I do think there are flaws in Varufakis' hypothesis, but I think one problem with your criticism is that you're not fully engaging with the Marxist framework of the argument, although you seemed to be going that way at the start of the video. The Marxist understanding of historical epochs is that you can best frame them in terms of economic class relations - that is, with reference to the different types of relation to the means of production which dominates at a particular time. So in slave-based societies, you have masters and slaves, which is not only a power relation, but an economic relationship. Similarly with feudalism and capitalism, both with their unique classes, forms of production and consumption, and relations to the means of production. There were something like capitalist relations present in feudal times, and there have been/are forms of slavery in the age of capitalism, but the epoch is defined by the primary set of economic relations around which society is based. What I think Varufakis is correctly gesturing towards - although somewhat hyperbolically - is that we are experiencing a fundamental shift in our relationship to the means of production, specifically the production of data. We are all basically producing big data, for free, on platforms and services that it is incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to avoid using in the modern world. This is roughly (although not perfectly) analogous to rent extraction - if we want to ensure our digital survival, so to speak (which is strongly linked to our ability to act in the real world), we are obliged to accede to the extraction of these cloud rents. Big data is now such a driving force in the economy, that this isn't just a minor point of interest. When these 'rents' are extracted, they are used to manipulate our behaviour, sold on, stored, and used in all sorts of ways we don't individually understand or have control over. We're alienated from our data in a way which isn't dissimilar to how we're alienated from our labour under traditional capitalism. I think it is fair to say that this really does represent a new kind of economic relationship (one that may have antecedents and historical analogies, but which is still fundamentally different). If this new economic relationship were to become not just part of our world, but _the_ characteristic economic relationship around which society is organised, then from a Marxist perspective we would have entered a new economic epoch. I don't that has actually happened, but still Varufakis is onto something. He has noticed a new set of classes and class relations emerging, which can't really be best understood simply as capitalists and consumers and workers, because the dynamic is fundamentally different.
Hi, This is a great articulation of the best interpretation of Varoufakis's claim. Indeed, I think you've expressed it more clearly that Varoufakis did in his book! And, you are right that I should have done more in my video to address these aspects of the claim. But, I did hint a little at the route that I would take in the moment when I showed that everyone, including the richest cloudalist is at times in the role of being the "cloud serf", and indeed it's also true that almost all people employed at any level in a company are now also entangled in the software tools of the company that would also make them a "cloud prole". So, to me, the problem with trying to redefine the class tensions down this route is that it doesn't identify genuinely different groups of people, but different roles that we all play at different points in our lives. So, I agree that our "enforced" participation in the creation of big data is a new phenomenon, but I'm not sure if it helps us define a class of people, as much as help define a new type of asset, the "big data" that is then bought and sold and exploited through markets. We also have a new kind of technology, "high fidelity influencing", that are more advanced, personalised versions of previous marketing tools. But note that the ownership of most of this big data and deployment of these influencing technologies are mostly done by publicly listed companies for which almost anyone with a pension has some stock exposure to. So, yes, we have some new types of companies, but it is not clear to me that they sit in a different relation to their owners, workers and customers than, say, a traditional news media empire did. For example, when Elon Musk bought Twitter, he wasn't really buying technology or even staff, but was mostly buying the digital network effect of all the people already engaged with twitter. But similarly, when Rupert Murdoch (or whomever) buys up a newspaper, they aren't buying the printing press or the admin staff, they are buying up the dedicated readership of the newspaper, together with the writers that they trust. That's a similar purchase of a "bound community" who are more likely to stick with what they know than to migrate. Then Rupert Murdoch has certainly been using his news media empire as a massive influencing mechanism. So, the existence of influential media moguls is not a new phenomenon even if the assets and technologies and scale are very different. Also note that the same technologies deployed in a communist or socialist environment would still have us entrapped by the dynamic between the convenience of use versus the trail of data we are leaving for others to benefit from. These are features of the technology, not features of the political economic system that is using the technology. As things stand, whether you're talking about Facebook, Amazon, Apple or OpenAI / Microsoft huge amounts of shareholder and venture capital is being deployed to pay for massive amounts of physical infrastructure and to pay workers to work at the companies in order to sell a service or goods of one kind or another. That they have at times managed to avoid being punished for not generating profits is a story about finance rather than a story about digital technology. So, you are right that it would have been better if I had address these kinds of issues more in the video (was too long already!), and I agree that we are seeing some interesting new dynamics in our political economy from these new kinds of assets (that we all help produce but a few get to exploit) and technologies, but I don't think Varoufakis's kind of analysis really helps us identify the new classes of people that are in a new kind of tension that is different from those already expressed by the tensions identified within capitalism between the super wealthy owners of capital and the working class exploited in the labour market. But I really like the succinct way you have expressed what Varoufakis was arguing for and I'm curious if you think there's anything glaringly missing from my further comments here. Thank you!
@@Go-Meta Damn ok now I get your analysis. So the key idea is that you're saying theres not a big difference between owning facebook/amazon/netflix then it is owning NYT/Walmart/Universal studios, right? That's kind of the hinge of the whole argument. Is our relationship between Facebook and its owners fundamentally different to our relationship between Fox and it's owners? If it is, then these cloudist people could be feudal lords, if not, they're just a fancy new breed of capitalists figuring out how to commodify deeper layers of the human experience. I think if you ask Varoufakis he might say that they are different in the way that iron and bronze are different. Loved the metaphors in this book! Anyway I need to go back to lesson planning lol
"but I think one problem with your criticism is that you're not fully engaging with the Marxist framework of the argument" Marxist frameworks are contradictory, a mix bag of German existentialist thought through a Hegelian lens.
@@kalidesu Isn't the word you're looking for 'dialectical'? I.e. the fact that symptoms are often only seemingly contradictory but actually manifest one another into existence.
Saying Amazon is just like the supermarket is like saying Walmart is just like mom and pop shop. Yet Walmart did entirely change the economic dynamics of the world. You are underestimating the effect of digital golems, which is a doppelgänger of ourself in the digital world constructed specifically with the intend to influence our behaviors. Yes, it is huge and completely changed everything on how we do business and how we do politics in a much more dramatic way than neoliberalism mega corporations did.
Again the comparaison between Murdoch buying newspapers to influence politics as just the same as Facebook cloud is failing to see how these technologies changed the so dramatically how we use media to shape public opinion, therefore failing to see how these new material condition shape the distribution of wealth, the social contract and how much influence one can have, who can have it, how efficient it is and who are the big winners of this new shift.
Of course there are big differences between Amazon and supermarkets, but Varoufakis was seeming to imply things like that Amazon picking what is put in front of the consumer is a new phenomenon, rather than being a digital enhancement of an existing phenomenon. And, of course, the digital world is having a huge impact on our behaviours, including our consumer behaviours, but certainly for me, my consumer transactions with the Amazon website are extremely transactional. I hear about a book somewhere else and then if I decide to buy it online I often buy it from Amazon. There are two 'tricks' that Amazon has pulled on me (1) is the *branding* trick of making me think of Amazon first before anywhere else and (2) they offer the book to be delivered next day almost always at the cheapest price than other places I occasionally check. Neither of these two fundamental 'tricks' are to do with them having a digital golem of me. They need no further knowledge about me other than that I would like to receive products cheap and fast - just like everyone. It's their huge monopsony power over the suppliers, plus their huge long term investments in automated delivery warehouses that allow them to do (2) and every time they succeed at (2) it re-enforces (1) as I simply associate them with fast, cheap, easy deliver of exactly what I want. What *they* are not doing is influencing what I want. That influence is coming from other media channels, channels that they don't own or control (or even care about). They will sell me anything, so in some sense they don't care what I want. Of course they do sell their own products on their site and that, too is a digital enhancement of the same way that supermarkets often ended up with their own branded versions of highly popular lines. And, basically, I'm saying, let's not be dazzled by the tech into feeling that society has no agency here. Most of these are problematic business practices that we've seen before and could be challenged if we wanted to. And, yes, there is too much lobbying of government to protect such businesses - but that too is nothing to do with the "cloud".
Yeah, again, I'm not trying to suggest that these media empires of different eras are equivalent, indeed there are some very important differences. The most notable difference is that the earlier generation of media moguls had a much stronger ability to control the editorial line they were delivering to their audience. Facebook and Twitter are much more driven by algorithms driving raw attention than by a central editorial line (indeed this is their key defence as to why they are NOT like traditional publishers). But, this difference also means that it is possible for third parties to use these social media platforms for their own agendas, and this may well be counter to the political agenda of the owners of the tech. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I somehow doubt that the owners of Facebook and Twitter were likely to be staunch supporters of Brexit and Trump in 2016, and yet it was those campaigns that most successfully used these platforms to influence opinions *away* from the views of big business interests. So, yes, these social media platforms are hugely influential, but it is not at all clear to me that the owners of the platforms control this influence as much as the old media moguls do. Sure, they make more money, but as individuals they probably have less personal influence through their platforms on, say, elections. And, crucially, the analysis of the impact of social media platforms on the world, is, from my perspective, a very different conversation than you'd have about analysing the impact of companies like Amazon or SHEIN (the Chinese version of Zara + Amazon that is now taking the world by storm) on the consumer products market. Varoufakis swoops these different phenomenon into one attempted "cloud" analysis just like you could imagine someone in the industrial revolution trying to make a "steam" analysis of the changes happening then! .... but, to be clear, I do like other books by him :-)
I think you miss out on a few important points on what the scope of the problem actually is, which is that Amazon is much more than an online Walmart. They sell compute infrastructure that the entire global economy runs on, so in a sense you could see this as feudalism like ownership of the productive assets of the economy. A better analogy than walmart for what Amazon, Microsoft etc truly means in technology would be a company that owns all the factories and that anyone who wants to do business has to rent the factory space from them. But this is not really feudalism, yes this is all voluntarily. I agree with you that he overstates the problem. Indeed I'm not even convinced that there is a problem that even requires regulatory involvement. For cloud infrastructure providers there is actually plenty of competition, and 'tenants' can move between Microsoft, AWS and dozen of other providers as they wish. Even on a consumer basis, you have a choice to refuse Apple, move to another platform etc. There is hardly a situation that is outside of the control of customers. And hence there is not a good argument for feudalism.
Since you asked :) I believe that there is something changing, but it is too early to see through the fog of war, too hard to see, even for dear Varoufakis :) But i justy can't get rid of this feeling that there is something changing, and it is not in a good way...
Power: Who has it? How is it exercised? Is their oversight? Is the oversight effective? Are there sufficient penalties/remedies? Applies to Capitalism and to Marxism. To Churches and Trade Unions, and armies, and households. Over time power tends to accumulate. Oversight gets corrupted. Power becomes unrestrained. Eventually, Power dominates to such an extent that it collapses in on itself. Then, the uneasy balancing act begins all over again. This can be measured in days, years, or centuries depending on the power structure you're talking about. Personally, I'm betting on Mother Nature to be the corrective to the present power dynamics (whatever term you want to give them). As Shakespeare puts it so succinctly: "Then every thing includes itself in power, Power into will, will into appetite; And appetite, an universal wolf, So doubly seconded with will and power, Must make perforce an universal prey, And last eat up himself." (Remember the suffering in Palestine. Never get accustomed to it.)
Hi, yeah, this is a tough one. I know that the music really annoys a certain percent of viewers, but I do also suspect that it works well for others. I try to keep it very low when I am speaking. But, also, what do you think of the music for the chapter cut scenes? I've added those chapter cuts because otherwise me just talking straight for 15 to 20 mins gets too much! ... and, indeed, even a lot of podcasts do this now too, just to give the listener / watcher a bit of breathing space. So, I'm curious what you think of those and the music in those transitions?
I think you overlooked regulatory market capture and corruption of the American system through lobbying, to an extent, but I am in agreement with you, things are hardly irredeemable.. I watched an interview back when he first started promoting this book, Varoufakis seemed to have an extremely superficial understanding of technology. that said, I think you're underestimating how insidious a corporation like Amazon can be, studying markets until they have a model to action upon. there was a scandal a few years back where they sold diapers at a $200 million dollar loss for years to grain the market.. then Jaron lanier used to talk about how they were the first to use big data to model their suppliers, quipping that in some cases they understood their suppliers so well it resulted as cheaper to have the other company produce their products than to take it over themselves.. but yeah, catch tittle BAH!
