Neofeodalizmo atėjimas: Perspėjimas pasaulinei viduriniajai klasei

by Joel Kotkin, Valentinas Žemgulys (Translator)

Po epochos, kai visuomenės turtėjo ir augo žmonių galimybės, nenumaldomai grįžtame į epochą, kuriai būdinga didesnė turto ir nuosavybės koncentracija, mažos galimybės pakilti iš socialinės klasės, kurioje gimstame, demografinė stagnacija ir vis didesnis dogmatizmas. Jei per pastaruosius septyniasdešimt metų ne tik Amerikoje, bet ir didžiojoje išsivysčiusio pasaulio dalyje masiškai plėtėsi vidurinioji klasė, tai šiandien ši klasė mažėja ir formuojasi nauja, hierarchinė visuomenė.

Naujosios santvarkos viršūnėje yra dvi klasės – atgimęs elitas, dominuojantis profesijų viršūnėse, universitetuose, žiniasklaidoje ir kultūroje, ir naujoji aristokratija, kuriai vadovauja technologijų oligarchai, turintys neregėtą turtą ir vis labiau kontroliuojantys informaciją. Žemiau šių dviejų klasių yra trečiasis, kurį šiandien daugiausia sudaro smulkieji verslininkai, smulkieji nekilnojamojo turto savininkai, kvalifikuoti darbininkai ir į privataus sektoriaus specialistai. Didžiąją šiuolaikinės istorijos dalį ši klasė buvo aukštumoje, tačiau dabar ji nyksta, o esančiųjų dar žemiau, naujųjų valstiečių, skaičius auga. Tai didžiulė, besiplečianti neturinčių nuosavybės gyventojų grupė. Autorius teigia, kad šios tendencijos stiprėja, bet mes vis dar galime jas pakeisti. Galime, jei žmonės supras, kas iš tikrųjų vyksta, ir sugebės tam pasipriešinti.

„Nors ir vėluojanti, bet mąstančiajai Lietuvos visuomenei ši knyga labai reikalinga. JAV ir Vakarų Europoje nuo XX a. pabaigos vis aktyviau mėginama suvokti šiuolaikinius ekonominius, technologinius bei socialinius pokyčius, kardinaliai keičiančius gyvenimo sąlygas ir žmogaus vietą visuomenėje. Knygos „Kapitalas žuvo“ autorė McKenzie Wark klausia: „Kas, jeigu mes jau nebegyvename kapitalizme? Kokioje sistemoje tada mes gyvename?“. Šioje knygoje Joelis Kotkinas pateikia atsakymą – gyvename neofeodalizme. Autorius tarsi medikas ar biologas stebi sergantį organizmą, fiksuoja gyvybei (socialinei raidai) pavojingus simptomus (auganti nelygybė, skurdas, kapitalo koncentracija ir viduriniosios klasės mažėjimas, politinis nihilizmas ir populizmas) ir įvardijęs ligą ieško būdų ją gydyti. Deja, universalių gydymo metodų nėra. Autorius konstatuoja, kad: „Viltis, jog vieną dieną išvysime pasaulinį susitelkimą demokratijos labui [...], atrodo vis mažiau tikėtina“. Todėl siūlo stiprinti ir plėtoti pilietinės visuomenės institutus, didinti gyventojų sąmoningumą ir puoselėti bendradarbiavimą. Dar kartą atkreipiamas dėmesys į tai, kad po karo, bado ir patirtos prievartos žmonės neišvengiamai ieško išeities, todėl sparčiau atranda bei suvokia solidarumo ir tarpusavio pagalbos vertę (pavyzdys - politiniai sprendimai po Pirmojo ar Antrojo pasaulinio karo), bet, vos pasiekus aukštesnį gerovės lygį, žmones vėl užvaldo godumas ir sotus abejingumas. Šioje Joelio Kotkino knygoje daug kontroversijų, tačiau ji tikrai priverčia susimąstyti apie šiuolaikinės rinkos ekonomikos plėtrą, dėl kurios vis labiau nukenčia socialinė raida.“
Prof. Boguslavas Gruževskis, Vilniaus universitetas

Joelis Kotkinas (1952) – Kalifornijos universiteto profesorius, tyrinėjantis demografinius ir socialinius pokyčius JAV ir kitose šiuolaikinėse visuomenėse. Savo 2020 metų knygoje „Neofeodalizmo atėjimas“ jis skelbia įspėjimą pasaulinei viduriniajai klasei. Pasak Kotkino, globaliajai viduriniajai klasei gresia išnykimas.

