[crispyambulance]

Well, what would be a more “accurate” word, then?

Varoufakis uses the word “techno-feudal” because it reflects the fundamental character of where things are headed. Moreover, even the author pointed out why the case is strong for the analogy.

I don’t think it’s fair to expect 100% consistency with “feudalism” to rightfully use the word “techno-feudalism”. But if one is compelled to point out the inconsistencies anyway, the ones the author pointed out are not particularly convincing.

The first three basically boil down to the idea that citizens are free to “opt-out” or find/create alternatives. Are they? I guess in theory, but in reality that’s a far more complicated problem.

Sure, in medieval days, kings could force their will and crush opposition without concern of law, morality, or anything other than who has more power. Today we have surveillance capitalism, and the comprehensive manipulation of truth and attention. Originally this was employed to merely sell toothpaste, but the same tools more lately can and have been used for far more sinister and greedy motivations.

If you don’t agree with that, fine, but but if you must quibble about “inconsistencies” with the usage of the word “techno-feudal”, then at least provide a better alternative word.

[vidarh]

Moreover, the point of the analogy is to point out that the purported freedom from these restraints, such as the purported freedom to "opt-out", are in practical terms a mirage for an increasing proportion of the population.

Whether you agree with him or not, this should be no surprise from Varoufakis, given his familiarity with Marx, as it has been a central thesis of socialist thought from the beginning that de jure freedoms means nothing without the means to exercise them, and as such, the belief that the freedoms of a capitalist society are freedoms mediated by wealth or limited by lack of it, and by extension the belief that the working classes aren't substantially more free than serfs.