Yes indeed, I agree. I think problems like regulatory capture are exactly the kinds of problems that make it tough for our existing democratic processes to make effective change, but as you say they make it hard, but not impossible. And, so, these kind of non-tech issues should be high on any agenda for useful change. But, they are also not new phenomenon, this kind of lobbying has been around long before the digital age we're now in. As for Amazon, yeah, its behaviour over the years has been shocking. I read about the diapers incident in Chokepoint Capitalism (amongst other horror stories of their explicit actions to maintain their monopoly and monopsony powers). So, it will be interesting to see what happens with the EU and USA investigations. I think it would be 'easy' to break apart Amazon's product selling side from its market/delivery side. It would also be 'easy' to insist that it either stops using its exclusive market intelligence, or that it shares or sells that intelligence for a fair value to others operating in the market. Overall, I am more and more of the opinion that those wishing for a progressive, better society, should be pushing for *more* market competition within areas of the economy that suit a market approach. And then, of course, for natural monopolies (like water supplies) where market competition can't keep companies 'honest' we shouldn't pretend it will. Privatised water companies have been a disaster in England.
@@Go-MetaI think every progressive just want exactly that, more competition where market solution make sense, incentives to business to market goods that we need as society and less privatization of essential goods and services. I don’t know any progressive who think otherwise.
Yeah, I suspect that it is non-trivial to get democracy within organisations right, but there are examples where it seems to have worked well, such as John Lewis (large retail company in UK): www.jlpjobs.com/about/our-values/
Monopsony has been caused by suppliers offering discount to those who can purchase in larger quantity.. Smaller outlets now cannot compete on price and fall by the wayside.. Now only the big players are in control of price. Suppliers have done this to themselves.
That's an unfortunately dynamic you are pointing out. Another example where the incentives from economies of scale lead to dysfunctional outcomes for society. It's not easy to see how to fix this, especially when running a small, bricks and mortar retail outlet is so expensive these days. What has been good to see is that, at least in the UK, we still do have some bookshops that are surviving in the high street. So there are clearly enough people (like me!🙂) who so enjoy the experience of buying from a bookshop that they are prepared to pay a little extra for that experience.
I read the book and there are many places I nodded my head too - but the flaw is that he is wrapped up in a metaphor to believe it as reality. The new robber barons - absolutely. State regulatory capture - agree completely. Indeed this high modernist Marxist philosophy permeating the subtext annoyed me.
I read The Undercover Economist in my early 20s, and it was a worldview-changing read for me. It shaped many of my sociopolitical views throughout my 20s, to my detriment. Harford captured capitalism effectively, but his perspective was oversimplified, and, looking back, some points were simply wrong. I had a similar reaction to Technofeudalism and came here looking for counterpoints to avoid falling into the same trap. Your critique didn't disappoint-you’ve gained a subscriber. That said, I still find Varoufakis's presentation of his argument impressive. He makes complex ideas accessible to non-economists, adding what feels like an important contribution to current economic discourse. You briefly mentioned his conclusion about the West’s inability to undo the systems we've created. I’m curious-what harm do you think his total argument causes, to the point where you wouldn’t recommend the book?
Well, I assume people's time is very limited and they only get to read a handful of books each year, so in that sense I don't want to be recommending books when there are other books that'd be more interesting and useful to read. But, if you are an avid reader with lots of time then it is an enjoyable read. But I think he gets take after take wrong. His views on AI are oversimplified and already out of date as he wrote this before the heights of this latest wave of generative AI (and I'm saying that as someone with a Ph.D in AI). He also failed to bring together the kind of data that I would have liked to see to support his view that this "cloudalist" aspect of the economy is becoming dominant. Also, in other books I've seen people be very doubtful about the real influence of adverts on Facebook etc. Yes, the Big Tech companies say that they've got all this data that allows them to influence us to buy things, but I'm not really sure that there is much evidence to back this up beyond the traditional value of advertising. ... and I could go on. Overall it felt like a fairly rushed book that "paints a picture" of a possible new world order that kind of feels maybe plausible but hasn't yet been strongly argued for (and that doesn't convince me). That's OK and interesting if you are raising this as a rough analogy or a general concern or flagging it as something to look out for. But Varoufakis is claiming much more, he's claiming to be introducing a new economic paradigm and, especially as he is a professor of economics people will take him at his word for it. So, there really are books that I would recommend reading before this one, including "And The Weak Suffer What They Must", by Varoufakis himself! 🙂
@Go-Meta Mate! I wasn’t expecting such a quick and thorough reply thanks for taking the time. I completely agree with your point. This book was actually my introduction to Varoufakis, and though I don’t want to psychoanalyse him based on one book, he does seem to present his views quite categorically. I was also left wondering about the place of the physical capital we all interact with. I will read your book recommendations and I am also looking forward to diving into your catalogue of videos. Thanks again!
I don’t know if it has escaped the writer’s attention and probably yours … but the current problem with these cloud fiefdoms is the infrastructural provisioning rather their ability to operate as digital shops. Amazon for instance has conquered the world of digitalization and digital transformation via AWS. And this is feudalism at its best as it is strictly a business-to-business endeavor. People create businesses but do not want to have the berdain of setting their own databases and data centers and servers and maintains all that. This is the real power of these dominating agents in our time. Not to mention that if all these infrastructures are owned by a handful of organizations so do the generated data in some form. That’s my take on the matter.
Yeah, I've just had a quick check and I can't see AWS mentioned anywhere in Varoufakis's book, which is really quite surprising, especially as it is literally a business about cloud infrastructure. And it is huge. I think the problem for Varoufakis is that his part of Amazon doesn't fit his new "cloudalism" framework. Instead, AWS is a huge material, capital intensive, infrastructure whose value does NOT come from the data of the clients that it is hosting. Everything hosted on AWS remains completely the intellectual property of the company renting out computing space (otherwise companies and governments would never use Amazon's AWS). And AWS is a major part of Amazon's profits. And, Google and other companies are providing competing services so there's a degree to which there is a traditional market. But also, there are lock in features from the API frameworks that each platform uses, so it really is an example of "platform capitalism", but Varoufakis is trying to reject such terms, saying they are inadequate. I guess that's maybe why he didn't mention it 🙂 ... but maybe he just thought many readers will not have heard of AWS. Still, bit of an oversight.
It’s is a huge omission. I think that cloud services could partially work towards his theory apart from that rent/profit inversion indicator. Bear in mind that although cloud providers might not have full access to their clients data, they do have access on agreegate data such as network traffic and traffic origination as well as their customer’s business profiles. For a wide clientele base this data is huge and can build new diversified products by mining this pool. At any rate, his actual focal point is the disruption that these digital fiefdoms brought about w.r.r classic points-of-sales and the centralizations of logistics networks. The impact of these digital tycoons on the world and the associated inequality is not questioned. Therefore, I do not think that his instinct to go for the rebirth of a feudal system is so far off.
@@Go-Meta I agree to some extent. I think that, in perspective, cloud computing is the elephant in the room that the book fails to address. I also see that this business realm aligns with the feudal model as it generates rentier income from almost the entirety of digital activities. The other player here is companies like Oracle that offer on-prem solutions that are more product-oriented in the classical sense whereas agents like AWS are leaning towards services. What might not work in this model is the rent/profit inversion. One final note on the data gathering and exploitation possibilities by company's like AWS. I agree that the infra providers should not have access to client's data according to contract. But ... 1) this is partially true since a company AWS must provide security services to its clients. So they must have an insight on how the client organizes its data to some extent 2) how about metadata of the data exchanged ??? traffic metrics and traffic originations may or may not be within provider's reach. This type of data can give insights and lead to business decisions. And bear in mind that all this discussion is for the private sector. The future looks grimmer for the public sector if we connect some dots. Dot#1: Trump won the elections, Dot#2: Trump wants to allow E. Musk to optimize/minimize public spending (can find many articles about it) Dot#3: E. Musk has set-up an enormous AI data centre in Memphis where nearly half a million GPUs from Nvidia have been installed making it one of the biggest machine learning farms in the world, Dot#4: this is not the first time ... the story of soviet cybernetics is humanity's first attempt to streamline an automated decision-making apparatus to optimize productions, logistics and distribution across the union in order to safeguard against generalized scarcity. So ... YV book is a good attempt to explain the current situation but there is a similarity to the feudal system that is only partial ... needs to address AI and clloud computing in more depth and examine further the limitations of the techno-feudal hypothesis. The matter is so huge that calls for an extra book volume. He has committed a great foul by not mentioning anything about it (I blame it on lack of research).
Varoufakis was also unlucky with his timing as he clearly wrote it just before ChatGPT really burst onto the scene and generative AI took off so much. His writing in this book about AI wasn't great (and, I say that as someone with a PhD in AI 🙂 ) In some ways the future dynamics of AI *could* potentially be more like the kind of thing that he is describing, but there again there is a lot to play for. The fact that open source models from Facebook/Meta are fairly powerful and we have seen a lot of convergence between top level models, suggests that it is not clear what the future of this AI will look like. Indeed, we haven't yet seen how countries will decide to protect their geopolitical interests in relation to AI. It could well be that countries take actions to ensure there are national AI projects that can be used for national objectives. Again, the point is that the legal / regulatory / geopolitical context can play a huge role in determining the power dynamics that result from new technologies like this. The dynamics are not all driven by the tech.
I think this is a magnificent video. I saw other comments on the background music, but in my opinion the production is superb (visuals as well as audio). I might have found different sounds for the description of the old systems, but that's probably a difficult one to find something as appropriate as the techno sounds in the later segments. That brought a grin to my face! But it's also really well written and narrated. I haven't read the book but you've articulated in great detail some thoughts I had on his arguments, and come to similar conclusions I have, based on what I've heard him talk about. Ultimately, it just seems like the same old system in much more efficient forms. Subbed, and look forward to checking out some other works. Thank you!
Thank you! Especially it is nice to hear some positive feedback on the use of music 😀 To me it is interesting that so many traditional documentaries on TV (or streaming these days) do use music, and yet quite a few people really don't like it on a YT video like this. So, I'm reducing the amount of music in my latest videos, but maybe one day I'll revisit this question. Thanks for the sub and hope you enjoy some of my other videos! 🙂
@@Go-Meta Yeah, perhaps it's a case of getting the balance right in the mix so that it's under the voice. Depending on where your levels are, maybe about 5-8 db below the voice should give it enough not to overpower. Also, a stereo mix works best to make room for everything, maybe panning the voice a bit. But that's all getting a bit technical - I think people just like to complain at stuff, rather than appreciate things for the effort put into them. Cheers!
Greetings! Thanks for the video! Unfortunately, I haven't been able to read Technofeudalism yet, so I don't want to delve into it yet. However, I would like to mention that I really appreciate the way you criticize. I am a gigantic Varoufakis fanboy, yet I feel no need whatsoever to defend my hero here. On the contrary! For me, your video is nothing but an invitation to reflection and confirms that I am also a fan of your channel. As always, a breath of fresh air! Thanks also for the other two book recommendations!
Hi, thanks for this comment, I really appreciate it. I intend my critique here to be a useful one, especially as I do think the issues Varoufakis is concerned about in this book are important ones. And Varoufakis does have some very interesting passages in the book, but to keep the video shorter than 20mins (it's still too long!) I had to focus my discussion on the main concept of the book, but that meant that lots of detail and nuance had to be left out of the video. So, if you do get around to reading it, please do let me know if you think I've been too harsh 🙂
Great analysis. It is always good to come out with a plan or lesson after presenting a problem, and it's nice to hear one here. I guess the next question is how exactly can people force their institutions to act more or quicker with these problems.
I think a better source would be Cedric Durand "How Silicon Valley Unleashed Techno Feudalism" in there the author describes it as new sorts of economies with spectres of feudalism, and how the neo-liberal ideology was necessary for Techno Feudalism. Thinking of it as a spectres of Feudalism rather than a new sort of economy is more fine tuned.
Yeah, I agree, using 'feudalism' as an analogy makes sense. Not sure why Varoufakis felt he had to go further to claim that capitalism has actually been superseded. I've added Durand's book to my list, it looks interesting, and may have been written recently enough to be able to properly engage with the related implications of this latest wave of AI. It might be fun one day to review it slightly in comparison to Varoufakis's book 🙂
a good book that is relevant was written many years ago by Jaron Lanier: "Who Owns the Future?" where he points out that in networked systems, (almost?) all benefits accrue to the "top level server", which in current systems are Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc.
Weak take. You seems too committed to your desire to refute his take than see its merit. Your understanding of brick and mortar/mail networks of the past is pretty uninformed. Esp how they contrast with the new cloud model. Maybe you don’t use alexa, but it’s far from the only input to the loop. It’s simply the most provocative/direct. Maybe scratch a bit at your lack of info on the subject and the many advances of the field you’re not up to speed on.