Genres: Politics, Economics, Nonfiction, History, Sociology, Cultural, Audiobook

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2020

About the author

Described by the New York Times as “America’s uber-geographer,” Joel Kotkin is an internationally-recognized authority on global, economic, political and social trends.

Reviews

[Groucho42 · Rating 1 out of 5]

For decades, I've been pointing out the Republicans are working to recreate the feudal system, so I was interested in this book. It was a mistake. It's terrible and a screed to blame liberals for all problems.

In Part 3, The Clerisy, he mutters about the Catholic church without addressing the authoritarian side of faiths. He brushes off the fundamentalism still core in the major faith he points out is replacing Christianity in Europe, Islam. He then turns right around and claims environmentalism is a faith that is far more dangerous.

Yes, he points out a few examples of wealthy environmentalists using private jets, then even says, without mentioning Davos by name, that a bunch of very rich corporate folks using jets is the fault of environmental activists. He continues his screed by mentioning a 2018 article by Abe Greenwald, only mentioned by name in the footnotes, and claiming it debunks global warming. Following the link shows that all that happened was someone showed the rate of global warming determined by some scientists was wrong. It's still warming, but at a different rate. That's how science works, but Kotkin seems too wrapped up in his own idiocy to comprehend that.

Then there's Chapter 10, yes, I only got 10 chapters into a 21 chapter ramble. He states that Marx's claim that capitalism would turn into oligarchy was wrong. What? That's plain wrong. Oligarchy is what's bringing back the feudal system. The top four to five tech companies are an oligarchy. China and Russia haven't been communist, well, ever, and for decades have been crony capitalist, oligarchic, totalitarian regimes. The oil companies are a global oligarchy. It's the destruction of democracy and its replacement by oligarchy that is creating the title phrase of neo-feudalism.

He is so right wing, he can only see everyone who disagrees with him as the other wing tip of the political albatross. The uber-wealthy aren't liberal or conservative, they're Koch, Thiel, Gates, Zuckerberg and others. They don't want democracy, it gets in their way. Whether they are socially conservative or liberal, they're societal totalitarians.

That's what Kotkin misses.

[Chris May · Rating 1 out of 5]

Many of the ills outlined are serious issues (perhaps even existential for us) and I find the idea of ‘neo-feudalism’ a compelling concept but this book comes at it from the completely wrong angle. Blaming our impending doom on experts, environmental policies and progressives (or the left in general) instead of rampant capitalism and lack of governmental oversight/control of the growing oligarchy.

[Williams · Rating 1 out of 5]

The worst book I've read in my life. Truly, appallingly, wrong in every single interpretation. The author identifies major inequalities and problems of our time correctly and then ensues to derive the most - truly horrifically - wrong takes from them. Yes, the middle class is shrinking and the rich get richer; the poor are living in increasingly precarious conditions again. But what the author conspires as an explanation for these problems is just simply shocking: Young people and their "church of social justice" (they should much rather adhere to Christian values, Kotkin suggests!), their dogmatic green faith (you know, man-made climate change as a hoax - a cospirancy of tech oligarchs and the elites of academia - to keep the poor workers and Middle class from climbing the social ladder!) is at fault. They're destroying hard-working sectors of the economy! Coming for you next!..

There is so much to digest and disprove here - the whole chapter on universities could have been written by Joe Rogan himself (he probably knows as much about what is truly going on in universities as Kotkin, judging by his delusional take in this book) - that I can't be bothered to be the one. It would probably take a book twice the size of Kotkin's to establish a critical foundation...

If you're thinking about giving this book a shot, don't. (Unless you're over the age of 60 and just want to hear Right-wing anti-academia, anti-science, anti-milennials talking points reiterated to lay the blame for all major societal issues on young people who, quite honestly, simply weren't born when the neoliberal policies that paved the way for these issues were introduced.)

It's truly fascinating how someone who claims to be "neither on the right nor the left" feels such a strong obligation not to blame capitalist dynamics for the demise of poor people, the middle class and missing social mobility. I don't understand the logic here.

Especially since he's only blaming - what he calls - "tech oligarchs". What about all the other major economic players (finance, production oligarchs)? You know, those corporations who laid off their blue-collar American workforce to open up factories in Asian countries at the fraction of the costs of American factories. You know, the companies that drastically increased their profit margins while chipping away at American work opportunities. You know, what about the people responsible for the problems that you're trying to discuss, Joel?

[Nj · Rating 5 out of 5]

Coming soon to a debt-serf near you: social-credit score, USA style.

Thumbing up a video critical of the regime will tack another 10% of interest onto your student-debt/healthcare servitude.

