefarious potential. The peasantry were simply trying to survive. The critical issue is that they were forced to trust the feudal lords to do the right thing. Trust is always the issue. Blind trust in anyone that is incentivised should they choose to exploit another always results in exploitation in the long term.
Serfdom came about as the peasants lacked the means to produce their own tools. The feudal lords then exploited the serfs to the extreme, even seizing their right to leave the land of the feudal lord. In the neo feudal state, home ownership has effectively been seized. You are now at the mercy of the whims of your landlord. The seizure of tools through digital means in every sector of society mirrors that of the roots of feudalism. Everyone is asked to trust. Trusting those that have the ability to exploit and extort is the driving force that created feudalism in the past and is sending us into the dark age of neo feudalism now. I hate capitalism, but it is the only system that minimizes any need to trust someone to do the right thing. Autonomy and self determination are a rejection of the need to trust anyone incentivised to exploit and extort others for their own selfish gain or oversimplify complexity and create catastrophes. I wouldn't mind reversion to a nineteenth century society as much as neo feudalism is a digression of a millennia further back in social evolution. This is not a partial confiscation of property. It is aiming at full control of all. To own is to be a minor lord, but the sharks swimming above will find any that fail to rise up to ever higher levels. Trust is the only reason why. It is the linchpin of freedom, egalitarianism, and democracy. No one has a right to demand trust in any instance or democracy has failed. There is no equality in trust, only slavery through subjugation.
The bourgeoisie and proletariat emerged from within feudalism. It wasn't a switch being pulled, bourgeois production existed alongside feudal production for a time before the bourgeoise wrested control. Moreover, the proletariat doesn't own its own tools, the serfs did. The rest of your comment with respect makes little logical sense to me and depends on the idea of "trust," which isn't a very materialist view of history. Overall, Socialism remains the next phase in mode of production, ie large scale central planning and public ownership.
There's as much of a middle class than there is with our current societies. Revolution into capitalism happened because the bourgeoisie saw itself too rich to be of the lower class. They wanted the privileges. They got them.
But the thing is that liberalism is neo-feudalism. The state protect the weak. Without the state, the powerful can do whatever they want. The tech bros think they are among the powerful, that's why they want more neo-feudalism. Exactly like the bourgeois wanted access to privileges.
Feudalism only has a hierarchy of lesser and greater lords [...] to exploit the peasantry
There are "lesser" and "greater" lords that exploit the "peasants". There's the "proletariat" and the "burgeoisie", with "petit burgeoisie" in-between. There's the "workers" and the management - "low-" and "high-". And of course, there's the classes: "high", "low" and of course, "middle".
The way I see it, pretty much whatever system one envisions, there's the "down-lows", the "high-ups" and the "in-betweens", although they may not be called that explicitly. Usually it's the high class that can be split into two, feudal lords and management alike.