Hi Tim, Thanks for this push back! :-) My academic background is in computers and AI rather than retail, so I admit that there may be aspects of the old retail models that I don't fully understand, but I understand a lot about how the new AI driven data approach to things in the new cloud model are working. And while there are new phenomenon in the digital world (like digital network effects; the use of big data to help drive corporate decisions; and indeed all the impacts from latest improvements in AI) a lot of what I see others talking about as being the real culprits allowing companies like Amazon and Facebook to get so strong are issues with the legal frameworks within which they are operating and being regulated, (such as the aggressive use of DRM; and the way that competition law nowadays mostly focuses on the impact on the consumer, rather than on the anti-competitive impact on the market). Those legal issues could be tackled by changes in the law and breaking up these excessively large companies. So, I'm not disagree with Varoufakis's concern about these excessively powerful companies, nor am I disagreeing with the idea that the digital age has brought new dynamics and details as to what is going on. I'm only challenging the suggestion that the best way to understand the political economics of what is going on is through his cloud-this, cloud-that type of terminology. It reminded me of the way we had a phase of e-commerce and e-government before all of the 'e's just got dropped because every aspect of society was going digital anyway. That something has become digital isn't enough to make it a new phenomenon requiring new analysis and new laws. But, I'm curious which aspects of the cloud model made most sense to you?
I'm a recent watcher of your videos. I fell in love and subscribed immediately. But I must say this is so far your weakest presentation for me as several commenters have eloquently elaborated. I'm not sure why that is though. Even if you think the book or its author are flawed; you should have steelman its central point and engage with that.
Hi, it's an interesting suggestion. I think I would have been much more sympathetic to Varoufakis's book if he hadn't been insisting that this is a new economic paradigm. As a metaphor the spectre of feudalism works well, but he didn't really substantiate his bolder claim. But there were also two other aspects of the book that really didn't sit well with me, which is the focus on the technology as being the predominant driver of the new dynamics (rather than also highlighting the regulatory context that crucially supports the business models of these companies) and also the sense that there wasn't much that we could do about it in the 'west' except for revolution. This to me is an unhelpful suggestion. We should be finding ways to empower people to use our democracy effectively for change. And, I did try to be fair to Varoufakis himself as I have read other books of his that were great. Also, if you haven't watched it already, I do suggest you watch my video about Chokepoint Capitalism which is essentially talking about the same sorts of dynamic within our political economic context but they provide a much more convincing take on what the problem is and where the best routes forward may lie. The video is here: ruclips.net/video/qNr6iTAlhco/видео.html So, I do think that across my videos I'm taking the underlying issues seriously, even if I don't agree with Varoufakis's take on it. But I'll be curious what you think of my video on Chokepoint Capitalism. Thanks for the push back though, good to make me reflect on the stances I'm taking!
I think one argument that supports technofeudalism is the rise of digital distribution services. This is something that came to mind just now so I haven't thought about it too deeply. If you look at platforms like iTunes, Spotify, or the video game distributor Steam, you are not actually paying for the song or the game but a license for the digital good. There might be other services like this. I think on RUclips you can "purchase" movies but I imagine it's similar, you don't actually get to own the movie, just the right to watch it. And this can be removed if you lose your account/are banned from the platform. This part makes it more "feudalistic" since you are, in a sense, bound to the platform. I suppose a counter argument is that this isn't too different from just renting stuff; however, it is different because these are not physical, tangible goods but entirely digital ones.
Hi, yeah, I think you are right about this shift away from buying things and towards renting digital things (rentier capitalism), and why the term "technofeudalism" sounds so tempting, but I don't think Varoufakis gives a good analysis of why this is happening or what the future prospects are for this aspect of our economy today. In "Chokepoint Capitalism" (which I mention maybe too often in my video 🙂) they talk about how laws (like the DMCA in USA) and the style with which antitrust laws are applied, are the biggest drivers of this current, extractive digital rentier economy as, without this legal protection, a lot of these digital 'goods' have essentially zero cost to reproduce and could in the future be shared on fairer platforms that channel more of the revenue from such digital goods towards the creators rather than to the platform and publishing corporations. So, I think Varoufakis's analysis is wrong to think there is something fundamental to the tech (rather than the laws around the tech) that is giving rise to this feeling of being stuck in a feudal relationship. And, if the laws are the real impediment, then there is no reason (in theory!) why western democratic governments couldn't be pushed by voters to make these laws more fair - and there is some evidence that that is starting to happen. Also, I think Varoufakis's analysis lacked any attempt to demonstrate the scale of this "technofeudal" aspect of the current economy. Lots of the real economy is still focused on non-digital goods like, construction, physical goods, food, transport, energy, healthcare, education, etc, etc. .... all of which are still largely running in a traditional mixed economy model of political economy that has been like that for many, many decades. So, yeah, "technofeudalism" captures the feeling of some parts of the relatively recent digital economy, but I'm not convinced by Varoufakis's claim that it's the best description of the overall political economy that we live in today. Thanks for the comment.
more like a super-supermarket with near monopolistic presence; true you can choose to buy or not buy, but if using Amazon, the platform algorithm(s) choose what you see
Although your dissenting opinion is pretty good food for thought, I have to disagree with you from a methodological standpoint. First of all, the whole review seems to be centered around the specific case of Amazon. While you agree with the big impact social media have, the whole Google, Apple and Microsoft ecosystems are eluded or, to be fair, not accounted for enough in your analysis. Secondly, even the study of the Amazon situation seems to be more focused on the digital supermarket part, thus not taking into consideration the huge and growing impact Amazon Web Services (AWS), the cloud computing branch of Amazon (speaking of cloudalists), is having in the latter's galaxy. As an illustration the Seattle Times recently noted that "Amazon reported $13.5 billion in profit in the second quarter of this year, driven largely by continuing growth in its cloud computing division".
Hi, yeah, to make the video work I did mostly focus on Amazon, but it is also a key example used by Varoufakis. Indeed, I think one of the weakest parts of his explanation of his views is when he uses Amazon Alexa as being a significant example of choice manipulation by a Big Tech company. Alexa is clearly insignificant compared to the influence of other platforms like Facebook, Twitter and RUclips. But, Varoufakis's argument only really 'works' if all of the Big Tech features can be ascribed to a single Big Tech company. In China this may be true, but in most of the world there simply aren't any single platforms doing all of the things that Big Tech can do to make money. For example, Facebook is big at advertising and influencing, but it is likely Amazon that will then actually do the delivery - and sure they may have some deals around this, but it doesn't then work as an example of consolidated power in one "cloudalists fiefdom". Similarly while AWS is indeed a huge profit centre for Amazon, it has almost no direct tie up to Amazon's marketplace or its delivery network. The only tie up is that Amazon uses AWS for all its own digital footprint. Otherwise it might as well be a completely separate company. So, my dissenting view is NOT to suggest that there aren't new dynamics to be understood in this digital world (and even more now with the rise of AI), but I think (a) there are many different dynamics that ought to be studied and understood separately and (b) just because we have a new kind of tech (algorithms) and new kind of asset class (data) that doesn't convince me that these can't all be understood as 'normal' extensions of and abuses of regular capitalism. So, Varoufakis's central claim, that capitalism has been superseded, just doesn't ring true to me.
Well, if you mean, "do we really have free markets with healthy competition?" then in many contexts the answers is clearly, "no". But our political economy clearly favours the interests of people with large amounts of capital to invest!
Yes indeed, but in one sense capitalism was always thus. Think of the era of the robber barons. But, capitalism collects rent on capital assets, whereas feudalism collected rent on land assets. One interesting twist that has happened recently is the growing breakout of whole subgroups of users from X to Bluesky. Network effects are powerful, but not nearly as binding as proper serfdom that got passed down generations within a family! So, if Varoufakis had written almost the same book, but just with feudalism as a metaphor (indeed a metaphor that has been used before for the excessive dynamics of capitalism) then it would have been a much better book in my humble opinion.
@@Go-Meta We should have a friendly debate. I will defend both the right libertarian and socialism against your centrist/social democratic position as it is completely irrational.
@@PoliticalEconomy101 yup, happily 👍 🙂 There are much better, clear cut arguments about why each extreme position has demonstrably failed over the last 100 years or so, compared to the "best of both worlds" position that I advocate for. But, I don't see my position as a kind of centrist "average", but as a synthesis of the way that both the market and the liberal, democratic nation state can each promote individual liberty and agency in a way that combines into useful collective action, through the market and through voting. Two very different mechanisms each with their own strengths and weaknesses and that work best in a healthy balance. So, yeah, I'd happily engage with arguments that try to champion just the market, or just the state. 🙂
@@Go-Meta Right liberals are not laissez faire and by socialist I do not mean USSR. So I will not be defending those unreasonable positions. Im a contractual collectivist socialist. That has never been tried yet.
serfs were not so much bound by law, as by location? if you lived on a lord's land you owed rent, if you moved away, you were no longer bound, but you had to find an alternate way to live, such as being part of labour force selling yourself to factories, etc.
It is rent, which is paid with your attention. Your free time has been commoditized. It is not a matter of choice as there will be nothing outside of the network for you to choose from.
Yes, in many ways I agree that we have become a zombified citizenry, glued to our screens for the profit of others. But, notice that many communities of people have recently chosen to move their attention en masse from X to Bluesky. Yes the dynamics of many of these systems entrap us, but we are sometimes more free to choose than we realise.
I have a lot of things to say about this video, but comparing Amazon's complete dominion on who sees what and who should get the most views, to a Walmart putting their favourite toaster is just shallow
My argument is not that Walmart's market surveillance is as sophisticated as Amazon's, but that the monopsony power that that gives Amazon over its suppliers isn't a new phenomenon, it's just to a greater scale. I'm sure there will be horror stories from suppliers who had to jump to the wishes of Walmart in order to get onto their shelves. But, of course, the second point is that it's much easier to switch browser tabs than to switch between your local physical superstore and a more distant one. As consumers, we're only bound to Amazon through convenience and cheap prices and habit. Arguably the physical dominance of a town by a Walmart superstore is a much more feudalistic act than the brand dominance of Amazon online. Taken together, I just don't see that Varoufakis has made the case that this new era of online shopping represents a new political economic order that means that "capitalism has been replaced" is the right way to be thinking about what is going on. Especially since the monopolist and monopsonist tendencies of capitalism have been well known for a long time.
You obviously missed the bits of the video where I was critical of Amazon business practices as a monopsony and welcomed the EU and US investigations into their anti-competitive behaviours. It is possible to take a more nuanced position than being either a hard core anti-capitalist or a corporate shill, but I clearly need to get better at expressing this position 😃
Oh this so weak. I haven't read it so I can't/won't get into a full criqitue, however I'm a living being in 2024 and I've heard Varufakis do the rounds on podcasts about his book. You seem to completely ignore all the data they hoover up from people using the site, (forget Alexa) then you pivot to say Facebook is the enemy there not Amazon. Yanis includes them ALL! The hair splitting here is pathetic. WE are providing them the data, the capital, the value. You try to gloss over the suppliers on Amazon, (besides getting their products stolen, they are forced to set prices elsewhere based on amazon, and feel they cannot compete if they don't sell on that HUGE marketshare. What % of people shop on Amazon?) Just cause capitalists had greedy middlemen in the past, does not absolve Amazon marking a drastic shift in our economy, a better analogy would be milk producers having to sell to only ONE supermarket, which steals their product ideas, and forces them to set prices elsewhere. Then you try to offer up these meager lawsuits against them as some sort of evidence that Western countries have tamed these monstrous beasts. How few there are, how difficult they are to bring, how many armies of lawyers are involved by both sides, how little they have caused changed, and what a tiny dent they will make on these monopolies, should be MORE EVIDENCE for Varufakis' case, not gunpowerder for your analysis. They are like the exceptions that prove the rule. Feels like your being paid by Amazon to defend them and sell that other book you can't seem to help bringing up over and over. (Lastly I see you're interacting with commenters ( that's nice ) but you need not bother here, as I don't intend to subscribe. Besides the annoying music, (which you've addressed in another comment) I can't stand your manner of speaking like a RUclipsr presenting to children. I doubt you talk like this to your pals in the pub, thats' what I want, not this supercilious hand waving.)
