Neo-feudalism

Neo-feudalism (literally new feudalism – the terms are used interchangeably in the literature^[1]) refers to a theorized contemporary rebirth of policies of governance, economy, and public life^[2] reminiscent of those present in many feudal societies, such as unequal rights and legal protections for common people and for nobility.

The concept of "neofeudalism" may focus on economics. Among the issues claimed to be associated with the idea of neofeudalism in contemporary society are class stratification, globalization, mass immigration/illegal immigration, open borders policies, multinational corporations, and "neo-corporatism".^[3]

Use and etymology

The term seems to have been originated as a criticism of the paternalistic left; an early example being the essay Galbraith's Neo-Feudalism^[4] published in 1961. The term is still used by some on the right in that sense in the twenty-first century:

Although he would later become a naturalized American citizen, Soros remains in social outlook very much a European and believer in the paternalistic neo-feudalism euphemistically called "democratic socialism" or "social democracy." ^[5]

In 1992 Immanuel Wallerstein has made his view on global development of the world, which has neofeudalism among three other variants, which meant autarky regions with local hierarchy and hi-tech goods available only for elite.^[6]

Russian Federation under Putin

Russian Federation under Putin may be proposed as an example of a modern feudal society. Essential to this society is a form of subordination ("vertical of power") where informal personal dependences exist in the hierarchy. Posts at lower level are assigned in exchange for material obligations that are based on payoffs extracted from the fief, and for loyalty, whereas higher ranks provide protection from weak civil institutions (legal system). Subsystems may span several echelons, e.g. from street policemen through the highest police and political ranks.

(Parliament chambers) are composed of deputies handpicked by the Kremlin, one need not strain oneself to imagine how these super-rich people acquired their offices. They pay “up” with both lucre and loyalty, and they are protected “down”—a hallmark of feudal social exchange.

V.L. Inosemtzev^[7]

Observers draw very close parallel between the Russian neo-feudalism and historical examples^[8]

The castes, in principle, are completely traditional:

1. LORDS. Mainly these are Putin's inner circle from the notorious "Ozero" group, the elite of the special services and the church.
2. BARONS. The middle branch of power-holders.
3. THE BOURGEOISIE. A weak and dependent class, privileged in relation to the ordinary people, and an object of exploitation with limited rights in relation to the "favoured". ...
4. ORDINARY PEOPLE. Without any rights....

Pavel Shekhtman ^[8]
(Author presents examples of legal impunity of "barons" with respect to crimes against ordinary people.)

Whereas the ranks of "lords" and "barons" are mostly (up to 70%) filed by ex-KGB officers,^[9] the image of a "police state" does not fit best. The society is structured around voluntary corruption links. Classical police state methods, such as massive political imprisonment, are marginal, yet essential for creation of fear, for control of any systematic revolt (such as the Bolotnaya square protests. In the timeframe of 2010's, Putin is weary of any possibility of mass revolt. Some strategic moves are rationalised by fear of paralels to the Ukrainian Orange revolution and more so to the Euromaidan of 2013-2014. The rule of corruption has in the Ukrainian case shown considerable resilience, so that the final result of the struggle against the (oligarch) neo-feudal regime is uncertain (as of early 2016).

Privatized governance

According to Les Johnston, Clifford Shearing's theoretical approach of neofeudalism has been influential.^[10] Shearing "use[s] this term in a limited sense to draw attention to the emergence of domains of mass private property that are ‘gated’ in a variety of ways".^[1][11] <ref name=Shearing2001

Lucia Zedner responds that this use of neo-feudalism is too limited in scope; Shearing's comparison does not draw parallels with earlier governance explicitly enough. Zedner prefers more definitive endorsements^[12]

Neofeudalism entails an order defined by commercial interests and administered in large areas, according to Bruce Baker, who argues that this does not fully describe the extent of cooperation between state and non-state policing.^[13] The significance of the comparison to feudalism, for Randy Lippert and Daniel O'Connor, is that corporations have power similar to states' governance powers.^[14]

The widening of the wealth gap, as poor and marginalized people are excluded from the state's provision of security, can result in neofeudalism, argues Marina Caparini, who says this has already happened in South Africa.^[15] Neofeudalism is made possible by the commodification of policing, and signifies the end of shared citizenship, says Ian Loader.^[16] A primary characteristic of neofeudalism is that individuals' public lives are increasingly governed by business corporations, as Martha K. Huggins finds.^[2] Seattle-based technology billionaire Nick Hanauer has stated that "our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society".^[17]

John Braithwaite notes that neofeudalism brings a different approach to governance, since business corporations in particular have this specialized need for loss reduction.^[18]

Neofeudalism in popular culture

• Frank Herbert's Dune series of novels is set in the distant future with a neofeudalistic^[19] galactic empire known as the Imperium after the Butlerian Jihad which prohibits all kinds of thinking machine technology, even its simpler forms.

References