‘Capitalism is dead. Now we have something much worse’: Yanis Varoufakis on extremism, Starmer, and the tyranny of big tech
theguardian.com
‘Capitalism is dead. Now we have something much worse’: Yanis Varoufakis on extremism, Starmer, and the tyranny of big tech::In his new book, the maverick Greek economist says we are witnessing an epochal shift. At his island home, he argues it’s now the ‘fiefdoms’ of tech firms that shape us
He's not wrong. We're only a few years away from the big five in the US owning all of our land in one way or another. It's like a corporate showdown at this point. The government did nothing to stop this conglomeration of assets and wealth.
He's referring not to a land grab but cloud capital charging rent to the capitalist class. Essentially creating a class as far above the capitalist as the capitalist is above the worker.
Listened to a good interview with him on a podcast last night after trying to read this shit article.
While it is far more advanced and ubiquitous, I don't see how paying to social media companies is fundamentally distinct from having to pay for ads in newspapers and TV that they did in "good old capitalism". Maybe I should look up how he puts it, but it still sounds like capitalism.
I think it's a matter of degree.
And his prime example, no pun intended, is Amazon not social media. In his view, Bezos has more in common with a feudal lord than a capitalist. And the power difference between Jeff and the capitalist is as large as the difference between the capitalist and the worker.
So, essentially, we're watching feudalism come back into power. Which itself still had commerce, markets on the King's land for example. Which, to me, does sound a lot like Amazon.
The article itself uses examples of Facebook and Twitter/X so that's where I compared it to older forms of media.
When it comes to Amazon I kinda see where that argument comes from, but I'm not entirely convinced. It's not like renting spaces and hiring services was not part of Capitalism anyway, stores had to rent space in malls. Franchising also comes to mind, where a smaller businessman has to pay to operate under a certain brand. Amazon seems a larger scale of that and I can see how that is concerning, but calling it "technofeudalism" seems like trying to gloss over the issues in regular Capitalism.
One could very well host their own services, their own internet communities and online stores. I understand that it's much harder to make them thrive compared to just being on Amazon and Facebook, but this is a way in which it's not like Feudalism. You aren't commanded by the King and the laws of the land to pay the tax, you are just competitively disadvantaged in the market if you don't. Like Capitalism.
If anything this shows the importance of trust busting, which has been pretty much abandoned in recent decades. It might even warrant the existence of public internet services much in the same way we have public radio and TV.
I hear your analysis and I think he's jumping the gun a bit. I think what he's pointing at is a potential for things like Amazon to become more and more feudal.
But I think you raise a lot of good points.
We do still have governments and governments are still capable of reeling in companies like Amazon. I think corporate feudalism or technofuedalism is a potential and I think he's right that it may be closer than we realize.
But he believes we've already crossed that bridge. Some examples he uses to support his position is stock prices going up when the financial sector is expecting a bail out. I.e., the governments really belonging to corporate interests rather than for the people by the people.
I think his analysis is correct in a lot of ways but the term he's using is for something we could potentially be seeing happen soon rather than a line we already crossed.
Are people using capital to acquire more capital to then undertake more capital-intensive endeavors? Yes? Then it's still capitalism.
At this point I think Varoufakis only continues to rant his drivel in order to feel better about being a rich capitalist himself.
Not really, they are using public money to pass it into private hands. Its capitol but not in the way capitalism describes it because its not coming from wealth to invest in new ventures its being extracted and pocketed.
The article really doesn't engage much with what YV actually wrote; she says that she disagrees with him sometimes or that other people disagree, but with very little substance.
Like others have already commented, she's also excessively obsessed with describing his house and wife. I can't believe The Observer paid for her to fly out there to write such drivel.
Whatever they call it, it's shit for humans to live in.
Capitalism 2.
He's spoken on the topic elsewhere, at least a few interviews (on youtube). That'll be better than this slop - edit: the Guardian was co-opted by the UK securlty state after cops raided them soon they did their reporting on Edword Snowdon.
