Neoliberal capitalism failed in 2008, but politicians kept it alive with vast bailouts only for it to be consumed by techno-feudalism, and dominated by Trump's gangsterism.
Exactly this. People despise me for standing this ground for years. I’ve lost family and friends over it and now all I can say is “I told you so” but they still don’t see it
Yes. I know how you feel. Whether I've portrayed our social structure as the rich cannibalizing the rest of the population — or portrayed our society as a snake consuming ever-more of its tail — people can be one bite away from oblivion, and still cling to complacency.
Incoherent woffly Tom, giving it a cool sounding name and ripping of a image Maslow's hierarchy of needs is not strong and there is no evidence. Just all a bit weak. Happy Friday sam
Tom, my friend, how are you this fine Friday? I hope all’s well. I'm more than happy to expand—but it’s honestly tough to know where to begin when so much of the argument above is, frankly, vacuous nonsense.
Let’s start with one of Tom’s central claims: that tech firms are "extracting rent" rather than engaging in "conventional capitalism" (see paragraphs 6–8). While it’s true that companies like Amazon, Google, and Meta earn revenue from data and platform dominance, calling them landlords is just wrong. Unlike landlords, who passively extract rent from property they don’t improve, tech firms build and maintain vast, complex, and valuable infrastructures. You're probably reading this on software developed by Microsoft. Apple designs and manufactures phones and devices. Amazon runs the largest global cloud computing service alongside an enormous logistics network. Google provides search, cloud computing, and AI capabilities used across industries. Even Facebook (Meta), often painted as the most extractive, delivers a suite of interconnected products used by billions.
These companies are not rent-seeking landlords—they’re product and service creators. Claiming otherwise isn’t analysis. It’s just not true.
Next, Tom, ripping off Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and turning it into a lazy infographic doesn’t make an argument — it’s just a pyramid with words slapped on. There’s no substance, no evidence, no reasoning. To prove the point, I’ve created my own version below. As you’ll see, both mine and AAV’s carry precisely the same amount of thought and coherent logic
"Capitalism seems to work as long as its got room for expansion. Over preceding decades neoliberal capitalism has spread its tentacles into the global south, China, and the former Soviet Union, as well as eating away at the public domain through privatisation and outsourcing.
But what happens when there’s nowhere else besides North Korea and Cuba left to expand into, and almost all of the public realm has already been converted to private profiteering?" - Room to expand is not Geographic only. Its a rediculuse notion. The idea that capitalism only thrives when there's geographic room to expand is absurd. Capitalism doesn't rely solely on territory — it evolves through technology, innovation, and the constant creation of new markets. Suggesting that the only remaining frontiers are Cuba and North Korea misses the point entirely. Innovation hasn’t stopped, and there’s no credible evidence that capitalism is now cannibalising itself out of necessity. It’s a lazy, defeatist take — more rhetoric than reality.
Yeah, Tom, it's "rediculuse" to acknowledge that this planet's resources are finite; all we have to do is "evolve through technology" to live off of the unlimited PICTURES of food & shelter, that technology provides!
First of all, (some) landlords do maintain property to a certain degree.
These tech companies? Their products are trash. I am reading this on a computer with ubuntu installed. Not Microsoft's garbage. And Firefox, a non-profit. Google's search engine? Garbage. Amazon's store? Garbage. Windows? Garbage. Facebook? Garbage.
Capitalism produces worse results in software, not better.
Amazon makes a large percentage of revenue from its Web store. It did so with its immoral practices and venture capitalist BS thereby killing competition. Now it is able to extract wealth through selling fees, aka rent. The actual benefit to the person is nil since they don't provide anything other retailers can't. Apple also charges fees for selling apps on its store, which is another form of rent.
Then let's not forget the myriad of companies that have pivoted to a subscription model. Not because it's necessary to maintain a service, but because they can earn more that way. Adobe is a prime example. It is better for them for users to have to continually pay for its software rather than once a certain version which they can upgrade as they see fit.