Hi Adam, Hopefully you will read this response, even though my style of presentation is clearly not your cup of tea! 🙂 One big picture issue to start with is that I literally said that I am not defending Amazon's business practices. I'm not disagreeing with Varoufakis when he is identifying problems going wrong with our political economy. The only disagreement is over the value of his "cloud capital" analysis and his claim that traditional capitalism has been quietly overthrown already without anyone noticing. And I keep on mentioning Chokepoint Capitalism as I find it a much better analysis of the same problems, including all of the shocking, predatory ways in which Amazon behaves. But you are right that I didn't properly address other companies that Varoufakis talks about, like Facebook, but that's simply because the video is too long anyway! There were so many additional things I had to cut out. But I actually think that part of the problem of Varoufakis's cloud-this / cloud-that analysis is that it lumps together a whole bunch of power dynamics that should (IMHO) be analysed as different things. Amazon.com (not AWS) gets its power through an aggressive, anti-competitive monopsony over its suppliers through years of spinning up its famous 'flywheel'. In contrast, Facebook gets its power through its digital network effect; Google through its superior search algorithm (at first) that won the branding war for search; OpenAI's growing power is because it has the best AI algorithm, huge compute, huge data and has currently won a first mover / quality branding war; Apple's power is because it's got brand loyalty to a luxury brand that builds a powerful ecology of products that work well together in an exclusive way. All importantly different. To understand how to challenge their power, you need to properly understand what gives them power in the first place. And it is not simply the fact that they are all operating with computers and data in the cloud and surveilling their users. Everyone is. But Varoufakis is claiming to get some kind of analytical insight by calling all of these different things examples of "cloud capital", when they are all mostly understandable as digital, large scale versions of dynamics that often already existed (to some degree at least) in traditional low-tech capitalism. That they are using computers and algorithms and data is usually not the differentiating factor that gives them such enormous power. I used Amazon as the clearest example to show this. And I mentioned Alexa because Varoufakis keeps on using it as his go-to example - including in many podcast interviews. And then, sure, the possible regulatory interventions are maybe too little, too late. But another detail of Varoufakis's book that I didn't get to address in the video is an odd rhetorical move he keeps on making (including in some podcasts). On the one hand he claims it's impossible to imagine our western democracies getting a grip to actually make a difference. But then he lays out one of his preferred solutions as being moving ALL companies to be one-worker, one-share, one-vote, with these companies being delisted from the stock market. First, note that this has nothing to do with "cloud capital" (directly) but is essentially an overthrow of the current stock-market / investor *capitalism*. Fair enough that's what he thinks should happen, but how can he claim that this much more radical change is more plausible to imagine happening than the proper, robust regulation that he dismisses as being so unlikely?! So, the TL;DR: version of what I'm saying here is that there are many more reasons to be critical of this book than I had time in my video. But, I obviously failed to get across clearly enough the fact that I was not defending Amazon and not suggesting that everything going on in our political economy today is perfectly analogous to pre-internet capitalism. Still lots of room to improve my scripting process! 🙂 Thanks for the challenging comment, Oli
In one of your replies, you say: “First, note that this has nothing to do with "cloud capital" (directly) but is essentially an overthrow of the current stock-market / investor *capitalism*. Fair enough that's what he thinks should happen, but how can he claim that this much more radical change is more plausible to imagine happening than the proper, robust regulation that he dismisses as being so unlikely?!” I gather V’s Marxist perspective is showing here: sometimes revolution is easier/more likely than regulation/reformation.
@@Go-Meta As an academic, I'm compelled to respond, begrudgingly. However, also as an academic, I recognize again that I really am not cut-out nor prepared to respond in the slightest. For the simple major fact, that I have not read this book. And now you're just listing other arguments in the book which I'm completely unware of. So I have to let all those rest on the wayside. As for your response you say: "But I actually think that part of the problem of Varoufakis's cloud-this / cloud-that analysis is that it lumps together a whole bunch of power dynamics that should (IMHO) be analysed as different things." and you also say about these myriad power dynamics that they are "All importantly different." Why? Why should they be analyzed as different things, and why does that matter? It's incumbent upon you to explain why them being different is so significant. Google may have a search engine and Facebook a network effect, but how are those relevant to your thesis? You haven't explained that at all. Besides, both of those companies know nearly everything about me, my age, gender, sexual orientation, if i drink coffee, if I'm employed, etc... You've likely heard they can tell though AI when women are pregnant before they even know it themselves to advertise baby products. All this you try to conveniently sweep under the rug by misdirecting our attention to the ways they are different, and you cheekily mention they all use computers as though that's the only thing that unites these behemoths. Please.. It's not too complex: They all use Data for value, that data is generated by us, we are the product, and we are not compensated for it beyond the "free" service. But judging by their balance sheets, capitalization, and cash reserves, our data is worth way way way way more than they let on. I'm guessing 'that' is the crux. At least from my perspective, having not read the book, 'that' is what makes cloud capital a unique change in economic systems. We are doing most all of the "work" ( at least providing the value)and they are skimming off all the fat and them some. Hence robber barons and fiefs and peasants as an analogy. You don't think there's even the slightest connection to the fact that what 80% of households live paycheck to paycheck and these megacorporations dominating our increasing time spent in the digital sphere? ) (Or that about 30% 4.3 Million of children in the U.K. Are living in poverty? People once had jobs and money, and now these international corps hold obscene mounts of money. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to track where the money/value went, it didn't vanish into thin air, and globalization can't account for it all since even China is struggling now) As someone else suggested, this is a fine example of 'how' to critique, in a meta sense, but as a critique itself it falls flat. It makes one wonder how much was left out for the sake of brevity, or because would undermine the whole video. I mean, Facebook is a rather large elephant in the room, or rather 800-pound gorilla, to conveniently leave out. Sometimes one can miss the forest through the trees. (Again, I haven't read the book so I really can't go on a further back and forth with you 🙁 I'm just arguing from experience that we are in a new era, it seems evident to everyone I speak too. And I think, however poorly, Yanis is working to ameliorate this impending doom and helplessness we all feel. While an underhanded critique of his book, again however poorly 😜, takes us a step backwards from that direction rather than forwards. Hence my efforts in responding to you even though I'm not familiar with the material. I'd shudder to think of some sleezy billionaire seeking out this video then adopting your talking points of "nothing new to see here, move along everyone, back to your wage slavery, enriching the 0.01%, at the expense of the Earth and human thriving", all for 1.3K views and a stroked ego 😞)
Hi Adam, I too would shudder if a sleezy billionaire responded to my video that way! 😀 And, I too want to "ameliorate this impending doom and helplessness we all feel", indeed that is exactly why I spend the time to make these videos (it's not just for my ego! 😜). My background is that I did a PhD in AI about 20+ years ago and then I've worked in IT consultancy since then. So I have a deep understanding of the tech side of things and have a curious, academic inclined mind with which I've further read in depth and discussed at length political economics and philosophy (and more) over decades (just like many of my likely audience I'm sure!). So, when Varoufakis writes a fairly casual book aimed at a general audience with very little by way of data or analysis to back up the significant claims that he is making, I think it is very appropriate for any of us with an analytical mind to just say, "hang on a moment, this just doesn't add up!" But, by saying Varoufakis's analysis of the problem isn't convincing, that doesn't mean I'm saying there is no problem to be understood. And there are other books that Varoufakis has written that I do rate (and say so in the video), so I'm trying not to be negative about Varoufakis in general as an interesting voice to be aware of. I'm just commenting on this particular set of ideas as presented in this particular book. And the elephant that was effectively missing from Varoufakis's analysis was AI. I say that because while Varoufakis does mention AI (with some rather poor explanations), he fails to note that it is AI that might be the most radical shift in our political economy in the next decades. It's AI that might radically alter the relationship between capital and workers as the workers will be so much less needed. It's AI that might completely change again the user interface paradigm (web) on which the power of Facebook (network) and Google (search) is based. So it is easy to imagine these 'fiefs' may soon fade in significance. But I focused my video on his analysis, not on what analysis I would suggest instead! As for my elephant, Facebook, the important thing to note is that while Facebook is making a lot of money and does sit at a nexus point that gives it a lot of *potential* for influence, it is really in the business of *selling* influence to other people. Indeed, in the USA, Facebook depends on their Section 230 status as a platform (Communications Decency Act) to absolve themselves of the responsibility of being a publisher. So, while under Varoufakis's analysis Mark Zuckerberg would be one of the most influential cloudalists, he cannot be seen to be using Facebook to push an editorial line. This is very different from traditional media barons like Rupert Murdoch who continue to have very significant, personal political influence. Elon Musk re: twitter/X is closer to what Varoufakis is talking about, but it's still very early days yet as to whether Musk's longer term ambitions here will succeed. They're quite likely to fail. And when you say, "It's not too complex: They all use Data for value, that data is generated by us, we are the product, and we are not compensated for it beyond the "free" service." I agree with this description for the the social media, influence platforms (Facebook, Twitter, RUclips). But that description doesn't work well for Apple (luxury brand) or Uber / AirBnB (platform rental/gig services) or Deliveroo / Mechanical Turk (gig economy platforms) or indeed for Amazon (predatory monopsony). None of them have a free service and they are not driven by selling our attention to advertisers. They're all different business models. So if Varoufakis had focused his cloudalist analysis on the nature of social media companies, it would have made a little more sense, but he's making a claim about the predominant nature of the entire political economy. In particular he's making the radical claim that capitalism is the *wrong* way to think about these companies, using an analogy to suggest that particular individuals (cloudalists) are getting a new kind of power that they don't have by virtue of being capitalist owners or CEOs of a large corporation, but by something else. And, I just don't buy his analysis. And I think we need more accurate, actionable analysis if we're going to make useful changes through these extremely challenging times. But, I really appreciate the discussion here. I may at some point write up some of these additional comments as further commentary about the ideas in the book as the video does have a lot missing 🙂 And, if you do get the chance to read it someday it'd be interesting to hear your thoughts then on how well you think Varoufakis makes his case in the book. I think you'll be surprised 🙂 Cheers, Oli
Varoufakis isn't unfortunately, very good. His work in game theory is of course seminal but everything since then has completely missed the mark. "Pure/impure transactions" "technofuedalism" He hasn't had a winner since GT.
Greek here . His work in Game Theory contradicts his practice in politics. The whole of his rhetoric is "everyone is bribed, Dr Claw behind everything, thieves everywhere , only me and my goons can save you" , an analogy of Alex Jones. The result was a failure in votes, and been attacked physically by some guy blaming him of being part of the Great Conspiracy. If he had used Game Theory he would had preddicted that it would backfire . But naaaah, his narcisism didn't allow him
It's a shame as he is relatively well known and could be doing a lot to successfully challenge the current orthodoxies, but he goes way too far and then is seen as not credible at all in the eyes of many people. It also annoys me that he says things like "The EU is not democratic" without recognising that the quality of democracy is a relative term. Of course there's lots to improve about the EU, but show me any other regional trade agreement (+extras!) that has as many democratic elements as the EU.
Greek here. Since long, Varoufakis points or invents a flaw in capitalism and then blames everything wrong happening in said flaw. Then,by overanalysing throwing numbers and procedures that may be or may not be relevant, he suggest a solution that is always the same. A path of multiple elections by complicated different electorates and commitees that must be established that through a very complicated process we choose His Ineniuty as the Great Regulator, in the likes of Putin, Kim or Stalin
Thanks for the video! So clear and careful. Independently of the quality (or lack thereof) of V’s ideas, for purely aesthetic reasons I pray that “cloudalist” as a term never catches on. 😂
Yeah, my later videos don't have music when I'm talking. Lots of other channels and documentaries seem to have music like this and I quite liked it, but a lot of people here don't 🙁. So, I've dropped it. No-one complains on the new videos that there is no music 😂
"They aren't giving you a watch, you are the gift, they're giving you yourself for the watch's birthday." Julio Cortázar, "Preamble of the instructions on how to wind a watch" (1962)
You know, when people in the UK voted to leave the EU despite that being against the wishes of the establishment. Or people in the USA voted for Trump in 2016, again despite that being against the wishes of the establishment. It's a very long way from perfect, but it's not nothing either.
I do think there are flaws in Varufakis' hypothesis, but I think one problem with your criticism is that you're not fully engaging with the Marxist framework of the argument, although you seemed to be going that way at the start of the video. The Marxist understanding of historical epochs is that you can best frame them in terms of economic class relations - that is, with reference to the different types of relation to the means of production which dominates at a particular time. So in slave-based societies, you have masters and slaves, which is not only a power relation, but an economic relationship. Similarly with feudalism and capitalism, both with their unique classes, forms of production and consumption, and relations to the means of production. There were something like capitalist relations present in feudal times, and there have been/are forms of slavery in the age of capitalism, but the epoch is defined by the primary set of economic relations around which society is based.
What I think Varufakis is correctly gesturing towards - although somewhat hyperbolically - is that we are experiencing a fundamental shift in our relationship to the means of production, specifically the production of data. We are all basically producing big data, for free, on platforms and services that it is incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to avoid using in the modern world. This is roughly (although not perfectly) analogous to rent extraction - if we want to ensure our digital survival, so to speak (which is strongly linked to our ability to act in the real world), we are obliged to accede to the extraction of these cloud rents.
