Pavlov Alexander
This article examines the concept of neo-feudalism as articulated by Marxist political theorist Jodi Dean, situating its emergence within broader debates in social theory regarding the notion of a “new feudalism.” Various scholars – including Cédric Durand and Yanis Varoufakis (techno-feudalism) and Carlos Saura García (data feudalism) – have theorized the rise of such formations. The present analysis distinguishes techno-feudalism as a political-economic framework from neo-feudalism as a political-philosophical one, advocating for a focused engagement with the latter. A comparative assessment of neofeudalism and data-feudalism reveals the former’s greater theoretical depth and sophistication. Tracing the evolution of Dean’s thought, the article demonstrates how her earlier work on communicative capitalism informs her later conceptualization of neo-feudalism. The four hallmarks of neo-feudalism are as follows. First, the parceling of sovereignty – the political right to extract wealth through fines, taxes, patents, and asset seizures – replaces market competition. Legal authority is replaced by private arbitration, and economic authority by cryptocurrency and rent. Second, the emergence of a class of “lords” (platform owners) who produce nothing, and “serfs” – internet users deprived of social guarantees and stable employment. Third, hinterlandization: megacities subjugate the peripheries, turning them into sources of resources and cheap services. Fourth, catastrophism and anxiety – a widespread psychological state of powerlessness and loss of common meaning among many people. Jodi Dean also examines the case of Uber through the prism of Karl Marx's “Economic Manuscripts 1857–1859,” which exemplifies neo-feudal logic. Dean argues that the working class has been defeated and that the traditional sequence of stages of historical materialism (from slavery through feudalism to capitalism, and then to socialism and communism) is flawed. Finally, Dean identifies three key ideas for the struggle for communism. The first is climate. The second is the idea of universal basic services (UBS). Dean expresses his third idea for the struggle for communism as a call for revolution. The core tenets of neo-feudalism are delineated, followed by a synthesis of the extensive critiques leveled against the concept by the end of 2025. While acknowledging the theoretical limitations of neo-feudalism, the author contends that it remains a significant contribution to contemporary Marxist philosophy.
Keywords: Marxism; neofeudalism; technofeudalism; Jodi Dean; postcapitalism; digitalization; datafeudalism
Naumova Ekaterina
This article contends that surveillance capitalism constitutes a logical extension of the neoliberal political and economic project, achieved through technological rationalization while retaining its core ideological foundations. Within neoliberalism, a shift occurs from Foucault’s art of governing society to what Shoshana Zuboff terms art of surveillance – a transition signaling the advent of the Third Modernity and the rise of global digital civilization. A critical distinction between classical liberalism and neoliberalism lies in their respective approaches to state intervention: while liberalism delineates which economic domains may or may not be subject to intervention, neoliberalism focuses on optimizing the mechanisms of intervention. Under neoliberalism, economic intervention evolves into a governance strategy that compels society, culture, and law to operate according to corporate logic. The article analyzes surveillance capitalism as an outgrowth of neoliberalism, propelled by the presumed inevitability of technological progress – an ethos epitomized by Silicon Valley. It reconstructs the convergence between the neoliberal project and technological development, tracing its evolution from open-source principles and copyleft ethics (Richard Stallman) to the monopolization of programming languages (Bill Gates) and, ultimately, the commodification of behavioral surplus into “predictive products” (Google). In surveillance capitalism, the emancipatory ideal of a free internet gives way to an epistemic asymmetry, wherein corporations monopolize consumer knowledge and trade in behavioral futures markets. The contemporary geopolitical transformation further disrupts neoliberal capitalism, as civilizational conflicts increasingly defy economic rationality, eroding universalist frameworks and creating space for axiological alternatives – including at the level of virtual existence.
Keywords: liberalism; neoliberalism; surveillance capitalism; Shoshana Zuboff; Michel Foucault; digital civilization; Russian civilization; image of the future; multipolar Internet; virtual being; axiology of the digital world
Vakhitov Rustem
This article examines various conceptions of socialism – a post-capitalist societal model characterized by planned production and distribution in place of market mechanisms and private property. It evaluates the arguments employed within each theoretical framework to substantiate the inevitability of capitalism’s collapse and the subsequent transition to socialism. Focusing first on Marx and Engels, the author underscores their conception of socialism as the initial phase of communist society. The founders of Marxism tied capitalism’s demise to the evolution of large-scale industrial production, which generates contradictions between cooperative labor relations, planned production structures, and the persistence of private ownership and profit appropriation. Within this dialectical process, competition under capitalism fosters industrial consolidation and monopolization, ultimately reinforcing socialist tendencies. Marx and Engels posited that when the state becomes the sole capitalist, the proletariat will dismantle the system and establish socialism. In contrast, the idealist philosopher and Orthodox Neoplatonist Alexei Fedorovich Losev interpreted history not as progress but as regression. His use of the term “formations” referred not to economic structures but to mythological ones, where myth serves as the foundational worldview of a society, its generative model. Losev’s vision of socialism synthesizes elements of feudalism and capitalism, merging feudal authoritarianism with capitalist secularism. The resulting system absolutizes production, reducing all societal functions to labor and elevating the productive class to a quasi-sacred status. An alternative model of a propertyless, state-directed society emerges in Isaac Asimov’s Elijah Baley novel series, depicting a future Earth plagued by resource scarcity. Here, humanity is confined to vast urban enclaves, stratified into consumption-based classes, and wholly subjugated to state control. Ultimately, this analysis demonstrates that disparate socialist projects rest upon divergent metaphysical foundations.
Keywords: socialism; capitalism; state; planned distribution; handouts; Karl Marx; Friedrich Engels; Alexei Losev; Isaac Azimov; Olga Bessonova
