He definitely seems to ignore the fact that the system can’t function without the enslavement of the global south and that capitalism has never existed as promised. Facebook is not actually decoupled from the material world and still requires all kinds of workers to show up and keep things running.
It’s also true that different modes of production can exist together at the same time. The ancient Roman economy was a mix of landlords, slaveowners, independent farmers, heavily regulated businesses, and state enterprises. Although there are literally hundreds of theories as to why Rome collapsed, the one I favor is: barbarian invasions required the state to raise huge amounts of taxes which drove the common people to seek refuge with landlords who could protect them. (Imagine being that desperate!) The landlords became so powerful in the west that they were able to destroy the state entirely. Feudalism at first coexisted with all of those modes of production but ultimately triumphed over them for centuries. It’s not difficult to imagine landlordism or feudalism coming back to do the same in the modern world, but with Facebook taking the place of Attila the Hun.
You've highlighted a very important point to understanding political economy, imo, which is that while there tends to be a dominant system, it also tends to coexist with other modes. The non-dominant modes are forced to adapt to the dominant one, but it's not all just 100% a certain brand of capitalism of feudalism or slavery or socialism. Chattel slavery coexisted with "proper" capitalism and was deeply intertwined with it despite not being based on the wage laborers system. It integrated neatly into the emerging status quo and capitalists repeatedly justified participating in it and promoting its continuation.
I don't think Facebook actually has much material power to become a dominant mode of production of anything except propaganda / psyops. Amazon and Wal-Mart, though, could easily exert a stranglehold over the entire country's supply of both treats and necessary supplies and both already have massively exploited and mistreated labor pools due to their domination of their markets; labor often has nowhere to go, is forced to sell itself for starvation wages and the only place to buy shit in town is Wal-Mart, with Amazon supplying specialty treats. Amazon places fulfillment centers in awkward locations with little infrastructure - their workers either need to commute long distances or depend on very few options for buying the necessities.
Imagine an Amazon-Wal-Mart merger. One store controlling all supply for the vast majority of goods and having little need to compete in the labor market. They'd rapidly crush other "big box" stores. Company towns version 2.0 is a very real possibility, it will all depend on how much resistance can be organized these tendencies.
He definitely seems to ignore the fact that the system can’t function without the enslavement of the global south and that capitalism has never existed as promised. Facebook is not actually decoupled from the material world and still requires all kinds of workers to show up and keep things running.
It’s also true that different modes of production can exist together at the same time. The ancient Roman economy was a mix of landlords, slaveowners, independent farmers, heavily regulated businesses, and state enterprises. Although there are literally hundreds of theories as to why Rome collapsed, the one I favor is: barbarian invasions required the state to raise huge amounts of taxes which drove the common people to seek refuge with landlords who could protect them. (Imagine being that desperate!) The landlords became so powerful in the west that they were able to destroy the state entirely. Feudalism at first coexisted with all of those modes of production but ultimately triumphed over them for centuries. It’s not difficult to imagine landlordism or feudalism coming back to do the same in the modern world, but with Facebook taking the place of Attila the Hun.
You've highlighted a very important point to understanding political economy, imo, which is that while there tends to be a dominant system, it also tends to coexist with other modes. The non-dominant modes are forced to adapt to the dominant one, but it's not all just 100% a certain brand of capitalism of feudalism or slavery or socialism. Chattel slavery coexisted with "proper" capitalism and was deeply intertwined with it despite not being based on the wage laborers system. It integrated neatly into the emerging status quo and capitalists repeatedly justified participating in it and promoting its continuation.
I don't think Facebook actually has much material power to become a dominant mode of production of anything except propaganda / psyops. Amazon and Wal-Mart, though, could easily exert a stranglehold over the entire country's supply of both treats and necessary supplies and both already have massively exploited and mistreated labor pools due to their domination of their markets; labor often has nowhere to go, is forced to sell itself for starvation wages and the only place to buy shit in town is Wal-Mart, with Amazon supplying specialty treats. Amazon places fulfillment centers in awkward locations with little infrastructure - their workers either need to commute long distances or depend on very few options for buying the necessities.
Imagine an Amazon-Wal-Mart merger. One store controlling all supply for the vast majority of goods and having little need to compete in the labor market. They'd rapidly crush other "big box" stores. Company towns version 2.0 is a very real possibility, it will all depend on how much resistance can be organized these tendencies.