Don't worry, you can cry yourself to sleep at your "WELIVE/WEWORK" corporate campus (really just shared bunks in an abandoned Macy's) while you flick through an endless stream of OnlyFans girls (or guys) showing their orifices for timely deductions of your precious blockchain-enabled Federal Reserve digital dollars.

Then get up in the morning, go to your nearest Amazon/Department of Defense "fulfillment" center ("Wear your mask if you want to work, it's the new normal!") and spend the next 12 hours racing a robot to pick boxes for the endless shipments of salted quail eggs to the last remaining .05%, safely ensconced in their walled-off, Tesla drone-swarm patrolled Palo Alto fortress towns.

[Niels Bergervoet · Rating 5 out of 5]

On of the biggest problems of our times is the growing gap between rich and poor en the dissaperance of the middle class. This book clearly explains what is happening and why this is bad news. Because we might end up with a new feudal society, where people like jeff bezos are the new nobility, people like gretta thurnberg the new cleregy and tbe rest of us the poor farmers who have to work all day to stay alive.

The author elegantly shows that this is closely connected to the focus of the left on identity and enviroment instead of class struggle. Because of that change they are now paying lip service to progtessive billionaires instead of defending people against economic opression.

The author doesnt pretend he has a clear solution to this clomplex problem, but what is important is to keep our focus on what made the west great and capable to cope with these kind problems, and that is strong and independent institutions, democracy and a focus to keep the middle class in place.

[Tommy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don't worry this isn't alt-right stuff but more in the style of "cuckservative" social criticism. Why is institutionalized hierarchy supposed to be some big threat to "egalitarianism"? If you look closer you'll see the most egalitarian period in American history and the peak of the older "affluent society" was based on large technocratic monolithic corporations in the mid 20th century. This comes off as just a "democratic capitalist" mugged by reality. Silicon Valley isn't any more paternalistic than Henry Ford was (maybe less) but the big WTF to me is he's claiming there's a bunch of people out there who love Zuckerberg and the other tech weirdos in the same way... I'm pretty sure there's a solid bipartisan mandate for an atomic-wedgieing there, except maybe for the more conservative tech moguls like Peter Thiel.
I know this isn't a serious treatise on political economy but all the kids aren't just being brainwashed into wanting to get bought out by Google and not go for an IPO, there's some economic logic there which you can think about and it's not just an issue of "values" or an aspect of any culture war. If you don't like the idea of universal basic income ok and you can bemoan Jeff Bezos wealth and the poverty of his employees but large commercial malls and small shops as relevant public institutions and the type of growth fuelled by the second industrial revolution ain't coming back in the same form. If your main fear is militant environmental soy boys, Islamofascists and a variety of reactionary forces undermining faith in the American dream and possibility of egalitarian social mobility you're ignoring the real internal contradictions e.g. property appreciation IS a middle class objective, I mean come on look at history there were whiners like Henry George already in the 19th century, and most conservative activists turned against the idea of mass home ownership as financially imprudent after '08. There's no practical politics here, you can't denounce the "far right fringe" and than spend pages frothing over global demographic developments. Without global military intervention and genocide you're a shrinking minority and liberalism can only in practice get dunked on by nature in the form of more climatic disruption and pandemics. Of course the oligarchs have been attempting to push costs onto the public in regressive ways to keep their wealth secure in perpetuity but I'm equally sure their strategy is unworkable. Sadly he doesn't state if he has faith in Trumpian political economy as a road to stronger unions, families and religion or it's just another hoodwinking of the rubes.
The ultimate pathetic culmination in this intellectual cuckoldry is he seems to believe no matter how prestigious the think tank extolling the virtues of WASP cultural norms and suburbia they surely can't compete with rigours Marxism amongst the younger generation on the market place of ideas and the impending intellectual superplex can't be avoided now.

[fspirate · Rating 1 out of 5]

dnf

dudes mad because you can't say the n-word at uni anymore lmao

No seriously, when talking about higher education, the author says that having a majority of the educational staff self-identify as liberal then it means that higher ed is failing and that it's indoctrinating people to a single view, which is a WILD take.

First, the staff may identify as liberal, but that has nothing to do with how the education system functions. Like, the author mentions how institutions have significantly increased the cost of tuition and that staff, especially profs, are struggling financially, but consider that maybe this is the reason staff are more liberal??

Also, the conclusion is 100% that because the staff are more liberal, this is causing liberalism within the institution, which, if you understand the present-day conditions, is completely inaccurate. Are the staff unionized? Probs not. Are the institutions dealing with racism, sexual violence, and colonialism effectively? No.

