Dear @yanisvaroufakis… | #TechnoFeudalism #Технофеодализм

#Com­moroque? Mehr als ein indi­vidu­elles Lebens­ge­fühl. Es ist der Name ein­er Näch­sten #Kul­tur­form 🍄🤖🖐
#WasWar­Ne­oLib­er­al­ism? @sms2sms beant­wortet die Frage unter beson­der­er Berück­sich­ti­gung von @Graubünden. AUF UND @DAVOS (so?)
#cloudokratie

Dear Yanis,

You have described our age as tech­nofeu­dal­ism: the muta­tion of cap­i­tal­ism into a plat­form-based sov­er­eign­ty that extracts rents rather than prof­its. In map­ping this shift, it is equal­ly impor­tant to track the philo­soph­i­cal fuel dri­ving the so-called lords of cloudal­ism.

The new tech-feu­dal elites do not mere­ly accu­mu­late wealth; they curate their own canon of philoso­phers. Yet what they read and what they take away from these read­ings is sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly invert­ed when mea­sured against eman­ci­pa­to­ry stan­dards.

  1. From Leo Strauss they bor­row elit­ism and the idea of eso­teric truths reserved for the few.
  2. From Carl Schmitt they adopt the per­ma­nent state of excep­tion, the friend–enemy log­ic of pol­i­tics.
  3. From Niet­zsche they pick the Über­men­sch and con­tempt for the “herd.”
  4. From Hei­deg­ger they take a pathos of des­tiny and the fatal­ism of tech­nol­o­gy.
  5. From René Girard they adopt sac­ri­fi­cial log­ic — the sta­bil­i­ty of pow­er through scape­goats.
  6. From Adorno, Haber­mas, even Slo­ter­dijk or Byung-Chul Han, they bor­row vocab­u­lary — only to turn cri­tique into a dec­o­ra­tive ali­bi.

If we assess these selec­tive appro­pri­a­tions through the lens of Sil­via Staub-Bernasconi’s four­fold matrix (order, access, legit­i­ma­tion, enforce­ment), the pic­ture becomes bru­tal­ly clear: every eman­ci­pa­to­ry dimen­sion is reversed into its author­i­tar­i­an oppo­site.

Their project is not one of com­mons, inclu­sion, or peace. It is one of hier­ar­chy, exclu­siv­i­ty, exclu­sion, and vio­lence.

The fol­low­ing table shows the con­trast in con­densed form:

Dimen­sion (#TheS­taub­Ber­nascon­i­Ma­trix)Goal (Nor­ma­tive)Tech-Feu­dal­ists: Philo­soph­i­cal Ref­er­enceEffect (Inver­sion)
1. OrderAnar­chySchmitt / StraussHier­ar­chy, state of excep­tion
2. AccessCom­monsNiet­zsche / RandExclu­sive access, pri­va­ti­za­tion
3. Legit­i­ma­tionInclu­sionHei­deg­ger / Slo­ter­dijkDes­tiny, exclu­sion
4. Enforce­mentPaci­fismGirard / SchmittSac­ri­fi­cial vio­lence, friend–enemy log­ic

Ah Yanis… it is not grand diagnoses that we lack. The question remains: what is to be done?

Dimen­sion (#TheS­taub­Ber­nascon­i­Ma­trix)Ziel (Nor­ma­tiv)Tech-Feu­dal­is­ten: Bezug / PhilosophenEffekt (konkret)
1. Anord­nungAnar­chie (#anar­chie)Carl Schmitt (Sou­veränität, Aus­nah­mezu­s­tand), Leo Strauss (Eliten­herrschaft)Stärkung hier­ar­chis­ch­er, autoritär­er Ord­nung
2. ZugangCom­mons (#com­mons)Niet­zsche (Über­men­sch), Ayn Rand (radikaler Indi­vid­u­al­is­mus)Exk­lu­siv­er Zugang, Pri­vatisierung, Eliten­zirkel
3. Legit­i­ma­tionInklu­sion (#inklu­sion)Hei­deg­ger (Schick­sal, Tech­nik), Slo­ter­dijk (Eliten­rhetorik)Abgren­zung, Schick­salspathos, Exk­lu­sion
4. Durch­set­zungPaz­i­fis­mus (#paz­i­fis­mus)René Girard (Opfer­logik), Carl Schmitt (Freund–Feind)Gewalt, Opfer­ung der Vie­len zur Sta­bil­isierung der Weni­gen

Die Frage ist: WAS TUN?

