now reading https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neofeudalism-the-end-of-capitalism/?fbclid=IwAR1goFUmF_ZLJUz-OVdlF1sXK6aitk1FLSWD8YTSvcLcF1DiY1jLggjdPos

the thing is, most of these dynamics are implicit in Lenin's theory of imperialism and the further development of the concept of monopoly capital by Baran & Sweezy, Samir Amin and others... I really don't think monopoly rentiers = neofeudalism

I really like Dean generally but I honestly think that this is too whooley. I think "neofeudal" is a fine rhetorical argument but what we are talking about here is zero hour contracts and a second-level of abstraction of the sale of labour power. does that make it feudal?

for me the two things that for me have always defined feudalism is 1) a social system predicated on direct exploitation of labour 2) a social system not reliant or premised on growth. commodities are still produced for their use values, and markets exist to scaffold this

again, this is why the concept of Monopoly capitalism and imperialism are useful - finance capital had become ascendant and thus was no longer directly reliant on commodity production. instead banks regulated and direct the flow of capital to monopolies

and the idea that workers and capitalists were equal owners of commodities and money was always a fiction and why Marx famously made fun of it in chapter 6

anyways, interesting article but I think collectively we don't need the concept of "neofeudalism" to help us solve our political problems. I think calling it capitalism is fine.