Is it not the domination of conservatism in the institutions that are working to maintain the gate-keeping that the author is clearly aware of? Yes.

Also, the author argues that introducing students to a diverse mix of lit is bad? Like man says that it's bad that we've moved away from focusing solely on classical lit written by old cishet white men but in the next breath says that ed isn't teaching a variety of viewpoints.

Wild stuff.

[Andrzej · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book is biased and based on rather poor research. The author’s simplifications, lack of historical knowledge and qouting only convient sources make his book basically unreadeble for someone, who understands basic premises of neo-medievalism (or neo-feudalism).

The premise of the book - liberal elite is responsible for all evil - does not take into account the complex nature of issues that books tries to address.

The climate change parts are extremely biased and based on wishfull thinking approach.

Pluses: parts devoted to decline of cities are much better than the rest (but not without flaws).

[Andrew Figueiredo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kotkin's book is one of a number of explanations of class I've looked into recently and it's worthy of 3.5 stars. "The Coming of Neo-Feudalism" is a good read with some interesting perspectives but doesn't add much to analyses we've already seen. That said, his take is unique in examining environmental policy and urban planning. Kotkin points out the hypocrisy of elites who preach environmentalism and jet-set around the world, which is a valid point. However, he is too harsh on urbanism for my taste and downplays the very negative effects suburbanization has had on the environment and society. Nonetheless, Kotkin does a good job of analyzing the tech industry's role in this neo-feudal arrangement. Other authors I've read haven't addressed it the same way. After all, these companies develop much of the monopolized, surveilling technology that allow for a neo-feudal arrangement. Moreover, as Kotkin notes, big tech plays a growing role in our lives, even shifting media focus away from concentrated power.

The central idea is that the elite class, partnering with the clerisy (media, academia, elites) to implement a neo-feudal system in which inequality reigns supreme. The clerisy and oligarchy agree on a broadly social progressive, globally-oriented outlook not shared by much of the working class. Guided by an anti-democratic technocratic outlook, they seek to profit from systems involving control over the working class. As this continues, it threatens to resemble the old systems of feudalism and serfdom. Kotkin peppers his analysis with historical comparisons. Today, we see this trend through geographic inequality within cities, rising costs of living, the gig economy, the destruction of middle-class family life, and various left and right rebellions against the system.

I enjoyed the middle ages comparisons as well as his presentation of global trends. Kotkin's analysis slots in well with both Douthat's ideas about decadence, Lind's notion of a new class war, and Guilluy's work on France. The neo-feudal arrangement seems to evoke these three in various ways. The partnership between elites and the clerisy (called different things in different works), a sort of stasis-under-inequality, etc bring them together. But at the end of the day, I was surprised to reach the end of the book. As I turned the page to "acknowledgments", I expected some more work! Kotkin just doesn't provide many solutions. The book would have been a lot better if Kotkin showed us a potential way forward with policy prescriptions or at least a more detailed discussion of next steps.

[Drtaxsacto · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are not disturbed by this book you should be. His basic premise is that we are evolving into a society which closely resembles the Feudal establishment with Serfs, Nobles and a Clerisy. The technological barons closely resemble the new mandarins.

I must admit that I have known Joel since the late 1970s and he is one of the most creative thinkers I have even met. For example in this book he makes a case that colleges and universities are reverting to the medieval structure where the function of universities was to inculcate students with the revealed knowledge of the time rather than to advance the frontiers of knowledge.

The new feudalism has a bunch of people consigned to serf like situations where they have almost no chance of advancing beyond their status - and he presents a ton of data about who these people are and what their situations have evolved to in the last decade or more. He wonders whether the new progressives are a new incarnation of the Jacobins or the Red Guard.

He discusses Robert Michaels Iron Law of Oligarchy which suggested at one point that all democratic systems evolve into oligarchies. He describes the perils of gentrification in US cities and around the world where the new serfs are consigned to menial roles which are close to permanent.

There are some points of disagreement that I have with his ideas - for example, he heavily criticizes the GIG economy - from my perspective GIG workers actually do have some independence of action. I was also struck with whether his ultimately gloomy projections of the future could well be altered by COVID - many workers in the tech fields and in other areas have been moved to remote work - so the attractions of hubs like San Francisco are ultimately less attractive than they once were pre-covid.

As I said at the outset - the book is meant to get you to think - and indeed, many of his conclusions are disturbing but his ultimate conclusions are optimistic.