Big data is now such a driving force in the economy, that this isn't just a minor point of interest. When these 'rents' are extracted, they are used to manipulate our behaviour, sold on, stored, and used in all sorts of ways we don't individually understand or have control over. We're alienated from our data in a way which isn't dissimilar to how we're alienated from our labour under traditional capitalism. I think it is fair to say that this really does represent a new kind of economic relationship (one that may have antecedents and historical analogies, but which is still fundamentally different). If this new economic relationship were to become not just part of our world, but _the_ characteristic economic relationship around which society is organised, then from a Marxist perspective we would have entered a new economic epoch. I don't that has actually happened, but still Varufakis is onto something. He has noticed a new set of classes and class relations emerging, which can't really be best understood simply as capitalists and consumers and workers, because the dynamic is fundamentally different.
Hi,
This is a great articulation of the best interpretation of Varoufakis's claim. Indeed, I think you've expressed it more clearly that Varoufakis did in his book! And, you are right that I should have done more in my video to address these aspects of the claim.
But, I did hint a little at the route that I would take in the moment when I showed that everyone, including the richest cloudalist is at times in the role of being the "cloud serf", and indeed it's also true that almost all people employed at any level in a company are now also entangled in the software tools of the company that would also make them a "cloud prole".
So, to me, the problem with trying to redefine the class tensions down this route is that it doesn't identify genuinely different groups of people, but different roles that we all play at different points in our lives.
So, I agree that our "enforced" participation in the creation of big data is a new phenomenon, but I'm not sure if it helps us define a class of people, as much as help define a new type of asset, the "big data" that is then bought and sold and exploited through markets. We also have a new kind of technology, "high fidelity influencing", that are more advanced, personalised versions of previous marketing tools.
But note that the ownership of most of this big data and deployment of these influencing technologies are mostly done by publicly listed companies for which almost anyone with a pension has some stock exposure to. So, yes, we have some new types of companies, but it is not clear to me that they sit in a different relation to their owners, workers and customers than, say, a traditional news media empire did.
For example, when Elon Musk bought Twitter, he wasn't really buying technology or even staff, but was mostly buying the digital network effect of all the people already engaged with twitter. But similarly, when Rupert Murdoch (or whomever) buys up a newspaper, they aren't buying the printing press or the admin staff, they are buying up the dedicated readership of the newspaper, together with the writers that they trust. That's a similar purchase of a "bound community" who are more likely to stick with what they know than to migrate. Then Rupert Murdoch has certainly been using his news media empire as a massive influencing mechanism. So, the existence of influential media moguls is not a new phenomenon even if the assets and technologies and scale are very different.
Also note that the same technologies deployed in a communist or socialist environment would still have us entrapped by the dynamic between the convenience of use versus the trail of data we are leaving for others to benefit from. These are features of the technology, not features of the political economic system that is using the technology.
As things stand, whether you're talking about Facebook, Amazon, Apple or OpenAI / Microsoft huge amounts of shareholder and venture capital is being deployed to pay for massive amounts of physical infrastructure and to pay workers to work at the companies in order to sell a service or goods of one kind or another. That they have at times managed to avoid being punished for not generating profits is a story about finance rather than a story about digital technology.
So, you are right that it would have been better if I had address these kinds of issues more in the video (was too long already!), and I agree that we are seeing some interesting new dynamics in our political economy from these new kinds of assets (that we all help produce but a few get to exploit) and technologies, but I don't think Varoufakis's kind of analysis really helps us identify the new classes of people that are in a new kind of tension that is different from those already expressed by the tensions identified within capitalism between the super wealthy owners of capital and the working class exploited in the labour market.
But I really like the succinct way you have expressed what Varoufakis was arguing for and I'm curious if you think there's anything glaringly missing from my further comments here.
Thank you!
@@Go-Meta Damn ok now I get your analysis. So the key idea is that you're saying theres not a big difference between owning facebook/amazon/netflix then it is owning NYT/Walmart/Universal studios, right?
That's kind of the hinge of the whole argument. Is our relationship between Facebook and its owners fundamentally different to our relationship between Fox and it's owners?
If it is, then these cloudist people could be feudal lords, if not, they're just a fancy new breed of capitalists figuring out how to commodify deeper layers of the human experience.
I think if you ask Varoufakis he might say that they are different in the way that iron and bronze are different. Loved the metaphors in this book!
Anyway I need to go back to lesson planning lol
"but I think one problem with your criticism is that you're not fully engaging with the Marxist framework of the argument"
Marxist frameworks are contradictory, a mix bag of German existentialist thought through a Hegelian lens.
@@kalidesu Isn't the word you're looking for 'dialectical'? I.e. the fact that symptoms are often only seemingly contradictory but actually manifest one another into existence.
@@kalidesucontradiction is literally the core of dialectic I am not sure what you are trying to say here
Saying Amazon is just like the supermarket is like saying Walmart is just like mom and pop shop. Yet Walmart did entirely change the economic dynamics of the world. You are underestimating the effect of digital golems, which is a doppelgänger of ourself in the digital world constructed specifically with the intend to influence our behaviors. Yes, it is huge and completely changed everything on how we do business and how we do politics in a much more dramatic way than neoliberalism mega corporations did.
Again the comparaison between Murdoch buying newspapers to influence politics as just the same as Facebook cloud is failing to see how these technologies changed the so dramatically how we use media to shape public opinion, therefore failing to see how these new material condition shape the distribution of wealth, the social contract and how much influence one can have, who can have it, how efficient it is and who are the big winners of this new shift.
Of course there are big differences between Amazon and supermarkets, but Varoufakis was seeming to imply things like that Amazon picking what is put in front of the consumer is a new phenomenon, rather than being a digital enhancement of an existing phenomenon.
And, of course, the digital world is having a huge impact on our behaviours, including our consumer behaviours, but certainly for me, my consumer transactions with the Amazon website are extremely transactional. I hear about a book somewhere else and then if I decide to buy it online I often buy it from Amazon. There are two 'tricks' that Amazon has pulled on me (1) is the *branding* trick of making me think of Amazon first before anywhere else and (2) they offer the book to be delivered next day almost always at the cheapest price than other places I occasionally check. Neither of these two fundamental 'tricks' are to do with them having a digital golem of me. They need no further knowledge about me other than that I would like to receive products cheap and fast - just like everyone.
It's their huge monopsony power over the suppliers, plus their huge long term investments in automated delivery warehouses that allow them to do (2) and every time they succeed at (2) it re-enforces (1) as I simply associate them with fast, cheap, easy deliver of exactly what I want.
What *they* are not doing is influencing what I want. That influence is coming from other media channels, channels that they don't own or control (or even care about). They will sell me anything, so in some sense they don't care what I want.
Of course they do sell their own products on their site and that, too is a digital enhancement of the same way that supermarkets often ended up with their own branded versions of highly popular lines.
And, basically, I'm saying, let's not be dazzled by the tech into feeling that society has no agency here. Most of these are problematic business practices that we've seen before and could be challenged if we wanted to. And, yes, there is too much lobbying of government to protect such businesses - but that too is nothing to do with the "cloud".
Yeah, again, I'm not trying to suggest that these media empires of different eras are equivalent, indeed there are some very important differences. The most notable difference is that the earlier generation of media moguls had a much stronger ability to control the editorial line they were delivering to their audience. Facebook and Twitter are much more driven by algorithms driving raw attention than by a central editorial line (indeed this is their key defence as to why they are NOT like traditional publishers).
But, this difference also means that it is possible for third parties to use these social media platforms for their own agendas, and this may well be counter to the political agenda of the owners of the tech. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I somehow doubt that the owners of Facebook and Twitter were likely to be staunch supporters of Brexit and Trump in 2016, and yet it was those campaigns that most successfully used these platforms to influence opinions *away* from the views of big business interests.
So, yes, these social media platforms are hugely influential, but it is not at all clear to me that the owners of the platforms control this influence as much as the old media moguls do. Sure, they make more money, but as individuals they probably have less personal influence through their platforms on, say, elections.
And, crucially, the analysis of the impact of social media platforms on the world, is, from my perspective, a very different conversation than you'd have about analysing the impact of companies like Amazon or SHEIN (the Chinese version of Zara + Amazon that is now taking the world by storm) on the consumer products market.
Varoufakis swoops these different phenomenon into one attempted "cloud" analysis just like you could imagine someone in the industrial revolution trying to make a "steam" analysis of the changes happening then! .... but, to be clear, I do like other books by him :-)
I think you miss out on a few important points on what the scope of the problem actually is, which is that Amazon is much more than an online Walmart. They sell compute infrastructure that the entire global economy runs on, so in a sense you could see this as feudalism like ownership of the productive assets of the economy. A better analogy than walmart for what Amazon, Microsoft etc truly means in technology would be a company that owns all the factories and that anyone who wants to do business has to rent the factory space from them. But this is not really feudalism, yes this is all voluntarily. I agree with you that he overstates the problem. Indeed I'm not even convinced that there is a problem that even requires regulatory involvement. For cloud infrastructure providers there is actually plenty of competition, and 'tenants' can move between Microsoft, AWS and dozen of other providers as they wish. Even on a consumer basis, you have a choice to refuse Apple, move to another platform etc. There is hardly a situation that is outside of the control of customers. And hence there is not a good argument for feudalism.
Since you asked :) I believe that there is something changing, but it is too early to see through the fog of war, too hard to see, even for dear Varoufakis :)
But i justy can't get rid of this feeling that there is something changing, and it is not in a good way...
It’s called EUGENICS!!! And DIGITAL SLAVERY!
Power: Who has it? How is it exercised? Is their oversight? Is the oversight effective? Are there sufficient penalties/remedies? Applies to Capitalism and to Marxism. To Churches and Trade Unions, and armies, and households.
Over time power tends to accumulate. Oversight gets corrupted. Power becomes unrestrained. Eventually, Power dominates to such an extent that it collapses in on itself. Then, the uneasy balancing act begins all over again. This can be measured in days, years, or centuries depending on the power structure you're talking about.
Personally, I'm betting on Mother Nature to be the corrective to the present power dynamics (whatever term you want to give them). As Shakespeare puts it so succinctly:
"Then every thing includes itself in power, Power into will, will into appetite; And appetite, an universal wolf, So doubly seconded with will and power, Must make perforce an universal prey, And last eat up himself."
(Remember the suffering in Palestine. Never get accustomed to it.)
No need for the background music. You have a great voice and you're presenting interesting ideas and commentary and that's enough to hook us.
Hi, yeah, this is a tough one. I know that the music really annoys a certain percent of viewers, but I do also suspect that it works well for others. I try to keep it very low when I am speaking.
But, also, what do you think of the music for the chapter cut scenes? I've added those chapter cuts because otherwise me just talking straight for 15 to 20 mins gets too much! ... and, indeed, even a lot of podcasts do this now too, just to give the listener / watcher a bit of breathing space. So, I'm curious what you think of those and the music in those transitions?
@@Go-Meta Background music is good but maybe choose different music.
I think you overlooked regulatory market capture and corruption of the American system through lobbying, to an extent, but I am in agreement with you, things are hardly irredeemable.. I watched an interview back when he first started promoting this book, Varoufakis seemed to have an extremely superficial understanding of technology. that said, I think you're underestimating how insidious a corporation like Amazon can be, studying markets until they have a model to action upon. there was a scandal a few years back where they sold diapers at a $200 million dollar loss for years to grain the market.. then Jaron lanier used to talk about how they were the first to use big data to model their suppliers, quipping that in some cases they understood their suppliers so well it resulted as cheaper to have the other company produce their products than to take it over themselves.. but yeah, catch tittle BAH!
Yes indeed, I agree. I think problems like regulatory capture are exactly the kinds of problems that make it tough for our existing democratic processes to make effective change, but as you say they make it hard, but not impossible. And, so, these kind of non-tech issues should be high on any agenda for useful change. But, they are also not new phenomenon, this kind of lobbying has been around long before the digital age we're now in.
As for Amazon, yeah, its behaviour over the years has been shocking. I read about the diapers incident in Chokepoint Capitalism (amongst other horror stories of their explicit actions to maintain their monopoly and monopsony powers). So, it will be interesting to see what happens with the EU and USA investigations. I think it would be 'easy' to break apart Amazon's product selling side from its market/delivery side. It would also be 'easy' to insist that it either stops using its exclusive market intelligence, or that it shares or sells that intelligence for a fair value to others operating in the market.
Overall, I am more and more of the opinion that those wishing for a progressive, better society, should be pushing for *more* market competition within areas of the economy that suit a market approach. And then, of course, for natural monopolies (like water supplies) where market competition can't keep companies 'honest' we shouldn't pretend it will. Privatised water companies have been a disaster in England.
