This is an excellent book. In short, it's a crash course on the unholy alliance between finance and big tech. It's approachable enough that just about anyone can pick it up and learn a bit, but there's really nice appendices on the political economy of Technofeudalism in the back. They aren't anything too rigorous, but they add an additional layer for those who want to learn a little more.
The text is, on some level, the sequel to Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails. The book is framed as a discussion with Varoufakis's father, who was an old libertarian Marxist who was sent to a work camp under the military junta in the 1950s and 60s. Varoufakis ultimately sets out to aim a question that his father had asked in the early 1990s: whether the internet had the ability to wipe capitalism away, or if it would strengthen it beyond recognition.
Varoufakis argues in favor of the former, although the end of capitalism is far less triumphant (for us mortals) than his father would ever have thought.
My man Yanis begins the book with an overview of the ways in which the Federal Reserve and finance capital have had a total stranglehold over the global economic system. He refers to this as the "Global Minotaur." For any international transaction in the world, regardless of which states were involved, the American Federal Reserve as a clearinghouse. Because the funds from the transaction were received as US dollars, recipients would use their funds and invest in Finance, Investments, and Real Estate (FIRE). It turned Wall St into a form of Las Vegas strip that serviced the entire world. However, this had a disadvantage: a lot of the investments were bullshit, and bankers/finance bros gambled with other peoples' home loans, etc. The result was a disaster. However, these financial fucks learned that, in any crisis, central banks give them more money to play with, so macroeconomic conditions and investment markets diverged. Varoufakis offers a fascinating example: a few months after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, when it became clear what sort of economic devastation was playing out, the S&P increased.
At the same time, new technological companies began to create platforms (see: Platform Capitalism, which Varoufakis thinks isn't a particularly convincing book). Rather than a new form of capitalism emerging, the platforms are more akin to fiefs managed by feudal lords (Facebook, Apple, Google, Uber, Grubhub, and so on are all examples). These companies are not generating profit from their platforms, as profit is merely surplus-value left over as the difference between a good's exchange-value and labor-power/materials. Instead, these platforms are charging rent to capitalists (who do make their digital or material products) and serfs (who are giving their data to the lords in exchange for access to the platform). He brings up the point that feudal relations hadn't been totally abolished as the capitalist mode of production spread--exploitative industries like oil generate vast rents. Instead, it has moved online, and both the Covid-19 pandemic and de-dollarization have contributed to its rapid growth.
Rather than a class conflict between labor and the capitalist class, Varoufakis sees a class conflict taking place between technofeudal lords and the capitalist class. It seems like the technofeudalists are winning.
There's fascinating material here on the relationship between China and the US, with an argument that the former close relations between China and the US were to the benefit of both countries' capitalist classes. However, the arising technofeudal lords in both countries are gradually taking control--it's hard to say which country has had greater consolidation of the technofeudal mode of production.
Varoufakis's book made me think about Hegelian dialectics. Hegel suggested that each historical moment has a thesis--the main thrust--and an antithesis. The contradictions between the two resolve into a new synthesis. Marx took this and used it as a material explanation of history, with each of the two categories--thesis and antithesis--representing a historical class at a given moment. At the time of Marx's writing, he's coming at the topic with the assumption that capitalism is the dominant mode of production in most of Europe, and would spread outward. However, capitalism lays the seeds of its own destruction, via the working class, which would contest the capitalist class and lead to a new synthesis--ostensibly, Communism.
But, what if Marx's understanding of history is both right and wrong? What if--rather than assuming that capitalism is hegemonic and that the primary contradictions being worked out are between capital and labor--the engine of history continues to be powered by the contradictions between feudalism and capitalism?
Anyways, Varoufakis's solution to the problem is very solarpunk--it wouldn't be out of place in A Psalm for the Wild-Built. He argues that workers should all hold equal, non-transferable shares in their companies. Special commercial and social zones should be constructed by city governments, the commercial zones financing (or at least subsidizing) the social zones. And so on and so forth. It's actually smart, but there's always the unresolved question of how to get from our technofeudalist dystopia to cool solarpunk communism.
I still think Marx's view of history is essentially correct: capitalism and feudalism both plant the seeds for their own demise. But, they're currently too strong to take on via direct action, etc. (see Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?). I guess the only way out is through.
