this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
87 points (100.0% liked)

GenZedong

4987 readers
70 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Absurd, idiotic headline. Apart from being pure slander of the Soviets, the whole premise vulgarizes socialist economic theory and what economic planning even means. The more i read from Varoufakis the more i'm beginning to think he's really a moron.

He thinks he's so clever coming up with these comparisons, with nebulous concepts like "neofeudalism", as if he's just discovered something completely new that no one discovered before, when all it is, is just monopoly capitalism. All to avoid applying a good old fashioned Marxist analysis which is more than enough to explain these phenomena without resorting to estoteric theories about a new "feudalism".

The more you read him and others like him the more you start noticing the conspicuous, Marxism-shaped hole in their analysis. Because of course we can't be seen to be talking in Marxist terminology and applying dialectical analysis can we? That wouldn't be respectable, our liberal academic peers would call us names...

The result of this Marxism-phobia is that he has to vomit up onto the page sentences like:

So, just as the Soviet Union generated one kind of feudalism in the name of socialism and human emancipation, today, Silicon Valley is generating another kind of feudalism — technofeudalism, I have called it — in the name of capitalism and free markets.

No, you pretentious wannabe, the Soviet Union was not "feudalism" and neither is monopoly capitalism.

Idk why anyone ever thought this guy, who is clearly an anti-communist radlib, had anything intelligent to say.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 57 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

So there we have it, at last. Varoufakis has outed himself as an anticommunist. I waited for this. Anticommunists are but fascists in a complicated dress.

I'm acrually glad he has outed himself as another fascist sympathizer. It takes another diversion out of the game.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 33 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm actually glad he has outed himself as another fascist sympathizer.

I mean, he celebrated when Al Qaeda took over Syria. I think that qualifies as already outed.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 3 weeks ago

I actually only today heard of this. To me it wasnt that much of a clear sign as i dont have deep knowledge of syria. But anti sovietism is a very clear sign. Even maoists arent that brutal.

[–] SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net 31 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The quote "Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism" keeps aging like fine wine.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 19 points 3 weeks ago

I think we should distinguish between social democracy in the imperial core and in the Global South. The first will inevitably capitulate to reactionaries, while the second is objectively pushed into revolutionary actions (even if they are completely unprepared for them and usually fail).

[–] RedMace@lemmygrad.ml 30 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Saying the Soviet Union was feudalistic is really one of the dumbest things a "leftist" would say. Alas, performative leftism it is. Going through the motions, critisicing this and that capitalism, coming up with new terms like "Technofeudalism".

I agree he would openly turn against communists if it came to that. Maybe that's why "Diem25" and "Mera25" are not Marxist parties, but "anti-capitalist".

[–] mermella@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago

The French economist Cédric Durand. In German-language discussions, for instance, Durand’s 2020 book titled “Technoféodalisme” is sometimes said to have first operationalized the idea

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good point! We should have someone analyze those from a marxist perspective. That would probably help people like me to not always forget them and have an analysis ready once asked.

[–] mermella@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago

Rent still exists within capitalism. The dominance of rent doesn’t automatically overturn the mode of production. You can have rentier capitalism without feudalism.

From strict Marxist criteria, feudalism is defined by: • serfs bound to land • extraction of surplus labor through extra-economic coercion • personal legal dependency ties

Platform users are not legally bound, nor biologically tied to the land, but they are structurally dependent on platforms for access to markets, communication, and social reproduction.

Thus the debate: Is dependency “as if feudal” enough to change the mode of production, or is this metaphorical inflation?

Even if sovereignty is fragmented, all these platforms remain capitalist firms, operating under capitalist competition, dependent on global capital flows, and hiring wage laborers. So the base looks more like monopoly capitalism than feudalism.

However, Durand’s supporters argue that: • platforms have become para-state entities, • capable of enforcing rules through algorithmic governance, • exercising non-democratic authority over economic life.

That is reminiscent of feudal personal authority, but technologically scaled.

