What is neo-feudalism?

[Nehru]

What is neo-feudalism and how is it different from modern capitalism?

[Astarte]

I, and others, say often that if the "libertarian" agenda was fulfilled society would become "neo-feudalism" - basically it means decentralizing all central government power into the hands of private pockets of capital - if it were to happen it would mean the biggest holders of private capital - finance, corporations, etc, would have complete autonomy and hegemony over society, even more so than now, to do whatever they wanted - whatever kind of social protections the state still offers the working class would disappear rendering the working class even more enslaved and serf-like. It could even mean the corporations having private police forces and their own private courts.

[Aurora]

There is no neo-feudalism, the idea of a new feudalism is ridiculous.

[Nox]

It could even mean the corporations having private police forces and their own private courts.

That sounds fucked up.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually there are certain crazy right-wing nationalists in many different countries who literally wish to restore certain elements of feudalism, or at least the feudal superstructure, such as the monarchy or explicit theocratic rule. (I've seen a few Han nationalists in China who literally want to restore the imperial monarchy, and a few ethnic Mongol nationalists who literally want to re-establish the great Khanate of Genghis Khan) Technically these people are semi-feudal at most, and they are generally a very small minority.

[DarkPast]

The rise of "neo-feudalism" is linked to the growth of mass privateproperty (which has been on the rise since the 60-ies), which has in turn facilitated an ongoing privatization of social control. So what we have today are huge tracts of land/property that are, with their associated public spaces, controlled and policed by private corporations.

[Broletariat]

There is no neo-feudalism, the idea of a new feudalism is ridiculous.


This completely.

To add on, someone who believes in neo-feudalism would need to expound upon it and tell us what this mode of production (is it a mode of production at all? If not why compare it to Capitalism/Feudalism/Communism?) does different from both, Communism, Capitalism, and Feudalism.

How will it be established? In what classes interest is this society in? etc. etc.

[Queercommie Girl]

This completely.

To add on, someone who believes in neo-feudalism would need to expound upon it and tell us what this mode of production (is it a mode of production at all? If not why compare it to Capitalism/Feudalism/Communism?) does different from both, Communism, Capitalism, and Feudalism.

How will it be established? In what classes interest is this society in? etc. etc.

The word "neo-feudal" isn't really an accurate or precise one, but objectively there does exist political forces in the world which are much more reactionary relatively speaking than mainstream (Western) capitalism is. Among the nationalist right-wing in almost every country, there is always a tiny group of nutters who are fond of the feudal system in many ways. Of course, in any serious sense these people are of no real consequence by and large, and I doubt they even understand the concept of the "mode of production" in the Marxist sense.

But yes, monarchists do exist in today's China, for instance.

I guess another issue is that some idiotic Marxists think that since contemporary capitalism is so reactionary, any alternative is better than it, including some feudal ideas, which is of course non-sense, as although capitalism is reactionary, it is still relatively progressive compared with feudalism.

[aristos]

There is no neo-feudalism, the idea of a new feudalism is ridiculous.

There may be no Neo-feudalism now, but what is truly ridiculous is to imply that capitalists will stop at "free trade". When led to its logical conclusion every single capitalist whether big or small ultimately yearns to be an absolute monarch. The reason Merchants overthrew the monarchy was not because they found found that system repulsive, but because they were not in the top echelons of that system.

[Broletariat]

The word "neo-feudal" isn't really an accurate or precise one, but objectively there does exist political forces in the world which are much more reactionary relatively speaking than mainstream (Western) capitalism is.


And these forces have no desire to end commodity producing society (Capitalism) in a regressive manner so as to return to feudalism do they?


Among the nationalist right-wing in almost every country, there is always a tiny group of nutters who are fond of the feudal system in many ways. Of course, in any serious sense these people are of no real consequence by and large, and I doubt they even understand the concept of the "mode of production" in the Marxist sense.

I don't see how their understanding of mode of production in the marxist sense is relevant. Capitalists probably don't understand that phrase in the marxist sense either.


But yes, monarchists do exist in today's China, for instance.

And? Doesn't do a thing to disrupt generalised commodity production, you've got various kingdoms still around ala Saudi Arabia, and they're still a Capitalist nation.

[Astarte]

What if wages were no longer paid in currency issued by the state? What if workers were forced to take company labor tokens as pay and could only redeem them at company stores? This is what happened for a while in West Virginia in the early 20th or late 19th century to the coal miners. Basically they become "bound" to the corporation, like a serf would be to a lord - "neo-feudalism" does not imply a change in economic mode from capitalism to something else, but the negation of perhaps imperialism into a new more barbarous stage of capitalism, where elements of the old order, feudalism, are inherent in the new; hence "neo-feudalism". It is more a term implying similarities between the corporation as decentralized, and fairly autonomous from any kind of centralized power - except the church of capital.