Yeah, this interview is pretty bad.
But this post did turn me onto his ideas and found an interview with him on a podcast last night that was really good.
This one? https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2022/04/16/unlike-feudalism-techno-feudalism-is-born-of-the-triumph-of-capital-ku-podcast-interview/
Nope but I will give that a listen too! So thanks for the link.
I'm interested in getting his book also.
Oh, so which interview did you listen to then?
It died when socialism became a corporate only condition. Now its corporate capitalism with government socialism.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
What could be more delightful than a trip to Greece to meet Yanis Varoufakis, the charismatic leftwing firebrand who tried to stick it to the man, AKA the IMF, EU and entire global financial order?
The house is where Varoufakis and his wife, landscape artist Danae Stratou, live, year round since the pandemic, but in August 2023 at the end of a summer of heatwaves and extreme weather conditions across the world, it feels more than a little apocalyptic.
Stratou and Varoufakis are a striking couple, as glamorous as their house, a cool, luminous space featuring poured concrete and big glass windows overlooking a perfect rectangle of blue pool.
“I have no issues with luxury,” he says at one point, which is just as well because the entire scene would give the Daily Mail a conniption, especially since Aegina seems to be Greece’s equivalent of Martha’s Vineyard, home to a highly networked artistic and political elite.
I’d messaged a bunch of people to ask them what they would ask Varoufakis, including McNamee, and precised the book to him – that two pivotal events have transformed the global economy: 1) the privatisation of the internet by America and China’s big tech companies; and 2) western governments’ and central banks’ responses to the 2008 great financial crisis, when they unleashed a tidal wave of cash.
This encouraged business models that promised world-changing outcomes, even if they were completely unrealistic and/or hostile to the public interest (eg the gig economy, self-driving cars, crypto, metaverse, AI).
The original article contains 2,683 words, the summary contains 252 words. Saved 91%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
So the bot thinks this story is about his house and his wife, which isn't surprising. The article is unbelievably florid, I couldn't get through it.
Like seriously shut the fuck up about the setting in which you had the interview. Are these people paid by the word? And why does every phrase need to be couched three layers deep in entendre and negatives? Just say what you mean, ffs. Every time I felt like it was starting to get to the meat of the issue they got distracted talking about some completely unrelated bullshit.
EDIT: Don't downvote the bot, people. It's doing its best, it just doesn't know how to deal with neoliberal slop. As a thinking person, I can barely deal with it.
Thanks for dealing with that frustration so that I don't have to
I mean I didn't get through it. It's entirely possible the location of Atlantis is somewhere in that article, I wouldn't know.
I think a lot of these articles have a required word count, because supposedly google doesn't rank short articles well. A lot of journalism seems to be writing for bots rather than humans.
I've seen this writing style in many Swedish article I read but usually it's kept short and interneting. If I wanted to know all about the interview setting and the imagery mattered to me, I would have watched a recording of it.
Oh god, here come the liberals and communists
Cyber Feudalism
... is where he lost me. He can call back when he has to choose between electricity and rent.
This is a weird take. Just because someone is (or has been) successful he can't speak about or for socialism?
You can't be successful and a socialist? Is that it? That's a very narrow and simply wrong view which has resulted in a lot of damage in societies which adopted it.
Socialism needs succes stories. Otherwise, what's the point? Mediocrity for all? That will never fly or become popular.
He was also the financial advisor of sorts at Valve, the company that takes a 30% of all their pc game sales.
20% after the initial $50 million. The same company that has used that revenue to revolutionize Linux as a gaming platform. Same company that helped fix graphics api integrations. Same company that actually cares about their consumers and the gaming ecosystem?
Pretty sure all those things happened after Yanis left, so I don't think it's fair to contribute those changes to him.