@@Go-MetaI think every progressive just want exactly that, more competition where market solution make sense, incentives to business to market goods that we need as society and less privatization of essential goods and services. I don’t know any progressive who think otherwise.
Excellent review. I am so happy that I stumbled upon your channel!
Thank you so much!
Why not introduce democracy in corporates. If the corporates able to buy its employees then customer can vote who can be a CEO
Yeah, I suspect that it is non-trivial to get democracy within organisations right, but there are examples where it seems to have worked well, such as John Lewis (large retail company in UK): www.jlpjobs.com/about/our-values/
Monopsony has been caused by suppliers offering discount to those who can purchase in larger quantity.. Smaller outlets now cannot compete on price and fall by the wayside.. Now only the big players are in control of price. Suppliers have done this to themselves.
That's an unfortunately dynamic you are pointing out. Another example where the incentives from economies of scale lead to dysfunctional outcomes for society. It's not easy to see how to fix this, especially when running a small, bricks and mortar retail outlet is so expensive these days.
What has been good to see is that, at least in the UK, we still do have some bookshops that are surviving in the high street. So there are clearly enough people (like me!🙂) who so enjoy the experience of buying from a bookshop that they are prepared to pay a little extra for that experience.
I read the book and there are many places I nodded my head too - but the flaw is that he is wrapped up in a metaphor to believe it as reality. The new robber barons - absolutely. State regulatory capture - agree completely. Indeed this high modernist Marxist philosophy permeating the subtext annoyed me.
I read The Undercover Economist in my early 20s, and it was a worldview-changing read for me. It shaped many of my sociopolitical views throughout my 20s, to my detriment. Harford captured capitalism effectively, but his perspective was oversimplified, and, looking back, some points were simply wrong.
I had a similar reaction to Technofeudalism and came here looking for counterpoints to avoid falling into the same trap. Your critique didn't disappoint-you’ve gained a subscriber.
That said, I still find Varoufakis's presentation of his argument impressive. He makes complex ideas accessible to non-economists, adding what feels like an important contribution to current economic discourse. You briefly mentioned his conclusion about the West’s inability to undo the systems we've created. I’m curious-what harm do you think his total argument causes, to the point where you wouldn’t recommend the book?
Well, I assume people's time is very limited and they only get to read a handful of books each year, so in that sense I don't want to be recommending books when there are other books that'd be more interesting and useful to read.
But, if you are an avid reader with lots of time then it is an enjoyable read. But I think he gets take after take wrong. His views on AI are oversimplified and already out of date as he wrote this before the heights of this latest wave of generative AI (and I'm saying that as someone with a Ph.D in AI). He also failed to bring together the kind of data that I would have liked to see to support his view that this "cloudalist" aspect of the economy is becoming dominant. Also, in other books I've seen people be very doubtful about the real influence of adverts on Facebook etc. Yes, the Big Tech companies say that they've got all this data that allows them to influence us to buy things, but I'm not really sure that there is much evidence to back this up beyond the traditional value of advertising.
... and I could go on.
Overall it felt like a fairly rushed book that "paints a picture" of a possible new world order that kind of feels maybe plausible but hasn't yet been strongly argued for (and that doesn't convince me). That's OK and interesting if you are raising this as a rough analogy or a general concern or flagging it as something to look out for. But Varoufakis is claiming much more, he's claiming to be introducing a new economic paradigm and, especially as he is a professor of economics people will take him at his word for it.
So, there really are books that I would recommend reading before this one, including "And The Weak Suffer What They Must", by Varoufakis himself! 🙂
@Go-Meta Mate! I wasn’t expecting such a quick and thorough reply thanks for taking the time. I completely agree with your point. This book was actually my introduction to Varoufakis, and though I don’t want to psychoanalyse him based on one book, he does seem to present his views quite categorically. I was also left wondering about the place of the physical capital we all interact with. I will read your book recommendations and I am also looking forward to diving into your catalogue of videos. Thanks again!
I don’t know if it has escaped the writer’s attention and probably yours … but the current problem with these cloud fiefdoms is the infrastructural provisioning rather their ability to operate as digital shops. Amazon for instance has conquered the world of digitalization and digital transformation via AWS. And this is feudalism at its best as it is strictly a business-to-business endeavor. People create businesses but do not want to have the berdain of setting their own databases and data centers and servers and maintains all that. This is the real power of these dominating agents in our time. Not to mention that if all these infrastructures are owned by a handful of organizations so do the generated data in some form. That’s my take on the matter.
Yeah, I've just had a quick check and I can't see AWS mentioned anywhere in Varoufakis's book, which is really quite surprising, especially as it is literally a business about cloud infrastructure. And it is huge.
I think the problem for Varoufakis is that his part of Amazon doesn't fit his new "cloudalism" framework. Instead, AWS is a huge material, capital intensive, infrastructure whose value does NOT come from the data of the clients that it is hosting. Everything hosted on AWS remains completely the intellectual property of the company renting out computing space (otherwise companies and governments would never use Amazon's AWS). And AWS is a major part of Amazon's profits.
And, Google and other companies are providing competing services so there's a degree to which there is a traditional market. But also, there are lock in features from the API frameworks that each platform uses, so it really is an example of "platform capitalism", but Varoufakis is trying to reject such terms, saying they are inadequate. I guess that's maybe why he didn't mention it 🙂 ... but maybe he just thought many readers will not have heard of AWS. Still, bit of an oversight.
It’s is a huge omission. I think that cloud services could partially work towards his theory apart from that rent/profit inversion indicator. Bear in mind that although cloud providers might not have full access to their clients data, they do have access on agreegate data such as network traffic and traffic origination as well as their customer’s business profiles. For a wide clientele base this data is huge and can build new diversified products by mining this pool. At any rate, his actual focal point is the disruption that these digital fiefdoms brought about w.r.r classic points-of-sales and the centralizations of logistics networks. The impact of these digital tycoons on the world and the associated inequality is not questioned. Therefore, I do not think that his instinct to go for the rebirth of a feudal system is so far off.
@@Go-Meta I agree to some extent. I think that, in perspective, cloud computing is the elephant in the room that the book fails to address. I also see that this business realm aligns with the feudal model as it generates rentier income from almost the entirety of digital activities. The other player here is companies like Oracle that offer on-prem solutions that are more product-oriented in the classical sense whereas agents like AWS are leaning towards services. What might not work in this model is the rent/profit inversion. One final note on the data gathering and exploitation possibilities by company's like AWS. I agree that the infra providers should not have access to client's data according to contract. But ... 1) this is partially true since a company AWS must provide security services to its clients. So they must have an insight on how the client organizes its data to some extent 2) how about metadata of the data exchanged ??? traffic metrics and traffic originations may or may not be within provider's reach. This type of data can give insights and lead to business decisions. And bear in mind that all this discussion is for the private sector. The future looks grimmer for the public sector if we connect some dots. Dot#1: Trump won the elections, Dot#2: Trump wants to allow E. Musk to optimize/minimize public spending (can find many articles about it) Dot#3: E. Musk has set-up an enormous AI data centre in Memphis where nearly half a million GPUs from Nvidia have been installed making it one of the biggest machine learning farms in the world, Dot#4: this is not the first time ... the story of soviet cybernetics is humanity's first attempt to streamline an automated decision-making apparatus to optimize productions, logistics and distribution across the union in order to safeguard against generalized scarcity.
So ... YV book is a good attempt to explain the current situation but there is a similarity to the feudal system that is only partial ... needs to address AI and clloud computing in more depth and examine further the limitations of the techno-feudal hypothesis. The matter is so huge that calls for an extra book volume. He has committed a great foul by not mentioning anything about it (I blame it on lack of research).
Varoufakis was also unlucky with his timing as he clearly wrote it just before ChatGPT really burst onto the scene and generative AI took off so much. His writing in this book about AI wasn't great (and, I say that as someone with a PhD in AI 🙂 ) In some ways the future dynamics of AI *could* potentially be more like the kind of thing that he is describing, but there again there is a lot to play for.
The fact that open source models from Facebook/Meta are fairly powerful and we have seen a lot of convergence between top level models, suggests that it is not clear what the future of this AI will look like. Indeed, we haven't yet seen how countries will decide to protect their geopolitical interests in relation to AI. It could well be that countries take actions to ensure there are national AI projects that can be used for national objectives. Again, the point is that the legal / regulatory / geopolitical context can play a huge role in determining the power dynamics that result from new technologies like this. The dynamics are not all driven by the tech.
I think this is a magnificent video. I saw other comments on the background music, but in my opinion the production is superb (visuals as well as audio). I might have found different sounds for the description of the old systems, but that's probably a difficult one to find something as appropriate as the techno sounds in the later segments. That brought a grin to my face!
But it's also really well written and narrated. I haven't read the book but you've articulated in great detail some thoughts I had on his arguments, and come to similar conclusions I have, based on what I've heard him talk about. Ultimately, it just seems like the same old system in much more efficient forms.
Subbed, and look forward to checking out some other works. Thank you!
Thank you! Especially it is nice to hear some positive feedback on the use of music 😀 To me it is interesting that so many traditional documentaries on TV (or streaming these days) do use music, and yet quite a few people really don't like it on a YT video like this. So, I'm reducing the amount of music in my latest videos, but maybe one day I'll revisit this question.
Thanks for the sub and hope you enjoy some of my other videos! 🙂
@@Go-Meta Yeah, perhaps it's a case of getting the balance right in the mix so that it's under the voice. Depending on where your levels are, maybe about 5-8 db below the voice should give it enough not to overpower. Also, a stereo mix works best to make room for everything, maybe panning the voice a bit. But that's all getting a bit technical - I think people just like to complain at stuff, rather than appreciate things for the effort put into them. Cheers!
I really like your communication style
Greetings! Thanks for the video! Unfortunately, I haven't been able to read Technofeudalism yet, so I don't want to delve into it yet. However, I would like to mention that I really appreciate the way you criticize. I am a gigantic Varoufakis fanboy, yet I feel no need whatsoever to defend my hero here. On the contrary! For me, your video is nothing but an invitation to reflection and confirms that I am also a fan of your channel. As always, a breath of fresh air! Thanks also for the other two book recommendations!
Hi, thanks for this comment, I really appreciate it. I intend my critique here to be a useful one, especially as I do think the issues Varoufakis is concerned about in this book are important ones.
And Varoufakis does have some very interesting passages in the book, but to keep the video shorter than 20mins (it's still too long!) I had to focus my discussion on the main concept of the book, but that meant that lots of detail and nuance had to be left out of the video.
So, if you do get around to reading it, please do let me know if you think I've been too harsh 🙂
Great analysis. It is always good to come out with a plan or lesson after presenting a problem, and it's nice to hear one here. I guess the next question is how exactly can people force their institutions to act more or quicker with these problems.
I think a better source would be Cedric Durand "How Silicon Valley Unleashed Techno Feudalism" in there the author describes it as new sorts of economies with spectres of feudalism, and how the neo-liberal ideology was necessary for Techno Feudalism. Thinking of it as a spectres of Feudalism rather than a new sort of economy is more fine tuned.
Yeah, I agree, using 'feudalism' as an analogy makes sense. Not sure why Varoufakis felt he had to go further to claim that capitalism has actually been superseded.
I've added Durand's book to my list, it looks interesting, and may have been written recently enough to be able to properly engage with the related implications of this latest wave of AI. It might be fun one day to review it slightly in comparison to Varoufakis's book 🙂
a good book that is relevant was written many years ago by Jaron Lanier: "Who Owns the Future?" where he points out that in networked systems, (almost?) all benefits accrue to the "top level server", which in current systems are Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc.
Weak take. You seems too committed to your desire to refute his take than see its merit.
Your understanding of brick and mortar/mail networks of the past is pretty uninformed. Esp how they contrast with the new cloud model. Maybe you don’t use alexa, but it’s far from the only input to the loop. It’s simply the most provocative/direct.
Maybe scratch a bit at your lack of info on the subject and the many advances of the field you’re not up to speed on.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for this push back! :-)
My academic background is in computers and AI rather than retail, so I admit that there may be aspects of the old retail models that I don't fully understand, but I understand a lot about how the new AI driven data approach to things in the new cloud model are working. And while there are new phenomenon in the digital world (like digital network effects; the use of big data to help drive corporate decisions; and indeed all the impacts from latest improvements in AI) a lot of what I see others talking about as being the real culprits allowing companies like Amazon and Facebook to get so strong are issues with the legal frameworks within which they are operating and being regulated, (such as the aggressive use of DRM; and the way that competition law nowadays mostly focuses on the impact on the consumer, rather than on the anti-competitive impact on the market). Those legal issues could be tackled by changes in the law and breaking up these excessively large companies.