#Cul­tur­al­Her­itage in Prac­tice: Remem­ber – Com­mem­o­rate – Renew | #Sogn­Valentin 🍄🤖🖐
Plaid, Paun & Blockchain
2030.AutarkieIndex.org | Resilienz, Nach­haltigkeit, Xerokratie.🍄🤖🖐
#blockchain | das ist wie xerokratis­che Aktions­form. Bloss viel krass­er… (so?)
GPst­Gn-WwAAW1xQ
previous arrow
next arrow

✅ anam­ne­sis, ✅ diag­no­sis — clear on debt pow­er and the tech­nofeu­dal shift.
❌ prog­no­sis, ❌ ther­a­py — remain first-order: bet­ter rules for the same game, not a new game with com­mons-based coor­di­na­tion and non-coer­cive enforce­ment.

prog­no­sis ❌

  1. Stays inside the state–market dialec­tic. Fore­casts con­sol­i­da­tion of plat­forms, but the imag­ined future is still “bet­ter cap­i­tal­ism by pub­lic means,” not a cul­tur­al shift of coor­di­na­tion.
  2. No agent of tran­si­tion. Who moves resources out of cloud-rents into com­mons? Par­ties, states, unions? The mech­a­nism is unspec­i­fied.
  3. First-order change (Wat­zlaw­ick). Pre­dicts para­me­ter tweaks (reg­u­la­tion, pub­lic cloud) rather than sec­ond-order shifts in prop­er­ty, access, legit­i­ma­cy, enforce­ment.
  4. Under­plays every­day com­mu­nism (Grae­ber). Prog­no­sis does not mod­el how non-mar­ket coop­er­a­tion scales as an alter­na­tive attrac­tor.
  5. Tech hori­zon is incom­plete. AI is cen­tered; hard dis­con­ti­nu­ities (e.g., quan­tum, cryp­to-economies, pro­to­col pol­i­tics) are not inte­grat­ed into the tra­jec­to­ry.

ther­a­py ❌

  1. Reme­dies repro­duce the prob­lem. “Democ­ra­tise tech­nol­o­gy,” “pub­lic cloud,” “dig­i­tal div­i­dend” keep plat­form log­ic, sur­veil­lance incen­tives, and behav­iour mar­kets intact.
  2. Prop­er­ty stays put. No redesign of ownership/use over data, mod­els, and algo­rithms; rent extrac­tion remains the busi­ness mod­el.
  3. Rep­re­sen­ta­tion over par­tic­i­pa­tion. Leans on electoral/administrative fix­es; lacks designs for fork­a­bil­i­ty, con­trib­u­to­ry ledgers, local auton­o­my, and exit rights.
  4. Miss­es pow­er in four dimen­sions (our Matrix):
    • Order: keeps cen­tral orches­tra­tion.
    • Access: keeps gates, not com­mons.
    • Legit­i­ma­cy: keeps expert/state val­i­da­tion, not inclu­sive process­es.
    • Enforce­ment: keeps coercive/administrative means, not non-vio­lent, self-bind­ing rules.
  5. No path­way from cri­tique to prac­tice. Lit­tle about how to seed resilient, bot­tom-up infra­struc­tures where debt pow­er can­not bite (care, food, hous­ing, net­works).
Das Kap­i­tal hat den Kap­i­tal­is­mus gefressen: Jet­zt geht es anders weit­er. #Tech­noFeu­dal­is­mus @YanisVaroufakis beschreibt die Anam­nese der Kul­tur­form der Mod­erne noch präzis­er als #Lib­er­al­Pa­ter­nal­ism. WAS TUN? – Wie nicht wieder­holen? | #Lav­inaN­era in, dus, treis 🍄🤖🖐
#TheLuh­man­n­Map
#TheS­taub­Ber­nascon­i­Ma­trix