An academic has challenged the notion that Amazon represents a new era of 'technofeudalism', arguing instead that the retail giant is the purest embodiment of modern capitalism's intensifying grip.
A Clash of Economic Interpretations
The debate was sparked by former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, who contended in a Guardian piece that Amazon's control of digital infrastructure forces capitalists, governments, and users to pay it a form of economic rent, signalling a shift away from traditional capitalism. However, Professor Benjamin Selwyn of the University of Sussex has penned a robust rebuttal, asserting this view rests on an idealised memory of capitalism's past.
Selwyn draws a direct parallel with historical entities like the East India Company, which was backed by the British state to control trade routes, exploit resources, and wield political power, allowing it to charge monopoly prices for commodities. He further invokes Karl Marx's analysis in Capital, noting that English landlords played a key role in establishing capitalism by enclosing land and earning rents from its exclusive control.
Rents Are Rooted in Labour Exploitation
Central to Selwyn's argument is the origin of economic rents. He counters Varoufakis's distinction between firms that extract rents and those that produce goods. Every product sold on Amazon, Selwyn stresses, is fundamentally dependent on human labour—from manufacturing and warehousing to last-mile delivery. The rents Amazon accrues are, therefore, a portion of surplus value first created by this exploited workforce.
"Far from signalling feudalism's return, Amazon exemplifies capitalism's evolution," Selwyn writes. He identifies the company's power in its mastery of global supply chains, algorithmic management, and relentless cost-cutting, which squeeze labour with unprecedented efficiency. The scale of this exploitation is vast, underpinned by a global working class hundreds of times larger than in Marx's 19th century.
Obscuring the Real Problem
The professor warns that framing this model as "technofeudalism" risks misunderstanding the core issue. The danger is not a break from the capitalist system but its deepening and more pervasive control over production, distribution, and daily life. For Selwyn, Amazon's dominance is a logical, if extreme, progression of capitalist logic, not a departure from it.
The exchange, published in the Guardian's letters section, highlights a significant intellectual divide in analysing the power of modern tech conglomerates and their impact on the global economy.