So, I'm not disagree with Varoufakis's concern about these excessively powerful companies, nor am I disagreeing with the idea that the digital age has brought new dynamics and details as to what is going on. I'm only challenging the suggestion that the best way to understand the political economics of what is going on is through his cloud-this, cloud-that type of terminology. It reminded me of the way we had a phase of e-commerce and e-government before all of the 'e's just got dropped because every aspect of society was going digital anyway. That something has become digital isn't enough to make it a new phenomenon requiring new analysis and new laws.
But, I'm curious which aspects of the cloud model made most sense to you?
Aye
I'm a recent watcher of your videos. I fell in love and subscribed immediately.
But I must say this is so far your weakest presentation for me as several commenters have eloquently elaborated.
I'm not sure why that is though. Even if you think the book or its author are flawed; you should have steelman its central point and engage with that.
Hi, it's an interesting suggestion. I think I would have been much more sympathetic to Varoufakis's book if he hadn't been insisting that this is a new economic paradigm. As a metaphor the spectre of feudalism works well, but he didn't really substantiate his bolder claim. But there were also two other aspects of the book that really didn't sit well with me, which is the focus on the technology as being the predominant driver of the new dynamics (rather than also highlighting the regulatory context that crucially supports the business models of these companies) and also the sense that there wasn't much that we could do about it in the 'west' except for revolution. This to me is an unhelpful suggestion. We should be finding ways to empower people to use our democracy effectively for change.
And, I did try to be fair to Varoufakis himself as I have read other books of his that were great.
Also, if you haven't watched it already, I do suggest you watch my video about Chokepoint Capitalism which is essentially talking about the same sorts of dynamic within our political economic context but they provide a much more convincing take on what the problem is and where the best routes forward may lie.
The video is here:
ruclips.net/video/qNr6iTAlhco/видео.html
So, I do think that across my videos I'm taking the underlying issues seriously, even if I don't agree with Varoufakis's take on it. But I'll be curious what you think of my video on Chokepoint Capitalism.
Thanks for the push back though, good to make me reflect on the stances I'm taking!
I think one argument that supports technofeudalism is the rise of digital distribution services. This is something that came to mind just now so I haven't thought about it too deeply.
If you look at platforms like iTunes, Spotify, or the video game distributor Steam, you are not actually paying for the song or the game but a license for the digital good. There might be other services like this. I think on RUclips you can "purchase" movies but I imagine it's similar, you don't actually get to own the movie, just the right to watch it. And this can be removed if you lose your account/are banned from the platform. This part makes it more "feudalistic" since you are, in a sense, bound to the platform.
I suppose a counter argument is that this isn't too different from just renting stuff; however, it is different because these are not physical, tangible goods but entirely digital ones.
Hi, yeah, I think you are right about this shift away from buying things and towards renting digital things (rentier capitalism), and why the term "technofeudalism" sounds so tempting, but I don't think Varoufakis gives a good analysis of why this is happening or what the future prospects are for this aspect of our economy today.
In "Chokepoint Capitalism" (which I mention maybe too often in my video 🙂) they talk about how laws (like the DMCA in USA) and the style with which antitrust laws are applied, are the biggest drivers of this current, extractive digital rentier economy as, without this legal protection, a lot of these digital 'goods' have essentially zero cost to reproduce and could in the future be shared on fairer platforms that channel more of the revenue from such digital goods towards the creators rather than to the platform and publishing corporations.
So, I think Varoufakis's analysis is wrong to think there is something fundamental to the tech (rather than the laws around the tech) that is giving rise to this feeling of being stuck in a feudal relationship. And, if the laws are the real impediment, then there is no reason (in theory!) why western democratic governments couldn't be pushed by voters to make these laws more fair - and there is some evidence that that is starting to happen.
Also, I think Varoufakis's analysis lacked any attempt to demonstrate the scale of this "technofeudal" aspect of the current economy. Lots of the real economy is still focused on non-digital goods like, construction, physical goods, food, transport, energy, healthcare, education, etc, etc. .... all of which are still largely running in a traditional mixed economy model of political economy that has been like that for many, many decades.
So, yeah, "technofeudalism" captures the feeling of some parts of the relatively recent digital economy, but I'm not convinced by Varoufakis's claim that it's the best description of the overall political economy that we live in today.
Thanks for the comment.
more like a super-supermarket with near monopolistic presence; true you can choose to buy or not buy, but if using Amazon, the platform algorithm(s) choose what you see
Although your dissenting opinion is pretty good food for thought, I have to disagree with you from a methodological standpoint.
First of all, the whole review seems to be centered around the specific case of Amazon. While you agree with the big impact social media have, the whole Google, Apple and Microsoft ecosystems are eluded or, to be fair, not accounted for enough in your analysis.
Secondly, even the study of the Amazon situation seems to be more focused on the digital supermarket part, thus not taking into consideration the huge and growing impact Amazon Web Services (AWS), the cloud computing branch of Amazon (speaking of cloudalists), is having in the latter's galaxy.
As an illustration the Seattle Times recently noted that "Amazon reported $13.5 billion in profit in the second quarter of this year, driven largely by continuing growth in its cloud computing division".
Hi, yeah, to make the video work I did mostly focus on Amazon, but it is also a key example used by Varoufakis. Indeed, I think one of the weakest parts of his explanation of his views is when he uses Amazon Alexa as being a significant example of choice manipulation by a Big Tech company. Alexa is clearly insignificant compared to the influence of other platforms like Facebook, Twitter and RUclips. But, Varoufakis's argument only really 'works' if all of the Big Tech features can be ascribed to a single Big Tech company. In China this may be true, but in most of the world there simply aren't any single platforms doing all of the things that Big Tech can do to make money.
For example, Facebook is big at advertising and influencing, but it is likely Amazon that will then actually do the delivery - and sure they may have some deals around this, but it doesn't then work as an example of consolidated power in one "cloudalists fiefdom".
Similarly while AWS is indeed a huge profit centre for Amazon, it has almost no direct tie up to Amazon's marketplace or its delivery network. The only tie up is that Amazon uses AWS for all its own digital footprint. Otherwise it might as well be a completely separate company.
So, my dissenting view is NOT to suggest that there aren't new dynamics to be understood in this digital world (and even more now with the rise of AI), but I think (a) there are many different dynamics that ought to be studied and understood separately and (b) just because we have a new kind of tech (algorithms) and new kind of asset class (data) that doesn't convince me that these can't all be understood as 'normal' extensions of and abuses of regular capitalism.
So, Varoufakis's central claim, that capitalism has been superseded, just doesn't ring true to me.
Does capitalism exist?
Well, if you mean, "do we really have free markets with healthy competition?" then in many contexts the answers is clearly, "no".
But our political economy clearly favours the interests of people with large amounts of capital to invest!
In the US we live in a Wall Street feudalist society. Now with the combination of finance and tech, its going to become even more feudalistic.
Yes indeed, but in one sense capitalism was always thus. Think of the era of the robber barons. But, capitalism collects rent on capital assets, whereas feudalism collected rent on land assets.
One interesting twist that has happened recently is the growing breakout of whole subgroups of users from X to Bluesky. Network effects are powerful, but not nearly as binding as proper serfdom that got passed down generations within a family!
So, if Varoufakis had written almost the same book, but just with feudalism as a metaphor (indeed a metaphor that has been used before for the excessive dynamics of capitalism) then it would have been a much better book in my humble opinion.
@@Go-Meta We should have a friendly debate. I will defend both the right libertarian and socialism against your centrist/social democratic position as it is completely irrational.
@@PoliticalEconomy101 yup, happily 👍 🙂
There are much better, clear cut arguments about why each extreme position has demonstrably failed over the last 100 years or so, compared to the "best of both worlds" position that I advocate for. But, I don't see my position as a kind of centrist "average", but as a synthesis of the way that both the market and the liberal, democratic nation state can each promote individual liberty and agency in a way that combines into useful collective action, through the market and through voting. Two very different mechanisms each with their own strengths and weaknesses and that work best in a healthy balance.
So, yeah, I'd happily engage with arguments that try to champion just the market, or just the state. 🙂
@@Go-Meta Right liberals are not laissez faire and by socialist I do not mean USSR. So I will not be defending those unreasonable positions. Im a contractual collectivist socialist. That has never been tried yet.
Interesting. I've never heard of that before. I'll go and read about that, thanks 👍
serfs were not so much bound by law, as by location? if you lived on a lord's land you owed rent, if you moved away, you were no longer bound, but you had to find an alternate way to live, such as being part of labour force selling yourself to factories, etc.
It is rent, which is paid with your attention. Your free time has been commoditized. It is not a matter of choice as there will be nothing outside of the network for you to choose from.
Yes, in many ways I agree that we have become a zombified citizenry, glued to our screens for the profit of others.
But, notice that many communities of people have recently chosen to move their attention en masse from X to Bluesky.
Yes the dynamics of many of these systems entrap us, but we are sometimes more free to choose than we realise.
@ I don't know man.
I have a lot of things to say about this video, but comparing Amazon's complete dominion on who sees what and who should get the most views, to a Walmart putting their favourite toaster is just shallow
My argument is not that Walmart's market surveillance is as sophisticated as Amazon's, but that the monopsony power that that gives Amazon over its suppliers isn't a new phenomenon, it's just to a greater scale. I'm sure there will be horror stories from suppliers who had to jump to the wishes of Walmart in order to get onto their shelves.
But, of course, the second point is that it's much easier to switch browser tabs than to switch between your local physical superstore and a more distant one. As consumers, we're only bound to Amazon through convenience and cheap prices and habit. Arguably the physical dominance of a town by a Walmart superstore is a much more feudalistic act than the brand dominance of Amazon online.
Taken together, I just don't see that Varoufakis has made the case that this new era of online shopping represents a new political economic order that means that "capitalism has been replaced" is the right way to be thinking about what is going on. Especially since the monopolist and monopsonist tendencies of capitalism have been well known for a long time.
Jeff Bezos must be so happy about you😂
You obviously missed the bits of the video where I was critical of Amazon business practices as a monopsony and welcomed the EU and US investigations into their anti-competitive behaviours. It is possible to take a more nuanced position than being either a hard core anti-capitalist or a corporate shill, but I clearly need to get better at expressing this position 😃
perhaps venerable Varoufakis never heard of web 3.0, a cloudless Blockchain solution for both storage and compute🤷
Oh this so weak.
I haven't read it so I can't/won't get into a full criqitue, however I'm a living being in 2024 and I've heard Varufakis do the rounds on podcasts about his book.
You seem to completely ignore all the data they hoover up from people using the site, (forget Alexa) then you pivot to say Facebook is the enemy there not Amazon. Yanis includes them ALL! The hair splitting here is pathetic. WE are providing them the data, the capital, the value.
You try to gloss over the suppliers on Amazon, (besides getting their products stolen, they are forced to set prices elsewhere based on amazon, and feel they cannot compete if they don't sell on that HUGE marketshare. What % of people shop on Amazon?) Just cause capitalists had greedy middlemen in the past, does not absolve Amazon marking a drastic shift in our economy, a better analogy would be milk producers having to sell to only ONE supermarket, which steals their product ideas, and forces them to set prices elsewhere.
Then you try to offer up these meager lawsuits against them as some sort of evidence that Western countries have tamed these monstrous beasts. How few there are, how difficult they are to bring, how many armies of lawyers are involved by both sides, how little they have caused changed, and what a tiny dent they will make on these monopolies, should be MORE EVIDENCE for Varufakis' case, not gunpowerder for your analysis. They are like the exceptions that prove the rule.
Feels like your being paid by Amazon to defend them and sell that other book you can't seem to help bringing up over and over.
(Lastly I see you're interacting with commenters ( that's nice ) but you need not bother here, as I don't intend to subscribe. Besides the annoying music, (which you've addressed in another comment) I can't stand your manner of speaking like a RUclipsr presenting to children. I doubt you talk like this to your pals in the pub, thats' what I want, not this supercilious hand waving.)
Hi Adam,
Hopefully you will read this response, even though my style of presentation is clearly not your cup of tea! 🙂
One big picture issue to start with is that I literally said that I am not defending Amazon's business practices. I'm not disagreeing with Varoufakis when he is identifying problems going wrong with our political economy. The only disagreement is over the value of his "cloud capital" analysis and his claim that traditional capitalism has been quietly overthrown already without anyone noticing. And I keep on mentioning Chokepoint Capitalism as I find it a much better analysis of the same problems, including all of the shocking, predatory ways in which Amazon behaves.