Apologise Tom - I missed your post. Let me respond - Great—use a different provider. Switch to Linux, use GIMP or DaVinci Resolve instead of Adobe, browse with Firefox. That’s capitalism in action: the power to choose, to kill the giant if their product is inferior. I support and encourage it. If a tech company provides poor service or overcharges, walk away. The market allows it—alternatives exist.
That said, yes, market dominance in tech is a genuine concern. These firms wield immense influence, and regulation is needed to keep competition healthy. But calling them “landlords” is fundamentally flawed. Landlords profit from owning static physical assets and extracting rent without creating new value. Tech firms—however bloated or monopolistic—still build, maintain, and improve digital infrastructure, tools, and services that billions use daily. Their dominance is a problem worth tackling, but the core of AAV’s argument is built on a category error. It's catchy rhetoric, not economic truth. Happy Easter - Sam
I was surprised to see that the tech-bros had a tech-ho defending them in the comment section.
Then again, battered spouses often defend their abusers. Irrationally.
At least that one argument — that you couldn't call it rent because (ostensibly unlike housing), websites need to be "built" & "maintained" — provided a laugh.
Hi Lisa, I hope all is good. I hope your weekend is going well? Let me give you just a little more evidence that the big 4 are not landlords. Please see below the R&D spend from Wikipedia. They spend more then any other companies globally. This I not the behaviour of a landlord. I think you have to be a little blinkered or slightly odd not acknowledge that they all create products. All the best sam
Thank you for the link lisa. Interesting but I fail to see how this article relates to the above debate. What exactly are you driving at please? All the best sam
Regarding: "Hi Lisa, I hope all is good. I hope your weekend is going well... All the best"
•••
OF COURSE you do, Sam, because you are a deeply caring human being, who isn't pretentious, at all. AT ALL!
Just to demonstrate my belief in your sincerity: I'm sure it's your faulty spell-check tech, that caused you to seem as though you were spouting ad hominems, like "blinkered" & "odd."
Because, if I tried to convince someone that something is wrong with them — just because I wasn't willing to admit that I'd failed, in my mocking attempt to dispute the suitability of a metaphor — then that would be mean-spirited of me. But I'm not infallibly polite, like you are, so I'm sure that standard shouldn't apply to you.
Similarly, if I had intransigently refused to admit:
Charging people to use housing sites that are built (and then maintained with varying degrees of competence, diligence and investment)
IS COMPARABLE TO:
Charging people to use online sites that are built (and then maintained with varying degrees of competence, diligence and investment)
Then I would feel some embarrassment. Enough embarrassment to motivate me to have a bit of a THINK. But there again, I'm not infallibly correct like you are, so I'm sure this is yet another standard that shouldn't apply to you.
You got all that from me being polite? Well done Lisa! I'm not sure that you want a response or if you just want a rant? I am of course very happy to answer any questions, what specifically is your question? I hope all is good, regards sam
And yet you have not refuted Lisa's accurate comparison just above, which in fact concisely refutes your whole argument. Poor show, but of course very convenient for you.
Hi Jams Happy Easter - no problem. Very happy to address the point. Let’s take a look at the Big Four tech firms and how they generate their revenue. Apple earns a significant portion of its income from physical products like iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks—this is clearly hardware, not rent extraction, so Apple is not a landlord. Amazon employs millions of people and operates the largest distribution network in the world. It also runs Amazon Web Services (AWS), which powers sophisticated IT infrastructure for companies like Netflix—again, this is innovation and service provision, not rent-seeking. Microsoft is heavily involved in software development and IT infrastructure, offering both products and cloud-based services—once more, not a landlord. Finally, Meta (formerly Facebook) focuses primarily on digital platforms and advertising, which raises more valid critiques, but even Meta develops a suite of communication tools and immersive tech like VR.
In short, these companies are not landlords—they build, maintain, and deliver tangible and digital products and services rather than merely extracting passive income. Only Meta comes close, and even then you have to stretch the definition of landlord to braking point. I hope this clarifies my position? All the best Sam
That does not actually refute Lisa's points. All you have done is repeated your own again, and we already know them. Please refute Lisa's points - if you can.