[Tariq Mahmood · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here is a great analogy, between the not so distant feudalism of the past with the latest trend of digital or neo-feudal of the current era. The similarities are so stark that I found it impossible to find holes in the analogy. The wealth gap between the super-rich and the rest, the controlling power of the rich from technology, their ability to dominate specific ideas using their platforms, their desire to crush any dissent, the impoverishment of the middle class; all factors which have meant the fall of democracy and the rise of autocracy. This means that for the first time in decades the world has an alternate role model 'autocracy' along with the existing democracy. After all, democracy never claimed to be perfect.....

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid, comprehensive read, assuming it is the reader's first foray into this topic (the absolute state of the world today, woe is us). Otherwise, it will might come across as somewhat repetitive and possibly underwhelming, but that is hardly the author's fault.

[Charlie Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bit of an old conservative man's over dramatisation project, but makes for an interesting reference.

[JS · Rating 5 out of 5]

I couldn’t put it down. I love it when folks have heterodox views, and boy this guy does. He slams Trump and democrats and college professors and global warming deniers. Love it! I thought his premise was scary and very accurate. This is a great evening read

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kotkin makes some good points and some points I haven’t thought of before - like how economic de-growth and environmental policies can entrench the ruling hierarchies, which is something to consider. But he seems antagonistic towards the idea of environmentalism and solutions to global warming, almost coming off as if he thinks it is a conspiracy. He is prescribed to the thought that economic growth = freedom and doesn’t give any thought to redistribution as a solution, only more growth, not realizing that we cannot have infinite economic growth with the finite resources we have here on earth.

But that’s ok, because most of analysis is spot on, despite the lack of self awareness as Kotkin too, is part of the clerisy as an academic. The problem is complex, the solutions are complex and he does a good job at analyzing the problems, even if his solutions are a little lacking.

Comparable to “Dark Age America” and “America: The Farewell Tour,” if slightly more academic and more right leaning in tone. Well researched.

[Anton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am inclined to give the book a much higher rating. The writing style is great, the author is well read and up-to-date, the analysis is largely spot on. And yet. This could have been so much more.
The idea presented here is not just an analogy, it describes exactly the historic processes that have been set in motion to replace the model of growth. There is much more to feudalism and thus to neo-feudalism that this cultural critique is letting on. It's quite sad that this book doesn't shine any light on concepts such as fealty, affinity and feudal fragmentation that we will likely see a great revival. "The Coming of Neo-Feudalism" is therefore more of a primer to the idea than a fully fledged exploration of the dark times ahead of us that cyberpunk already managed to predict.

[Oliver Bateman · Rating 4 out of 5]

one of many concisely-written and sourced books about the current/coming crisis, by an author as respectable and center-of-the-road as any, but the concluding chapter (as is always the case in such books) offers little in the way of solutions. of course, the solutions on offer here - people get tired of elites, restoration of pride, continued immigration (esp. of high-status dissident types fleeing, e.g., china) but tied to sense of "greatness of the west" - are simple enough that they're possible, even if unlikely.

we will be interviewing joel about this and other things he's written about on the podcast what's left?

here's the link:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/coming-...

[Stefan R · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author basically absurdly claims that the current lean of the media to the left makes people with right-wing views more persecuted that homosexuals were from religious dogma 😅.

All this while Fox News is the most watched US news channel and it's consistently ranked as the most untruthful, yet the author writes that opinion vs truth is a predominantly a problem of the left.

There are some good points concerning technology, the rising inequality in the western world and the stagnation of the middle class, yet somehow a picture is painted that seems to imply that among the main drivers of this so-called neo-feudalism are also college professors and scientists.

[Aaron Shafovaloff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sobering info. Feudal economic arrangements are hostile to domesticity, child-rearing, marriage, and retirement. They are not conducive to the life we want for our neighbors to have the freedom to participate in.

The book helped me better understand metropolitan elitism and populism.

Increased my appreciation for private property and home ownership.

4 stars: I can't endorse some of elements of the author's alarmism. His ambiguous proposed solutions were unsatisfying.

[James Uscroft · Rating 1 out of 5]

Having been looking forward to listening to this audiobook, as soon as I heard the opening words "This Book Is Neither Of The Right, Nor The Left," I instantly rolled my eyes and thought, "So, It's Of 'The Right' Then." Because Hot Tip: 99 times out of 100, anyone who claims to be a 'Centrist,' 'Independent,' 'Libertarian' or 'Neither Right Nor Left' is merely a Conservative who's either in denial because they don't want to be judged, or a self-proclaimed "Independent Freethinking Rationalist" who gets off on believing that they're intellectually and morally superior to #BothSides, but still only ever really fears, attacks, demonises and condemns 'The Left.' And sure enough, while this book does contain a few important points, mostly near the beginning and the end, for the overwhelming majority of the text, "Warning Against The Rise Of Neo-Feudalism" is merely an excuse for this bitter old man to shake his fist as the "Big Tech, East Coast, Globalist Elite" and "Academic/Media Elite." (All of which are merely 'The International Jewish Conspiracy' in a shiny new package.)

