If you actually read that Wikipedia article, you will see that many eminent historians do not apply the term "feudalism" outside of Europe at all, and of those that do, qualify that application heavily to emphasize the peculiarity of the social formations of Europe in the middle ages.
For a view of feudalism that treats it as distinctively European, below is a quote from Perry Anderson in "Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism" (p19). If you doubt the relevance of Anderson, consider that he is not just quoted in the article linked above, but that he edits the journal in which it was published.
> The dual predecessors of the feudal mode of production were, of course, the decomposing slave mode of production on whose foundations the whole enormous edifice of the Roman Empire had once been constructed, and the distended and deformed primitive modes of production of the Germanic invaders which survived in their new homelands, after the barbarian conquests. These two radically distinct worlds had undergone a slow disintegration and creeping interpenetration in the last centuries of Antiquity.
If we can talk about “Techno-Feudalism”, then we surely can talk about Chinese or Indian feudalism. And if you want to gatekeep the term “feudalism” for Middle Ages Europe, then surely you wouldn’t say that we live in a neo-feudal system. So that looks like a bad faith argument in the context of the post.
yes, but feudalism didn't exist before it started in Europe. So we use the name of the original one.
For example, what you call Chinese feudalism (Fēngjiàn)
As a result, Chinese history from the Zhou dynasty (1046 BC–256 BC) to the beginning of the Qin dynasty has been termed a feudal period by many Chinese historians, *due to the custom of enfeoffment of land similar to that in Medieval Europe*. But scholars have suggested that fengjian otherwise lacks some of the fundamental aspects of feudalism. This system is often conflated with Confucianism but also with Legalism.
The name was given post-facto, but it wasn't feudalism, it was Fēngjiàn.
Techno-feudalism is simply feudalism fuelled by the control of technology instead of the land.
We could call it thechno-fēngjiàn, if you prefer.
But I also do not think that techno-feudalism is actually feudalism.
Techno-aristocracy or techno-oligarchy are a better description IMO
For once, Google doesn't need to pay and feed an army to dominate the ADV market or build castles surrounded by walls, they simply need to maintain their dominant position crushing or buying the competition and strike a deal with those they can't buy or crush.
> For once, Google doesn't need to pay and feed an army to dominate the ADV market or build castles surrounded by walls,
They don't need to _yet_ that is. I always found the imagery in _The Diamond Age_ of New Atlantis to be a fun steam punk take of a future in an alternative-history. However I can't help but think of it when I read about Amazon's "Helix" and 'Amazonia' in Seattle, or Apple's "Spaceship" complex, Google's ... etc.
I am genuinely interested in the claim "Feudalism is the default economic system". To understand what that claim amounts to, I asked lumost to clarify what they understand by "feudalism".
I don't think calling out the argument as in bad faith is justified or particularly helpful.
This was an interesting discussion - allegations of bad faith ruin the discussion and make you look like you are unable to tolerate different interpretations of the facts.
Even "feudalism" in Europe is being re-evaluated. A bunch of scholars are arguing that the various systems are more diverse than what is implied by a single word and that the connections to the Roman slave system is strong enough that it shouldn't be overlooked.
Feudalism in Japan was similar to the European one in many ways (but not all) so it's used to describe a similar system, that lasted 6-7 centuries just like the European one.
But it started late in the 11th century, 6 centuries after what happened in Europe, hardly the "default economic system"
For a view of feudalism that treats it as distinctively European, below is a quote from Perry Anderson in "Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism" (p19). If you doubt the relevance of Anderson, consider that he is not just quoted in the article linked above, but that he edits the journal in which it was published.
> The dual predecessors of the feudal mode of production were, of course, the decomposing slave mode of production on whose foundations the whole enormous edifice of the Roman Empire had once been constructed, and the distended and deformed primitive modes of production of the Germanic invaders which survived in their new homelands, after the barbarian conquests. These two radically distinct worlds had undergone a slow disintegration and creeping interpenetration in the last centuries of Antiquity.