Has the World Entered Neo-Feudal Capitalist Times? Could Musk, Trump, and India’s Modi Be Symptomatic of This Era?

Has the World Entered Neo-Feudal Capitalist Times? For centuries, feudalism was a defining feature of societal structure, with lords controlling vast swathes of land and wealth, while the serfs toiled for survival. In today’s world, the castles may have disappeared, but has the essence of feudalism been reborn in a new, insidious form?

Welcome to Neo-Feudalism — a term that’s increasingly being used to describe the growing dominance of a small elite class, stark economic disparities, and the erosion of democratic ideals.

But what exactly is Neo-Feudalism? It’s the theorized resurgence of governance, economic structures, and societal dynamics reminiscent of medieval feudal societies.

The hallmarks? Unequal rights, a lack of legal protections for the majority, and a rigid hierarchy where a powerful elite enjoys immense wealth and influence, while the masses face diminishing social mobility and economic precarity.

In simpler terms, it’s the lords and serfs all over again — only now, the lords are billionaires, and the serfs are the rest of us.

The Rise of the Neo-Feudal Lords

Let’s start with the United States, where Donald Trump’s “billionaire boys club” is leading the charge. His latest political play is stacked with names like Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, and Vivek Ramaswamy. These aren’t just figureheads; Musk and Ramaswamy are being positioned to lead a new “Department of Government Efficiency,” tasked with slashing $2 trillion in “government waste.”

So what could be the idea here? Less regulation, more “efficiency” — but for whom? Critics argue it’s a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate power and wealth within an elite circle.

Across the globe, similar patterns emerge. In Russia, Vladimir Putin’s regime is often seen as the archetype of a plutocracy, with oligarchs like Yuri Kovalchuk and Gennady Timchenko wielding enormous influence.

Meanwhile, China’s so-called Communist Party has ironically brought in a billionaire boom, counting figures like Zhong Shanshan and Ma Huateng among its ranks. But here’s the twist: it’s not just authoritarian states anymore. Liberal democracies, too, are slipping into this plutocratic abyss.

India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, presents a fascinating case study. Critics often point to the growing nexus between politics and big business. Industrial magnates like Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani have thrived under Modi’s administration, leading some to question whether policies are being shaped to benefit a select few rather than the broader populace.

Modi’s larger-than-life persona and centralization of power have further fueled debates about whether India is heading toward a neo-feudal capitalist structure.

The Structural Shift from Neoliberalism to Neo-Feudalism

An important explanation lies in what some analysts view as a structural change in the global economy from neoliberalism, which prioritizes “free market” mechanisms as a way of addressing economic as much as social problems, towards neo-feudalism, which describes a time of extreme inequality under which a growing underclass services the needs of a handful of the mega-rich — or as the academic Jodi Dean puts it: “a few billionaires, a billion precarious workers.”

This neo-feudal setup is evidenced by today’s unprecedented rise of global inequality.

Since the 1980s, income inequality, for example, has increased sharply across the world. This trend has been observed in almost all leading industrialized nations and major emerging markets, which collectively represent approximately two-thirds of the global population.

The increase has been especially pronounced in the US, China, India, Brazil, and Russia, precisely the ones in which, as mentioned above, plutocracy reigns. In India, the gap between the rich and poor is wider now than it was under British colonial rule.

Perhaps most emblematic of such neo-feudalism is what is happening in the current “platform economy,” under which a small number of tech companies — eg, Apple, Google, Meta, Uber, and Airbnb — have grown increasingly super-wealthy and exploitative.

These companies have enriched their owners/shareholders, turning them into (centi)billionaires by relying mainly on low-cost, sweatshop, and/or precarious labor, as well as favorable state tax and investment incentives.

And it is precisely the need to ensure advantageous tax and investment policies — and the need to continue to generate massive profits — that helps explain the increasing involvement of business tycoons in government today.

The likes of  Trump, Musk, Modi, Adani, Ambani and many more may well present themselves as men “of the people,” but their policies are intended mainly to advance corporate profits and market shares by reducing taxes, providing attractive business incentives, protecting domestic industries threatened by foreign competition, and cutting government environmental and investment regulations that they see as standing in their way.

Neo-feudal economics and politics diverge from neoliberalism by employing a greater degree of coercion to sustain the historically unprecedented profits that have enabled the rise of global billionaires. This authoritarian approach ensures the availability of low-cost, precarious labor while minimizing state oversight and regulation to align with the interests of global financial and corporate power.

If neo-feudalism is indeed the prevailing global paradigm, and if billionaire plutocracy is on the rise, it suggests that liberal democracies may increasingly lean towards authoritarian forms of governance. This trend seems to be driven by the demands of our “gig” and “platform” economies, which thrive on the precarious conditions that neo-feudal leadership perpetuates.

• Does this imply that the authoritarian capitalism seen in Russia and China is not an outlier but a harbinger of what liberal democracies might evolve into?

• Could the trajectory of nations that pride themselves on freedom and equality be veering towards a model where economic priorities dictate the erosion of democratic values?

• And if so, how do we reconcile the promise of liberal democracy with the growing influence of billionaires and their hold over both politics and the economy?

It’s worth reflecting on whether the lines between democracy and authoritarianism are blurring in ways we never anticipated.

The Last Bit. 

The Rise Of New Lords And Serfs And Neo-Feudal Capitalist Times

What’s striking is how this modern feudalism transcends political ideologies. Whether it’s Trump’s America, Putin’s Russia, or Modi’s India, the story remains the same – the consolidation of wealth and power at the top, with little trickling down. The promises of meritocracy and equal opportunity are beginning to ring hollow.

Meanwhile, for the rest of us — the metaphorical serfs — the picture is grim.

Social mobility is stagnating, wages are failing to keep pace with inflation, and access to basic necessities like housing and healthcare is becoming increasingly precarious. It’s a world where the rich are not just getting richer; they’re solidifying their grip on the levers of power, shaping policies and economies to serve their interests.

Thus, the danger of Neo-Feudalism isn’t just economic; it’s existential. Democracies thrive on the promise of equality and opportunity. When those promises erode, so does public trust. The result? Rising populism, political polarization, and, ultimately, the destabilization of the very systems that underpin modern society.

The question we must ask ourselves is this –

• Are we willing to accept this new feudal order, or will we demand something better? The rise of figures like Musk, Trump, and Modi isn’t just a symptom of the times; it’s a wake-up call for the future, our future!

In the end, the fight against Neo-Feudalism is more than economics or politics; it’s about preserving the ideals of fairness, equality, and opportunity that should define humanity….and that’s a battle worth fighting.