• ProletarianDictator [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    I like his math, but don’t like his thesis about it being a regression to feudalism.

    Not much about the employer-employee relationship is changing, and big tech engaging in rent-seeking on other businesses doesn’t change the primary relationship people have with labor.

    If most people performed their labor via a system akin to Uber or Doordash, then I’d be more inclined to agree.

    The phenomena seems closer to finance capital supplanting industrial capital as the hegemonic form of power. Technology and information systems may have begun supplanting finance capital as the next stage of evolution of that process.

    Otherwise, I think his analysis is solid.

    • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      I agree, I haven’t read the book but it seems like a vulgar conception and strikes me as a bit lib because he’s basically refusing to say the problem is capitalism and saying it’s a secret new thing instead which is just a distraction

    • Leon_Grotsky [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If most people performed their labor via a system akin to Uber or Doordash, then I’d be more inclined to agree.

      IIRC he started this line of inquiry ~5 years ago when “Gigification of the Economy” was a point of discourse going around and I think in that context it would have been reasonable to go there, but otherwise I agree there’s hairs to be split about the specific social relations and relations to production that make it hard to view it as regression as you noted.