Seriously, Get your "Angry FaceBook Rant" Bingo Cards ready kids! Because from condemning Environmentalism as an 'Elitist' plot to limit economic growth and social mobility and condemning the censorship of any opinion that goes against the 'New Orthodoxy' on FaceBook (meaning Vaccine Denialism and Fascist Propaganda,) to condemning 'Social Justice' as a new religion preached in the 'Marxist Indoctrination Centres' that used to be College Classrooms, this guy's playing almost all of the greatest hits! And indeed, as another reviewer has pointed out, I'm genuinely surprised that the "Trans People" space on the Bingo Card was left blank!

Of course, it goes without saying that the rise of Neo-Feudalism is a genuine and growing threat, with the new rulers of society being the owners of property and major shareholders in big business while the old nobility owned the land. But although the domination of the tech industry and access to information by a shrinking number of Mega Corporations and Billionaires and the domination of the media by middle and upper class Oxbridge/Ivy League graduates who do their bidding is a serious problem, pretending that it's the only or even the biggest problem when Fossil Fuel Companies are almost literally burning human civilisation and the rest of the planet to the ground is both dangerous and absurd! And let's be honest, for all of his condemnation of the 'Big Tech Globalist Elite Controlling Information,' this hypocrite was/would have been the first to cheer the prospect of Elon Musk buying Twitter to make it a platform for #FreezePeach. (Once again, meaning Anti-Vaccine & Fascist Propaganda.)

On top of which, as a direct result of the fact that he's struggling to be #FairAndBalanced, and therefore, can neither explicitly endorse the solutions of 'The Left' that would actually work, nor the solutions of 'The Far Right' that he so desperately craves, the author of this manifestation of the "Old Man Yells At Cloud" meme offers no practical solutions or suggestions of any kind! So in conclusion then, you can literally get the same ranting tirade for free from any one of a million angry 'MAGA' FaceBook pages. And on a final note, I feel compelled to mention how hard I laughed when he couldn't even get the dates of the most recent British Elections right and described Jeremy Corbyn as a 'Neo-Marxist.' xD

[Jay French · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently watched one of the “Great Courses” series on the Plague. The professor recording the lectures introduced the times of the plague by describing society, breaking it into the ruling nobles, the clerics, and the commoners, while introducing a new and up-rising class of merchants. The plague touched all classes, but obviously in different ways. For instance, nobles might be able to move to a location with no disease outbreaks, where commoners were often tied to their homes. I found this simplified breakdown of society easy to understand.

Fast forward to this book, and the author does roughly the same thing, but to explain how he believes society is changing to be more similar to plague-era society, with the commoners maintaining their spot as the lowest class. The other classes are the clerisy and the super-wealthy technocrats. The technocrats are the 1%, the richest people on earth, the billionaires, mapping to the nobles of old. They are generally supported by the clerisy, which are defined here as the journalists and thought leaders that often support the technocrats, similar to the clergy's duty in plague time. The author also mentions as a separate group at the end of the book the small business people, as a group that can work with other groups at different times for different reasons. These are very much the same groups as plague-era society, changed slightly for the times.

The focus of this book is mostly to describe the problem of the world becoming more like a feudal society. There really aren’t any prescriptive solutions to the problem offered. Interesting bits are the contrasting of Chinese and democratic societies going forward. The author sees the Chinese way of ruling as ascendant. For those interested in how the individual fares in this change in society, the author quotes from Piketty’s “Capital”, saying inheritance is becoming much more important.

The author provides many statistics and stories to back up his thoughts. It is quite readable, and unfortunately quite believable. I tend to like happy endings – but since I am not a billionaire this doesn’t have one. Makes you think, and worry.

[Jack Boyles · Rating 1 out of 5]

This reads like a political commentator on YouTube, their thoughts or feeling backed by very little or no evidence.
While some of what here is somewhat true, it's skewed or misrepresented or surface level.

[Grant Carter · Rating 1 out of 5]

Author needed to narrow his focus. He brought up too many topics and didn’t address any of the issues very well. I don’t recommend and was very glad to move past this one.

