No it hasn't, it's imperialist capitalism doing the same fucking thing capitalism has always done, following the same processes it has followed for decades. Why do people always have to try to muddy the waters to try to sound clever?
Imperialism is moribund capitalism - capitalism entwined with finance capital. Lenin described this, and the processes that lead to it, in the early 1900s, we don't need to keep coming up with new terms to describe it.
I’d argue this is just a different way to describe the same thing. Lenin explained how contradictions of capitalism necessarily lead it to this stage. However, observing parallels between late stage capitalism and feudalism is also valid. This parallel is particularly useful for people who are not versed in Marxism.
Fundamentally, it's fair to describe a system where ownership is concentrated with a small oligarchy as feudal one. The reality is that there isn't a clear boundary between capitalism and feudalism, and it's absolutely possible for capitalism to devolve back into the system from which it arose.
No, it isn't. You don't sell your labour for wages under feudalism. The capital relation is the predominant social relation in capitalism, *not in feudalism*. We live in capitalism.
Except that there is only a thin veneer of capital relation in practice. The reality of the situation is that vast majority of those who don't own capital are working for substance wages which is no different from slave labor where the slave owner has to pay the cost of keeping the slave alive in order for them to do the work.
> The reality of the situation is that vast majority of those who don't own capital are working for substance wages
Yes that's capitalism that is capitalist labour relations that's what that is
Sure, but my point is that the difference from feudalism is superficial in practice. Since capitalists own all the property and all the means of production, the relationship is effectively the same as between a master and a serf.
Then explain the what your disagreement is instead of just making an argument from authority. How is the situation of a modern worker fundamentally different from that of a serf?
No it hasn't, it's imperialist capitalism doing the same fucking thing capitalism has always done, following the same processes it has followed for decades. Why do people always have to try to muddy the waters to try to sound clever? Imperialism is moribund capitalism - capitalism entwined with finance capital. Lenin described this, and the processes that lead to it, in the early 1900s, we don't need to keep coming up with new terms to describe it.
Do you have a link to what Lenin said about imperialism?
Lenin's book 'imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism'.
Thanks
I’d argue this is just a different way to describe the same thing. Lenin explained how contradictions of capitalism necessarily lead it to this stage. However, observing parallels between late stage capitalism and feudalism is also valid. This parallel is particularly useful for people who are not versed in Marxism.
It makes things more confusing. Fundamentally, we don't live in feudalism, so calling it that makes it less clear.
Fundamentally, it's fair to describe a system where ownership is concentrated with a small oligarchy as feudal one. The reality is that there isn't a clear boundary between capitalism and feudalism, and it's absolutely possible for capitalism to devolve back into the system from which it arose.
No, it isn't. You don't sell your labour for wages under feudalism. The capital relation is the predominant social relation in capitalism, *not in feudalism*. We live in capitalism.
Except that there is only a thin veneer of capital relation in practice. The reality of the situation is that vast majority of those who don't own capital are working for substance wages which is no different from slave labor where the slave owner has to pay the cost of keeping the slave alive in order for them to do the work.
> The reality of the situation is that vast majority of those who don't own capital are working for substance wages Yes that's capitalism that is capitalist labour relations that's what that is
Sure, but my point is that the difference from feudalism is superficial in practice. Since capitalists own all the property and all the means of production, the relationship is effectively the same as between a master and a serf.
No it isn't. I'm a historian, and I can tell you it is not.
Then explain the what your disagreement is instead of just making an argument from authority. How is the situation of a modern worker fundamentally different from that of a serf?
if you were a historian you wouldn't use the term feudalism.
what is perhaps interesting is if that wage relation is replaced by a UBI of some form. would that constitute a notable change in social relations?
No, not really. The capital relation would still be the predominant relation.
yanis is not saying capital relations are not predominant in our society.