But you are right that I didn't properly address other companies that Varoufakis talks about, like Facebook, but that's simply because the video is too long anyway! There were so many additional things I had to cut out.
But I actually think that part of the problem of Varoufakis's cloud-this / cloud-that analysis is that it lumps together a whole bunch of power dynamics that should (IMHO) be analysed as different things. Amazon.com (not AWS) gets its power through an aggressive, anti-competitive monopsony over its suppliers through years of spinning up its famous 'flywheel'. In contrast, Facebook gets its power through its digital network effect; Google through its superior search algorithm (at first) that won the branding war for search; OpenAI's growing power is because it has the best AI algorithm, huge compute, huge data and has currently won a first mover / quality branding war; Apple's power is because it's got brand loyalty to a luxury brand that builds a powerful ecology of products that work well together in an exclusive way. All importantly different.
To understand how to challenge their power, you need to properly understand what gives them power in the first place. And it is not simply the fact that they are all operating with computers and data in the cloud and surveilling their users. Everyone is. But Varoufakis is claiming to get some kind of analytical insight by calling all of these different things examples of "cloud capital", when they are all mostly understandable as digital, large scale versions of dynamics that often already existed (to some degree at least) in traditional low-tech capitalism. That they are using computers and algorithms and data is usually not the differentiating factor that gives them such enormous power.
I used Amazon as the clearest example to show this. And I mentioned Alexa because Varoufakis keeps on using it as his go-to example - including in many podcast interviews.
And then, sure, the possible regulatory interventions are maybe too little, too late. But another detail of Varoufakis's book that I didn't get to address in the video is an odd rhetorical move he keeps on making (including in some podcasts). On the one hand he claims it's impossible to imagine our western democracies getting a grip to actually make a difference. But then he lays out one of his preferred solutions as being moving ALL companies to be one-worker, one-share, one-vote, with these companies being delisted from the stock market. First, note that this has nothing to do with "cloud capital" (directly) but is essentially an overthrow of the current stock-market / investor *capitalism*. Fair enough that's what he thinks should happen, but how can he claim that this much more radical change is more plausible to imagine happening than the proper, robust regulation that he dismisses as being so unlikely?!
So, the TL;DR: version of what I'm saying here is that there are many more reasons to be critical of this book than I had time in my video.
But, I obviously failed to get across clearly enough the fact that I was not defending Amazon and not suggesting that everything going on in our political economy today is perfectly analogous to pre-internet capitalism. Still lots of room to improve my scripting process! 🙂
Thanks for the challenging comment,
Oli
In one of your replies, you say:
“First, note that this has nothing to do with "cloud capital" (directly) but is essentially an overthrow of the current stock-market / investor
*capitalism*. Fair enough that's what he thinks should happen, but how can he claim that this much more radical change is more plausible to imagine happening than the proper, robust regulation that he dismisses as being so unlikely?!”
I gather V’s Marxist perspective is showing here: sometimes revolution is easier/more likely than regulation/reformation.
@@Go-Meta
As an academic, I'm compelled to respond, begrudgingly.
However, also as an academic, I recognize again that I really am not cut-out nor prepared to respond in the slightest. For the simple major fact, that I have not read this book. And now you're just listing other arguments in the book which I'm completely unware of. So I have to let all those rest on the wayside.
As for your response you say: "But I actually think that part of the problem of Varoufakis's cloud-this / cloud-that analysis is that it lumps together a whole bunch of power dynamics that should (IMHO) be analysed as different things." and you also say about these myriad power dynamics that they are "All importantly different."
Why? Why should they be analyzed as different things, and why does that matter? It's incumbent upon you to explain why them being different is so significant. Google may have a search engine and Facebook a network effect, but how are those relevant to your thesis? You haven't explained that at all. Besides, both of those companies know nearly everything about me, my age, gender, sexual orientation, if i drink coffee, if I'm employed, etc... You've likely heard they can tell though AI when women are pregnant before they even know it themselves to advertise baby products.
All this you try to conveniently sweep under the rug by misdirecting our attention to the ways they are different, and you cheekily mention they all use computers as though that's the only thing that unites these behemoths. Please..
It's not too complex: They all use Data for value, that data is generated by us, we are the product, and we are not compensated for it beyond the "free" service. But judging by their balance sheets, capitalization, and cash reserves, our data is worth way way way way more than they let on. I'm guessing 'that' is the crux.
At least from my perspective, having not read the book, 'that' is what makes cloud capital a unique change in economic systems. We are doing most all of the "work" ( at least providing the value)and they are skimming off all the fat and them some. Hence robber barons and fiefs and peasants as an analogy.
You don't think there's even the slightest connection to the fact that what 80% of households live paycheck to paycheck and these megacorporations dominating our increasing time spent in the digital sphere? ) (Or that about 30% 4.3 Million of children in the U.K. Are living in poverty? People once had jobs and money, and now these international corps hold obscene mounts of money. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to track where the money/value went, it didn't vanish into thin air, and globalization can't account for it all since even China is struggling now)
As someone else suggested, this is a fine example of 'how' to critique, in a meta sense, but as a critique itself it falls flat.
It makes one wonder how much was left out for the sake of brevity, or because would undermine the whole video. I mean, Facebook is a rather large elephant in the room, or rather 800-pound gorilla, to conveniently leave out. Sometimes one can miss the forest through the trees.
(Again, I haven't read the book so I really can't go on a further back and forth with you 🙁
I'm just arguing from experience that we are in a new era, it seems evident to everyone I speak too. And I think, however poorly, Yanis is working to ameliorate this impending doom and helplessness we all feel. While an underhanded critique of his book, again however poorly 😜, takes us a step backwards from that direction rather than forwards. Hence my efforts in responding to you even though I'm not familiar with the material. I'd shudder to think of some sleezy billionaire seeking out this video then adopting your talking points of "nothing new to see here, move along everyone, back to your wage slavery, enriching the 0.01%, at the expense of the Earth and human thriving", all for 1.3K views and a stroked ego 😞)
Hi Adam,
I too would shudder if a sleezy billionaire responded to my video that way! 😀
And, I too want to "ameliorate this impending doom and helplessness we all feel", indeed that is exactly why I spend the time to make these videos (it's not just for my ego! 😜).
My background is that I did a PhD in AI about 20+ years ago and then I've worked in IT consultancy since then. So I have a deep understanding of the tech side of things and have a curious, academic inclined mind with which I've further read in depth and discussed at length political economics and philosophy (and more) over decades (just like many of my likely audience I'm sure!). So, when Varoufakis writes a fairly casual book aimed at a general audience with very little by way of data or analysis to back up the significant claims that he is making, I think it is very appropriate for any of us with an analytical mind to just say, "hang on a moment, this just doesn't add up!"
But, by saying Varoufakis's analysis of the problem isn't convincing, that doesn't mean I'm saying there is no problem to be understood. And there are other books that Varoufakis has written that I do rate (and say so in the video), so I'm trying not to be negative about Varoufakis in general as an interesting voice to be aware of. I'm just commenting on this particular set of ideas as presented in this particular book.
And the elephant that was effectively missing from Varoufakis's analysis was AI. I say that because while Varoufakis does mention AI (with some rather poor explanations), he fails to note that it is AI that might be the most radical shift in our political economy in the next decades. It's AI that might radically alter the relationship between capital and workers as the workers will be so much less needed. It's AI that might completely change again the user interface paradigm (web) on which the power of Facebook (network) and Google (search) is based. So it is easy to imagine these 'fiefs' may soon fade in significance. But I focused my video on his analysis, not on what analysis I would suggest instead!
As for my elephant, Facebook, the important thing to note is that while Facebook is making a lot of money and does sit at a nexus point that gives it a lot of *potential* for influence, it is really in the business of *selling* influence to other people. Indeed, in the USA, Facebook depends on their Section 230 status as a platform (Communications Decency Act) to absolve themselves of the responsibility of being a publisher.
So, while under Varoufakis's analysis Mark Zuckerberg would be one of the most influential cloudalists, he cannot be seen to be using Facebook to push an editorial line. This is very different from traditional media barons like Rupert Murdoch who continue to have very significant, personal political influence. Elon Musk re: twitter/X is closer to what Varoufakis is talking about, but it's still very early days yet as to whether Musk's longer term ambitions here will succeed. They're quite likely to fail.
And when you say, "It's not too complex: They all use Data for value, that data is generated by us, we are the product, and we are not compensated for it beyond the "free" service."
I agree with this description for the the social media, influence platforms (Facebook, Twitter, RUclips). But that description doesn't work well for Apple (luxury brand) or Uber / AirBnB (platform rental/gig services) or Deliveroo / Mechanical Turk (gig economy platforms) or indeed for Amazon (predatory monopsony). None of them have a free service and they are not driven by selling our attention to advertisers. They're all different business models.
So if Varoufakis had focused his cloudalist analysis on the nature of social media companies, it would have made a little more sense, but he's making a claim about the predominant nature of the entire political economy. In particular he's making the radical claim that capitalism is the *wrong* way to think about these companies, using an analogy to suggest that particular individuals (cloudalists) are getting a new kind of power that they don't have by virtue of being capitalist owners or CEOs of a large corporation, but by something else.
And, I just don't buy his analysis. And I think we need more accurate, actionable analysis if we're going to make useful changes through these extremely challenging times.
But, I really appreciate the discussion here. I may at some point write up some of these additional comments as further commentary about the ideas in the book as the video does have a lot missing 🙂
And, if you do get the chance to read it someday it'd be interesting to hear your thoughts then on how well you think Varoufakis makes his case in the book. I think you'll be surprised 🙂
Cheers,
Oli
chill king
Just the latest incarnation of late capitalism.
UDORK WE ARE IN A FEUDAL SYSTEM STILL NOW!!!! It’s called corporate RENTS AND GOVERNMENT TAXES!!!!!
Varoufakis isn't unfortunately, very good. His work in game theory is of course seminal but everything since then has completely missed the mark. "Pure/impure transactions" "technofuedalism"
He hasn't had a winner since GT.
Greek here . His work in Game Theory contradicts his practice in politics. The whole of his rhetoric is "everyone is bribed, Dr Claw behind everything, thieves everywhere , only me and my goons can save you" , an analogy of Alex Jones. The result was a failure in votes, and been attacked physically by some guy blaming him of being part of the Great Conspiracy. If he had used Game Theory he would had preddicted that it would backfire . But naaaah, his narcisism didn't allow him
It's a shame as he is relatively well known and could be doing a lot to successfully challenge the current orthodoxies, but he goes way too far and then is seen as not credible at all in the eyes of many people.
It also annoys me that he says things like "The EU is not democratic" without recognising that the quality of democracy is a relative term. Of course there's lots to improve about the EU, but show me any other regional trade agreement (+extras!) that has as many democratic elements as the EU.
This is so weak dude cmon, comparing algorithm entrapment with manekin in window, ur not serious
Greek here. Since long, Varoufakis points or invents a flaw in capitalism and then blames everything wrong happening in said flaw. Then,by overanalysing throwing numbers and procedures that may be or may not be relevant, he suggest a solution that is always the same. A path of multiple elections by complicated different electorates and commitees that must be established that through a very complicated process we choose His Ineniuty as the Great Regulator, in the likes of Putin, Kim or Stalin
I fuckin love the greek to english grammar its so cool. Since long is fire
Thanks for the video! So clear and careful.
Independently of the quality (or lack thereof) of V’s ideas, for purely aesthetic reasons I pray that “cloudalist” as a term never catches on. 😂
Thanks Ron, and yeah, I agree, "cloudalist" is such a clunky term!
No need for background music!
Yeah, my later videos don't have music when I'm talking. Lots of other channels and documentaries seem to have music like this and I quite liked it, but a lot of people here don't 🙁. So, I've dropped it. No-one complains on the new videos that there is no music 😂
Thanks for this very interesting analysis, which is very convenient since I can now save the time to read another book than the discussed one.
"They aren't giving you a watch, you are the gift, they're giving you yourself for the watch's birthday."
Julio Cortázar, "Preamble of the instructions on how to wind a watch" (1962)
Just what is this "Democracy" you speak of?
You know, when people in the UK voted to leave the EU despite that being against the wishes of the establishment. Or people in the USA voted for Trump in 2016, again despite that being against the wishes of the establishment. It's a very long way from perfect, but it's not nothing either.
This video seems really out of touch with the amazon market place. Looking at previous uploaded video titles, homie probably listens to drake. . . .
Urm ... do you mean the Canadian rapper?
@@Go-Meta way to stay on brand, does he rap or sing? this is the kind of homie to tell you Yoko broke up the Beatles .. . .