Techno-feudalism and the rise of AGI: A future without economic rights?

Political feasibility & redistribution

• Many doubt that policies like UBI, “AI dividends,” or sharply progressive taxation are politically realistic, especially in the US, where tax cuts, weak antitrust, and money-driven politics dominate.
• Some argue inequality is a policy choice independent of AGI; powerful actors will hoard AI gains, not “equitably distribute jack shit.”
• Georgist-style ideas (taxing monopolies/privileges) are raised but others reply that all big firms seek monopoly and tech is not unique.

Techno‑feudalism & historical analogies

• Several see AGI plus concentrated ownership as an extension of existing trends: rising productivity, stagnant wages, declining worker leverage.
• Comparisons are made to feudalism: elites owning land/means vs modern capital/AGI; difference noted that in democracies taxes are at least nominally voter‑directed.
• Others dismiss “techno‑feudalism” as a rhetorical label for “capitalism with computers,” while some explicitly endorse Varoufakis’ technofeudalism framing.

Economic models: planning, communism, and resource states

• One cluster imagines “cybernetic communism”: AGI doing large‑scale economic planning for society rather than for a small elite.
• Counterpoints: if AGI can plan for workers, it can also render workers superfluous; the real question is who defines values and rules.
• AGI itself could become the “upper class,” or simply a tool of current elites; skeptics note “we have the guns” but others point out drones/automation may neutralize revolt.
• Resource‑rich states (oil economies, Norway) are discussed as imperfect analogues of automated wealth with small owner classes and UBI‑like transfers.

Labor, demand, and post‑scarcity scenarios

• A recurring puzzle: if AI replaces most labor, who has income to buy AI‑produced goods? Some argue UBI loops are circular and economically unstable.
• Others respond that productivity gains lower costs, open new sectors, and historically have led to more total wealth; but there is fear elites may accept a smaller, locked‑down economy serving only themselves.
• Visions diverge between post‑scarcity leisure (people pursuing science/art) and dark futures of automated ghettos, depopulation, or rigid hierarchies where power, not wealth, is the main currency.

Democracy, media, and manipulation

• Several argue AGI could mass‑manipulate citizens into “sock puppets,” but others say media already effectively does this.
• Deep cynicism about electoral democracy: voting seen as choosing pre‑screened elites; proposals include sortition (random selection), policy‑level voting via apps, and micro‑local democracy, each with noted trade‑offs and risks of capture.

AI centralization vs democratization

• Some users try self‑hosting open models and expect future democratization; others argue SOTA will always outgrow consumer hardware and remain centralized behind corporate APIs and expensive compute.
• Concern: AI becomes a utility controlled by a few firms/states, analogous to railroads or oil, reinforcing “techno‑feudal” dynamics.

AGI reality and timelines

• Strong disagreement on AGI’s plausibility and proximity: for some, the human brain is an existence proof; others say current LLMs are “autocomplete” far from general intelligence and AGI may be centuries away.
• This split underlies whether the paper’s scenarios are urgent planning material or speculative ideology.