He's had a very visible career so it's actually pretty clear what his views are. He is not at all a socialist, he is a SocDem. He likes neoliberalism with some safety nets.
Isn't this the former finance minister of Greece? Not just some guy.
Yup. He's the guy who told the rest of Europe that Greece shouldn't have to pay back their bailout loans. You know, the ones other countries have paid with their own taxes. That's a great way to get very popular in your own country, and being hated by the rest of the continent.
The island home might be a result of his time at Valve (the company that has the biggest share of pc game distribution, Steam - which takes a 30% cut on all sales). I don't think it was funded by people's tax money.
Pretty sure he argued that Greece shouldn't have to use the bailout loans from other countries to pay back banks, but instead can use it to invest them in public infrastructure to rebuild their economy. Instead the EU forced them to use those loans (said taxes) to pay back rich companies, and to cut their investments in social programs to put the country into an even deeper mess.
Please educate yourself before talking about other people's countries
Care to elaborate? I didn't say anything about other countries, just about Yanis and some of the claims he made.
Here's the perspective from one European country: Greece needed a bailout, our country loaned them 14 billion euros, and pretty much directly after accepting the money, Mr. Varoufakis told the creditors he didn't want to pay it back.
If you have a different perspective, please elaborate, because "educating oneself" is too broad a directive.
You can start by watching a few Greekonomics videos that are very objectively pointing out the way you are enslaving our country for your benefit and pinning the blame on us. You are piling us up on debt and enforcing rules against the people and small businesses, making it impossible for any real growth to happen when none of the simple people have enough money to spend on new businesses and goods. You are supporting the politicians that are in favor of your measures, because the Greek people work like dogs to create value that you will reap, and the government and rich class get to keep the change.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
a few Greekonomics videos
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I don't have time to watch a few videos right now, but I'll take a look later.
Can you explain how, by agreeing to take a loan, the other party is responsible for piling a debt upon you? If I go to the bank to get a loan and then don't pay it back, it's not the bank who is the asshole, it's me for agreeing to a contract I can't or have no intention of fulfilling.
I get being upset with your government who agreed to a deal you might deem shitty, or with the party who offered the deal in the first place. But to take the money, yell "fuck you, I'm not gonna pay you back", and then claim the other party are the wrong for giving you a deal you agreed to just seems very fucked up to me.
First off, I'll start with the fact that PASOK ruined the country by spending massive loans with ridiculous irresponsibility, that's Greece's fault not Europe's.
After that, Greece was now filled with debt it couldn't pay off. Obviously not wanting to go bankrupt, the only way forward was taking another loan in order to "breathe air into the economy". However, the Bailout Programmes actually did everything but that. By forcing Greece to put massive taxes on people and businesses, cutting wages and pensions, worsening work conditions, cutting social spending, the people were brought to their knees unable to get up. When no one has money, it's only natural that innovation completely stops, no one risks opening a business, banks don't risk giving out loans, and society crumbles while the common folk starve.
You might ask, was it a mistake, was the IMF stupid? Not at all. They were very successful in mitigating their own risks from Greece going bankrupt or leaving the Eurozone, mainly in erasing their dependency on Greek bonds. They never cared about our country or them getting their money back, they just cared about keeping us in a depression as long as their banks stay unaffected.
Man, people like you would have dismissed Engels for the same reason.
And they should have because Engels was not only a Capitalist with contradicting class interests to our-
But a lot of his shit is just terrible, for example "oN aUtHoRiTy", the "book" that really shows Tankies can't read.
Engels should be dismissed the fuck out of.
To be fair, rich (and effectively retired) people have more time to think about larger issues, whilst the rest of us are trying to make enough for rent and food. So while one can make the argument that he is out of touch, one can also argue that if it were up to the single parent working two jobs to think about global issues and write books about them, it probably wouldn't happen.
Remind me, was Marx a part of the struggling proletariat?
The answer is no, he was a human being that cared about others besides him and his own.