[Ethan Weissel · Rating 2 out of 5]

2 ⭐️
Parts of this book I wholeheartedly 100% agree with. The concentration of wealth and the growing oligarchy has only become more apparent since this books publication. The author correctly points out many problems that are facing modern society, and then constantly seems to come to the wrong conclusions...
Two examples of this are the breakdown of family units and the environmental movement.
The first seems obvious, it's too expensive to have kids, and this is stated but then supporting points of wokeness and a shift away from religion (which is framed as an entirely negative thing) are brought up. Why even mention these things if the studies your quoting already show that people want kids just as bad but can't afford it?
for the second it reeks climate scepticism and trying to throw blame at the feet of young people for wanting something done now rather than later. Pointing out the hypocrisy of climate billionaires is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that for too long nothing was done because the author's generation was too greedy and would be dead before they saw the consequences.
The point I utterly disagree with is the Clericy in chapter three. Disregarding the irony that the author is part of this so called "class" I think the point made in this chapter is extremely harmful to science and disrespectful to a fairly large part of the population. Firstly I refuse to believe that someone who works in healthcare to be part of a class that has "distinctly more advantage". Secondly I think the narrative that academia is now solely for brainwashing students into a certain way of thinking, for pushing certain agendas and degrading critical thinking has some merit but overall is misleading at best. Whilst I feel there is a lot of focus on getting a degree with the sole intention of getting a job, not for the ideal of learning, i don't think there is some hidden agenda to manipulate how the next generation think. I think this line of argument can be very very dangerous as it erodes trust in institutions (something that's already extremely low) and makes people more likely to look for information from alternate sources (sources that often do not have the same checks and balances as universities to ensure the information is reliable)
Finally the point on an overall left leaning media bias is utter crap, assuming the author has never heard of a certain Rupert Murdoch...

[Madison Lee · Rating 1 out of 5]

Okay, so… this was insane. The main focus of this book is valid. The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few, while the working class suffers is extremely important to examine, and to create viable solutions. This book doesn’t do that. It consistently makes general assumptions and draws conclusions without real evidence. Some examples of the wild claims made in this book include believing that environmentalism is a dangerous religion and comparing liberal ideology in schools to literal authoritarian regimes such as the N@zis… LIKE WHAT?!!!! Oh and he also has some insane beliefs about women, which I won’t get into bc they are absolutely absurd. It’s crazy to him that women have rights and are no longer subservient to their husbands… it’s almost like we’re people too.

I was really hoping this book would add value to my dissertation but boy was I ever wrong. This was a huge waste of my time. Although, it’s my own fault. I should have researched the author ahead of time. If you want to read about neo-feudalism, I would much rather recommend Varoufakis’ book on Techno-feudalism, although I do have my own issues with that book, it is incredibly more well developed and insightful than this load of nonsense.

[Mir Bal · Rating 1 out of 5]

There are books where almost every argument and fact is misguided or stupid, but where the author through an almost magical intuition still manages with the feat to have if not right in substance then still land closer to the goal than most others. Joel Kotkin's book is one of those confusing experiences. His basic thesis is that we are undergoing a social structural change that seems to lead us to something more similar to medieval feudalism than the liberal democracies of the 20th century is fascinating. And probably broadly correct. But as soon as a reader with only a superficial view of the subjects begins to look more closely at the specific arguments, the house collapses and leaves a conclusion hanging in the air. Which is exciting, how did it end up there, it's interesting. But it raises more questions than answers.



That kotkin in his description of medieval feudalism as a repressive state power ruled by the church and nobles seems to have as good insight into actual feudalism as a 16-year-old is hardly a surprise. But that's a shame, because the parallels would have been so much more fruitful if they had taken the idea of ​​feudalism as the absence of an imminent system seriousness. Feudalism was, as any historian worthy of the name will tell you, a network of loyalties and obligations between individuals placed on top of each other until they formed a mosaic. The local serfs had separate loyalties to the local nobleman, the vassal, the baron, the priest, the pastor, the bishop, etc., these were mostly in conflict with each other and were never put in place but were constantly renegotiated. Such a complex picture of feudalism as a relational system instead of a homogeneous block that decided everything from above had led to much more interesting parallels to today's society.



Why then does kotkin not take this picture and build on it. Probably due to ignorance and laziness. But that answer is probably a little too simple, or rather, is probably not the whole truth. For if Kotkin took history seriously, he would not be able to paint the picture of how Protestantism and liberal capitalism lifted the dark signs of the Middle Ages from the eyelids of humanity. The fact that his understanding of liberalism and its development is, if possible, even more misguided should not surprise anyone. The fact that the democratic reforms he advocates to protect, the freedom to build his own life, universal suffrage, etc. were something that most liberals opposed because they saw them as a threat to property rights and the privileges of the enlightened aristocracy, is something Kontkin does not want know of. The fact that it was the it was the radical left in its fight against property rights and the conservatives (who wanted to link the broader layers to the national state project) who pushed through these reforms against the liberal parties would lead to too difficult issues for Kotkin. So facts well once again have to retreat to fit the thesis.