Some Marxists argue that “technofeudalism” mystifies: • the role of global finance, • the extraction of surplus value from labor, • the capitalist structure enabling platforms.

Others argue the term clarifies: • the intensification of dependency, • the privatization of governance, • the enclosure of the digital commons.

Durand’s contribution is thus politically charged: “technofeudalism” is not a neutral descriptor but a theoretical weapon to highlight domination, enclosure, and monopoly power.

[–] demerit@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Varoufakis always part of the "consumable left" breadtube sphere. People just jump on everybody that uses a certain number of marxist shibboleth.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah. Thats a recent thought of mine as well.

Instead of asking "what are communist/marxist dogwhistles i can use" we should ask "who would use especially communist phrases at all?" and "can we even identify marxists by their wording reliably" to which i would answer "probably not".

People who use dogwhistles are usually demagogues who try to communicate to an audience they are not openly working for, which recently has been described with the word " crypto" as in cryptical communist ot cryptical fascist.

I would argue that there are no "cryptocommunists" in a capitalist regime. It just goes against historical precedence. But there are tons of cryptofascists. I would even argue that there are cryptolibs in "communist" groups.

But i might be missing something here. Probably there is someone who can explain this in a materialist way.

I am hence very distrustful of people who use marxist language alongside non marxist language. Because it is easy to use "working class" and "bourgeoisie" while not committing to dialectical materialism which is what we need to not get backstabbed.

Feel free to criticise and suggest different or more developed ideas.

[–] Conselheiro@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Rather than "cryptocommunist" or "cryptolib", I think "pseudocommunist" works better. They're not necessarily similar in their hidden beliefs (there's a whole range of reactionarisms), but instead for what they pretend to be.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago

Yes of course. Both are correct. There are no cryptocommunists but a lot of pseudocommunists or opportubists use communist language.

[–] Maeve1@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I would even argue that there are cryptolibs in “communist” groups.

I'm wondering if more cryptolibs are because of intent or lack of education?

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good question. I would argue that a lot of people are libs in their heart because its their whole identity. There is such a huge variety of issues where liberalism creeps in. Asking someone who has lived like this for 30+ yrs to pretty much accept that they have been living a lie and unnecessary took responsibility for everything is probably very dangerous. If you break an identity like that, it may become life threatening. Thats why I think that we all hold some lib thoughts here and there and some are dedicated at eradicating such thoughts in themselves at any cost and others think they need to be marxists because its what is expected of them or it helps them atm. And even worse, some might think they are the former but their subconcious will make them the latter at the earliest chance.

Just a bunch of thoughts though. Feel free to work with them.

[–] Maeve1@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ego death is real and most people will fight the collapse of their identity as if it's a physical threat, maybe harder. There is a point where that becomes inevitable, for a great many of us. That would be the place to introduce Marxist ideas, I think. But forcing the subject too soon will almost certainly be counterproductive and more than a betrayal to communism, a betrayal of the individual.

I'm a little sleepy, yesterday was long and exhausting, but I finally took melatonin to get to sleep; I've never heard of a melatonin hangover, so I guess I either slept too much or not enough.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good point. i recently witnessed someone living through a cruel breakup and they broke down. dialectical materialism helped a little but liberalisms foothold was very strong.

[–] Maeve1@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

With liberal tendencies I catch with my own thinking, I shudder to think how many I don't catch.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, same. I often catch others and self crit over it a lot. But i think its the devotion to find and eradicate it that counts in the end. Progressivism (so to speak) knows no end. Otherwise it becomes conservatism.

[–] Maeve1@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I try to view it as a marathon, not a sprint. I hope you give yourself some grace and compassion when you self-crit. You deserve and are worthy of the same care and compassion you extend to others.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Thank you very much. :) same goes for you of course.

And for the reader! Please be kind to yourself while growing.

[–] Maeve1@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

Thank you, my friend! It goes for all of us!

[–] 10TH_OF_SEPTEMBER_CALL@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

How do you figure?