The general historical context within which this paper develops is the global expansion of algorithmic technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and social media (YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, etc.). Taking this into consideration, this paper analyses the concept of “technofeudalism”. Without refuting the concept in its entirety, the paper argues that despite the name “techno-feudalism”, the concept has two fundamental flaws: its treatment of technology and its discussion of feudalism. However, this paper does not stop with a critique of technofeudalism, instead, it proposes to “remedy” these issues by utilizing the concept of technocolonialism. I argue that technocolonialism, is more attuned to the realities of the Global South, specifically the Andean region. Moreover, to go beyond metaphorical allusions to feudalism and an unclear treatment of technology, I derive two methodologically compatible and historically rooted concepts of power: Techniques of the body and Techniques of the Self. In conclusion, this paper argues in favor of an analysis of algorithmic colonialism, capital expansion (from thechnofeudalism) and a non-metaphorical reference to the history of “Andean Feudalism”.
References
[1]
Arditi, D. (2023). Society Now: Digital Feudalism, Credit, Consumption. Howard House.
[2]
Behrent, M. C. (2013). Foucault and Technology. History and Technology, 29, 54-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/07341512.2013.780351
[3]
Bloomberg Online (2026a). Anthropic Weighs Funding Offers at over $900 Billion Valuation. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-29/anthropic-considering-funding-offers-at-over-900-billion-value
[4]
Bloomberg Online (2026b). OpenAI Valued at $852Billion after Completing $122 Billion Round. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-31/openai-valued-at-852-billion-after-completing-122-billion-round
[5]
Bostrom, F. (2024). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.
[6]
Bottomore, T. (2000). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Maya Black-Well.
[7]
Burak, D. (2026). Foucault and Technologies of the Self. Medium. https://medium.com/knowledge-of-the-self/foucault-and-technologies-of-the-self-ab6b142b3b0f
[8]
Dean, J. (2025) Capital’s Grave: Neofeudalism and the New Class Struggle. Verso Books.
[9]
Durand, C. (2020). Techno-féodalisme Critique de l’économie numérique. La Découverte.
[10]
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France, 1977-78. Palgrave Macmillan.
[11]
Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-79. Palgrave Macmillan.
[12]
Foucault, M. (2010). The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the College de France 1982-1983. Palgrave Macmillan.
[13]
Giddens, A. (1984). La constitución de la sociedad: Bases para la teoría de la estructuración. Amorrortu.
[14]
Guerrero, A. (1991). La semantica de la dominación: El concierto de los indios. Eddiciones Librimundi.
[15]
Guerrero, A. (2010). Sociedad Ventrílocua. Flacso, Ecuador
[16]
Kemp, S. (2026). Digital 2026: Ecuador. Datareportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-ecuador
[17]
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press
[18]
Latour, B. (2013). An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Harvard University Press.
[19]
López Andrade, E., & Terán Romo Leroux, F. (2025). La hacienda ecuatoriana desde el enfoque historiográfico del “posestructuralismo perspectivista”, Siglo XX. Procesos. RevistaEcuatoriana de Historia, 61, 73-102. https://doi.org/10.29078/rvc0cv44
[20]
Lukács, G. (1926[1923]). History and Class Consciousness. Merlin Press.
[21]
Lyons, B. (2006). Discipline and the Arts of Domination: Rituals of Respect in Chimborazo, Ecuador. Cultural Anthropology, 20, 97-127. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2005.20.1.097
[22]
Madianou, M. (2025). Technocolonialism: When Technology for Good Is Harmful. Polity Books.
[23]
Mejias, U. A., & Couldry, N. (2024). The New Colonialism of Big Tech and How to Fight Back. The University of Chicago Press.
[24]
Muldoon, J., & Wu, B. A. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in the Colonial Matrix of Power. Philosophy & Technology, 36, Article No. 80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00687-8
[25]
Narayanan, A., & Kapoor, S. (2024). Al Snake Oil: What AI Can Do, What It Can’t and How to Tell the Difference. Princeton University Press.
[26]
Novianto, A. (2025). Digital Lords or Capitalist Titans? Critiquing the Techno-Feudalism Narrative. Developing Economics. https://developingeconomics.org/2025/05/05/digital-lords-or-capitalist-titans-critiquing-the-techno-feudalism-narrative/
[27]
Popper, K. (2021[1963]). Conjectures and Refutations, the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Hassell Street Press.
[28]
Prado, E. F. S. (2021). Tecno-Feudalism or Socialism of Capital? https://eleuterioprado.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/tecno-feudalism-or-socialism-of-capital.pdf
[29]
Rouvroy, A., Berns, T., & Carey-Libbrecht, L. (2013). Algorithmic Governmentality and Prospects of Emancipation. Réseaux, 177, 163-196. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163
[30]
Saito, K., & Sasaki, R. (2026). Rentier Capitalism, Technofascism and the Destruction of the Common. Area Development and Policy, 11, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2025.2557911
[31]
Schumpeter, J. A. (2003). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge.
[32]
Simondon, G. (2012). Being and Technology. Edinburg University Press.
[33]
Statbase (2026). Digital Ecuador-2026. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-ecuador
[34]
Thurner, M. (1993). Peasant Politics and Andean Haciendas in the Transition to Capitalism: An Ethnographic History. Latin American Research Review, 28, 41-82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0023879100016952
[35]
Varoufakis, Y. (2024). Tecnofeudalism: El sigilioso sucesor del capitalismo. Ediciones Deusto.
[36]
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.
[37]
Yan, J. (2024). Techno-Feudalism as Primitive Accumulation: A Marxist Perspective on Digital Capitalism. Critical Sociology, 52, 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205241302838