Thanks a bunch @Another Angry Voice for highlighting the fact that #technofeudalism isn’t on the horizon, it’s already running the show. You laid that out so clearly.
One thing struck me, how you explained that we’ve moved from producing things to just taking a cut of everything (rent-seeking is the business model now).
I see this within my friends, we are reasonably high earners but the only thing we own outright are the clothes on our backs (and a bike). Living in London means that everything else we "consume", music, films, video games, cars, house etc. is rented. There seems to be few options to own these "services" outright or we can't afford to purchase them (i.e. a car or a house).
My latest piece explores this from a different angle, zooming in on how this plays out on the ground, especially in white-collar workspaces. We’re not just being watched anymore; we’re being modelled, nudged, and reshaped to serve systems we didn’t build and can’t opt out of. The factory never disappeared (it just got Wi-Fi and a smiling dashboard).
Exactly this. People despise me for standing this ground for years. I’ve lost family and friends over it and now all I can say is “I told you so” but they still don’t see it
Yes. I know how you feel. Whether I've portrayed our social structure as the rich cannibalizing the rest of the population — or portrayed our society as a snake consuming ever-more of its tail — people can be one bite away from oblivion, and still cling to complacency.
Exactly. An elephant running for them at high speed in plain sight and they’ll keep denying it’s an elephant even after it’s trampled their head.
I am excited about the forthcoming Multi-Nodal World.
Both Putin and Xi Jinping have demonstrated that they care about their people, not just their billionaires, so I think there's hope for us all.
Nice! Had to read this twice to make sure you were being ironic.
Except if you are LGBT.
Yes, the Orthodox Church has problems with LGBT people, like Muslims and Catholics. Not sure what Confucius says about it.
It’s a great analysis, but what the fuck are we supposed to do now? How do we fight this?
Incoherent woffly Tom, giving it a cool sounding name and ripping of a image Maslow's hierarchy of needs is not strong and there is no evidence. Just all a bit weak. Happy Friday sam
And yet you can't critique anything in detail but just vague rhetoric.
gangsterism = neoliberalism without the rainbowflags
Tom, my friend, how are you this fine Friday? I hope all’s well. I'm more than happy to expand—but it’s honestly tough to know where to begin when so much of the argument above is, frankly, vacuous nonsense.
Let’s start with one of Tom’s central claims: that tech firms are "extracting rent" rather than engaging in "conventional capitalism" (see paragraphs 6–8). While it’s true that companies like Amazon, Google, and Meta earn revenue from data and platform dominance, calling them landlords is just wrong. Unlike landlords, who passively extract rent from property they don’t improve, tech firms build and maintain vast, complex, and valuable infrastructures. You're probably reading this on software developed by Microsoft. Apple designs and manufactures phones and devices. Amazon runs the largest global cloud computing service alongside an enormous logistics network. Google provides search, cloud computing, and AI capabilities used across industries. Even Facebook (Meta), often painted as the most extractive, delivers a suite of interconnected products used by billions.
These companies are not rent-seeking landlords—they’re product and service creators. Claiming otherwise isn’t analysis. It’s just not true.
Next, Tom, ripping off Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and turning it into a lazy infographic doesn’t make an argument — it’s just a pyramid with words slapped on. There’s no substance, no evidence, no reasoning. To prove the point, I’ve created my own version below. As you’ll see, both mine and AAV’s carry precisely the same amount of thought and coherent logic
Sadly - I can share the image
"Capitalism seems to work as long as its got room for expansion. Over preceding decades neoliberal capitalism has spread its tentacles into the global south, China, and the former Soviet Union, as well as eating away at the public domain through privatisation and outsourcing.