But, despite the historical blinders that Kotkin wears, his thesis is still surprisingly clear-sighted. The from of social contract (which only applied to white men for a period of 20-30, something he closes his eyes to) which was based on everyone having access to their own house, and a life of their own to build seems to have been discarded, we seem to have ended up in a system where people at most can spend the majority of their income on indebtedness for a small apartment, a small apartment that makes it impossible for young people to form the families or build the lives they want. Furthermore, we are placed in larger and larger debts in order to be able to maintain a standard that is sinking. These are indisputable facts. To justify this, a series of new ideologies are being created, especially according to Kotkin, driven by the IT sector together with gender-driven universities. He goes through a lot of phenomena. And what is most striking is how he seems to claim that this exodus is driven by the liberal business elites. That the banking sector and the commodity companies have been a driving force is something he does not want to acknowledge. That would problematize the thesis. That the 50s that Kotkin seems to long for back to only existed in his head and moreover was only possible because the United States after the Second World War swept up 48% of all monetary capital on the entire planet is ignored. So are questions about race, gender and ecology. These are only run by the liberal elites who run a conspiracy to suck money out of ordinary people. That the liberal elite does this is admittedly a fact, but the idea of ​​a conspiracy is a little too optimistic, it presupposes that there is an adult behind the wheel who drives development. There is not. The reality is more unpleasant. There is only a collection of sharks that improvise with disasters and slowly but surely devour the rotten body of a dying host.

[Emily Kroboth · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ugh. Okay. The two stars are for the historical facts, interesting class comparisons as between now and the feudal past and the introduction to a topic I was very interested in learning about. I don't mind criticism of the left, in the sense that many policies designed to look good and appeal to peoples' sense of morality are either neutral toward or detrimental to the vast majority that need effective monetary policy. HOWEVER, I knew I was venturing into left field (or should I say, right field) when there was an entire chapter devoted to "social justice warriors" on college campuses, complete with a diatribe about the lack of conservatives on college campuses. I found myself searching for criticisms of 1) the republican party that consistently erodes the benefits available to the middle class in favour of tax breaks for the 1%, 2) the oil and gas and meat tycoons (along with the tech tycoons). It also would have been nice to read some proposed solutions, other than some vague notion of a "serf uprising".

We live in a world with a deplorable amount of inequality. This book had some good information and nuggets within it, but the heavy slant and bias against certain industries (tech, entertainment) and not others did the topic a disservice and left the book feeling incomplete. I mean, the author mentioned celebrities flying to Davos for climate conferences on three separate occasions, while conveniently leaving out that only a handful of corporations are responsible for the VAST amount of emissions and pollution, mainly due to lax environmental regulation. On that note, as much as I would love to believe that climate change is either a small or ambiguous threat, this author's complete dismissal of climate change as a very real threat to the "serfs" he discusses was ridiculous. Criticize green washing all you want, and criticize policy that only punishes the middle class, but the vast majority of scientists believe climate change is an imminent threat that will impact those living in poverty first, and hardest.

Call it ideological differences, but this book did not do what I wanted to. I'll be searching for other books on the topic.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

On the whole a very good book, but its reading of China is confused...or confusing. On the one hand, it suggests China will be the power in the world by 2040, and on the other Kotkin muses about how it is China does not falter or collapse. This confusion is not unique, many geopolitical and economic analysts are having the same problem.

For a clearer vision of the future readers may want to look at the following books/authors, much concerned with demographics: The Great Demographic Reversal, The Accidental Superpower, The Absent Superpower, Dis-United Nations, The Demographic Cliff, The Great Leveler, and the works of Peter Turchin.

On the whole, though, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism is an excellent book well worth the read.

Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars.

[Maksim Karliuk · Rating 4 out of 5]

not uncontroversial, but with great framing and exploration of some concepts (e.g. technocratic elites as new priesthood and feudalism with better marketing). i would argue in addition that some countries transitioned, albeit not seamlessly, almost directly from feudalism to neo-feudalism never staying long “in-between”

[Dubravka · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you have no idea about what's going on in the world today and are somewhat curious, feel free to read this banal and biased book full of platitudes, stereotypes and liberal drivel. it provides some parallels with earlier feudalism (that part is ok, nothing special), but parts that talk about "neofeudalism" are weak and just stating the obvious.