But, what happens if the wages of the workers, as I said above, was changed to company tokens? They are no longer receiving capital for their wage - seems pretty well like "neo-feudalism".

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kyperry3/Scripts_by_Freddie.html

[Queercommie Girl]

And? Doesn't do a thing to disrupt generalised commodity production, you've got various kingdoms still around ala Saudi Arabia, and they're still a Capitalist nation.


I agree with the Maoist line that Saudi Arabia is semi-feudal, so was Nepal before the revolution.

Also, it's not just the economic base, but also the superstructure. Of course the base is always primary, but the superstructure cannot be ignored either. The relationship between base and superstructure isn't always coherent, sometimes there can still be feudal left-overs in the superstructure even when the base is largely capitalist. Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution to struggle against bourgeois cultural elements within the worker's state. Of course, Maoism was flawed in some ways, and the Cultural Revolution was flawed in many ways too, but the basic idea certainly isn't completely off the mark.

[JFB.anon]

free market capitalism

[GPDP]

Uh, I don't think anyone who uses the term is referring to people who wish to go back to and establish an actual feudal order. It's pretty much always been a slur levied against anarcho-capitalists and their ilk, because their preferred society would give private corporations, including their "defense agencies," complete power over a given territory, much like feudal monarchs of old had.

[Broletariat]

I agree with the Maoist line that Saudi Arabia is semi-feudal, so was Nepal before the revolution.

Then I guess this shows how far away from reality Maoists are.

[Queercommie Girl]

Uh, I don't think anyone who uses the term is referring to people who wish to go back to and establish an actual feudal order. It's pretty much always been a slur levied against anarcho-capitalists and their ilk, because their preferred society would give private corporations, including their "defense agencies," complete power over a given territory, much like feudal monarchs of old had.


In this case, the term is mis-applied. Anarcho-capitalism has no real feudal features.

[GPDP]

In this case, the term is mis-applied. Anarcho-capitalism has no real feudal features.

Like I said, it's a slur.

[Queercommie Girl]

Then I guess this shows how far away from reality Maoists are.


No, what you don't realise is that terms like "feudal" and "capitalist" don't just refer to the economic base.

Maoists aren't the only ones to label Saudi Arabia as semi-feudal either. I've seen some non-Maoist Marxists do the same.

[Queercommie Girl]

Like I said, it's a slur.

BTW, there really are people who wish to re-establish an actual feudal order, at least in the political sense, if not the economic one. Of course, they are a tiny minority of crazy nutters and not really influential in any way.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, what you don't realise is that terms like "feudal" and "capitalist" don't just refer to the economic base.

Maoists aren't the only ones to label Saudi Arabia as semi-feudal either. I've seen some non-Maoist Marxists do the same.
But what is the significance of the term? What is feudal about countries like Saudi Arabia is the political structure, which shows that capitalist social relations are not inherently antagonistic to political structures different from what's presumably the norm for capitalism - liberal democracy. But what does that tell us about the struggle against the "semi-feudal" state? That it faces the same tasks as did the bourgeois revolutions which were to clear the way for a generalization and domination of capitalist social relations proper? To conclude that would be to fall into the trap of class collaboration, and indeed I do think that all of the views on such contemporary regimes as "semi-feudal" is inherently class collaborationist.

[Queercommie Girl]

But what is the significance of the term? What is feudal about countries like Saudi Arabia is the political structure, which shows that capitalist social relations are not inherently antagonistic to political structures different from what's presumably the norm for capitalism - liberal democracy. But what does that tell us about the struggle against the "semi-feudal" state? That it faces the same tasks as did the bourgeois revolutions which were to clear the way for a generalization and domination of capitalist social relations proper? To conclude that would be to fall into the trap of class collaboration, and indeed I do think that all of the views on such contemporary regimes as "semi-feudal" is inherently class collaborationist.

Not really. It shows that even a proletarian-led permanent revolution must still accomplish the basic tasks of the bourgeois revolution, in terms of the political and cultural superstructure.

You can have workers rather than capitalists as the subjective agents of historical change, but you cannot simply skip an entire developmental period, even though it can be much more accelerated. No matter how economically equal a system may be, no matter that all of the means of production are in the hands of the working class, if there isn't the abolishment of the monarchy, the removal of theocracy and secularisation of society, equal rights for women and LGBT people etc, then it's simply not communism. Communism is more than just the economic base. You cannot have genuine worker's rule when these workers are spiritually guided by feudal ethics, for instance. This is why Islamism (political Islam) is fundamentally incompatible with Marxism.