But what happens when there’s nowhere else besides North Korea and Cuba left to expand into, and almost all of the public realm has already been converted to private profiteering?" - Room to expand is not Geographic only. Its a rediculuse notion. The idea that capitalism only thrives when there's geographic room to expand is absurd. Capitalism doesn't rely solely on territory — it evolves through technology, innovation, and the constant creation of new markets. Suggesting that the only remaining frontiers are Cuba and North Korea misses the point entirely. Innovation hasn’t stopped, and there’s no credible evidence that capitalism is now cannibalising itself out of necessity. It’s a lazy, defeatist take — more rhetoric than reality.
Just pick a paragraph Tom - its all bullshit. Nearly time for a Friday pint. I hope you have a good weekend in store. All the best Sam
Yeah, Tom, humans don't need to survive, for capitalism to be a success!
🛐 Kneel before technology! Praise be to AI, in its infinite mercy! Glory be to Google! Peace be upon IT! 🙏
Yeah, Tom, it's "rediculuse" to acknowledge that this planet's resources are finite; all we have to do is "evolve through technology" to live off of the unlimited PICTURES of food & shelter, that technology provides!
Yeah, Tom, Sam is sad!
Yeah, Tom, pyramid graphics all need to be unique, or we can't understand that you're depicting a structural concentration of power & wealth!
Keep taking the tablets!🤪
Yeah, Tom, housing doesn't get built or maintained!
First of all, (some) landlords do maintain property to a certain degree.
These tech companies? Their products are trash. I am reading this on a computer with ubuntu installed. Not Microsoft's garbage. And Firefox, a non-profit. Google's search engine? Garbage. Amazon's store? Garbage. Windows? Garbage. Facebook? Garbage.
Capitalism produces worse results in software, not better.
Amazon makes a large percentage of revenue from its Web store. It did so with its immoral practices and venture capitalist BS thereby killing competition. Now it is able to extract wealth through selling fees, aka rent. The actual benefit to the person is nil since they don't provide anything other retailers can't. Apple also charges fees for selling apps on its store, which is another form of rent.
Then let's not forget the myriad of companies that have pivoted to a subscription model. Not because it's necessary to maintain a service, but because they can earn more that way. Adobe is a prime example. It is better for them for users to have to continually pay for its software rather than once a certain version which they can upgrade as they see fit.
Apologise Tom - I missed your post. Let me respond - Great—use a different provider. Switch to Linux, use GIMP or DaVinci Resolve instead of Adobe, browse with Firefox. That’s capitalism in action: the power to choose, to kill the giant if their product is inferior. I support and encourage it. If a tech company provides poor service or overcharges, walk away. The market allows it—alternatives exist.
That said, yes, market dominance in tech is a genuine concern. These firms wield immense influence, and regulation is needed to keep competition healthy. But calling them “landlords” is fundamentally flawed. Landlords profit from owning static physical assets and extracting rent without creating new value. Tech firms—however bloated or monopolistic—still build, maintain, and improve digital infrastructure, tools, and services that billions use daily. Their dominance is a problem worth tackling, but the core of AAV’s argument is built on a category error. It's catchy rhetoric, not economic truth. Happy Easter - Sam
Spot on Tom!👍🤓
Well said.
I was surprised to see that the tech-bros had a tech-ho defending them in the comment section.
Then again, battered spouses often defend their abusers. Irrationally.
At least that one argument — that you couldn't call it rent because (ostensibly unlike housing), websites need to be "built" & "maintained" — provided a laugh.
Hi Lisa, I hope all is good. I hope your weekend is going well? Let me give you just a little more evidence that the big 4 are not landlords. Please see below the R&D spend from Wikipedia. They spend more then any other companies globally. This I not the behaviour of a landlord. I think you have to be a little blinkered or slightly odd not acknowledge that they all create products. All the best sam
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_research_and_development_spending
THANK YOU!
What a wonderful present!
Allow me to reciprocate:
https://zeteo.com/p/silicon-valleys-ai-coup-musk-doge
Thank you for the link lisa. Interesting but I fail to see how this article relates to the above debate. What exactly are you driving at please? All the best sam
Regarding: "Hi Lisa, I hope all is good. I hope your weekend is going well... All the best"
•••
OF COURSE you do, Sam, because you are a deeply caring human being, who isn't pretentious, at all. AT ALL!
Just to demonstrate my belief in your sincerity: I'm sure it's your faulty spell-check tech, that caused you to seem as though you were spouting ad hominems, like "blinkered" & "odd."
Because, if I tried to convince someone that something is wrong with them — just because I wasn't willing to admit that I'd failed, in my mocking attempt to dispute the suitability of a metaphor — then that would be mean-spirited of me. But I'm not infallibly polite, like you are, so I'm sure that standard shouldn't apply to you.
Similarly, if I had intransigently refused to admit:
Charging people to use housing sites that are built (and then maintained with varying degrees of competence, diligence and investment)
IS COMPARABLE TO:
Charging people to use online sites that are built (and then maintained with varying degrees of competence, diligence and investment)
Then I would feel some embarrassment. Enough embarrassment to motivate me to have a bit of a THINK. But there again, I'm not infallibly correct like you are, so I'm sure this is yet another standard that shouldn't apply to you.
You got all that from me being polite? Well done Lisa! I'm not sure that you want a response or if you just want a rant? I am of course very happy to answer any questions, what specifically is your question? I hope all is good, regards sam
You're welcome.
And yet you have not refuted Lisa's accurate comparison just above, which in fact concisely refutes your whole argument. Poor show, but of course very convenient for you.
Hi Jams Happy Easter - no problem. Very happy to address the point. Let’s take a look at the Big Four tech firms and how they generate their revenue. Apple earns a significant portion of its income from physical products like iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks—this is clearly hardware, not rent extraction, so Apple is not a landlord. Amazon employs millions of people and operates the largest distribution network in the world. It also runs Amazon Web Services (AWS), which powers sophisticated IT infrastructure for companies like Netflix—again, this is innovation and service provision, not rent-seeking. Microsoft is heavily involved in software development and IT infrastructure, offering both products and cloud-based services—once more, not a landlord. Finally, Meta (formerly Facebook) focuses primarily on digital platforms and advertising, which raises more valid critiques, but even Meta develops a suite of communication tools and immersive tech like VR.
In short, these companies are not landlords—they build, maintain, and deliver tangible and digital products and services rather than merely extracting passive income. Only Meta comes close, and even then you have to stretch the definition of landlord to braking point. I hope this clarifies my position? All the best Sam
That does not actually refute Lisa's points. All you have done is repeated your own again, and we already know them. Please refute Lisa's points - if you can.
Use qubes os instead of windows and otr xmpp chat instead of facebook
https://xmppomemoqubes.blogspot.com/2025/04/use-uleway-dumbphone-along-with-qubes.html
https://xmppomemoqubes.blogspot.com/2025/04/use-uleway-dumbphone-along-with-qubes.html
Thanks a bunch @Another Angry Voice for highlighting the fact that #technofeudalism isn’t on the horizon, it’s already running the show. You laid that out so clearly.
One thing struck me, how you explained that we’ve moved from producing things to just taking a cut of everything (rent-seeking is the business model now).
I see this within my friends, we are reasonably high earners but the only thing we own outright are the clothes on our backs (and a bike). Living in London means that everything else we "consume", music, films, video games, cars, house etc. is rented. There seems to be few options to own these "services" outright or we can't afford to purchase them (i.e. a car or a house).
My latest piece explores this from a different angle, zooming in on how this plays out on the ground, especially in white-collar workspaces. We’re not just being watched anymore; we’re being modelled, nudged, and reshaped to serve systems we didn’t build and can’t opt out of. The factory never disappeared (it just got Wi-Fi and a smiling dashboard).
https://substack.com/@noisyghost/p-162638336
Are we still working? Or just performing work for the algorithm?
#Neoliberalism #LateCapitalism #SurveillanceCapitalism
#YanisVaroufakis #WorkCulture