For most of human history, the powerful have found new ways to stay powerful. Feudalism, as a system, never really ended—it just changed costumes. The medieval model of landowners controlling serfs gave way to industrial magnates overseeing factory workers. Now, we find ourselves in a new iteration: a digital aristocracy, where control over technology replaces control over land or industry. The structure remains eerily familiar. A small class of owners dictates the terms while the majority produces wealth on their behalf, often with little agency over the rules of the game.
This shift isn’t necessarily surprising. Feudalism was never just about land; it was about access—who controls resources and who is forced to work within that framework. In the early Middle Ages, access to land determined everything. When the industrial revolution took hold, access to factories and machines became the new gatekeeping force. Today, ownership of data, algorithms, and platforms defines power. Instead of lords and vassals, we have tech moguls and users, but the essence is the same: a privileged few dictate the conditions of economic participation.
The question is whether this evolution is simply the natural order of things. If each technological leap reconfigures feudalism rather than dismantling it, then maybe we are trapped in a cycle that can’t be broken. After all, every system of production requires organization, and organization always tends to consolidate power. Capitalism was supposed to be the alternative to feudalism, but it has proven more of a successor than a replacement. If we continue down this path, we may be heading toward an entrenched digital serfdom, where access to information and networks replaces land as the ultimate gatekeeper.
But what if we aren’t locked into this cycle? Feudalism has survived because it has been able to adapt, but that doesn’t mean it is the only viable way to structure society. There is another possibility—one in which production is not owned by a ruling class but shared among those who contribute. Worker cooperatives, decentralized ownership, and time-banking systems provide glimpses of what an alternative could look like. These models shift the emphasis from top-down control to co-production, where those who generate value also have a say in how it is distributed.
The challenge, of course, is scale. Feudalism persists because it is efficient for those in power. It takes far less effort to rule than to share. A decentralized, human-centered system would require new incentives, new infrastructures, and most importantly, a fundamental shift in how we define ownership and participation. But technology, ironically, could be the very thing that makes such a shift possible. If the current digital aristocracy is built on access and control, then breaking their hold might be a matter of redesigning systems to prioritize cooperation over extraction.
Feudalism has evolved for centuries, always finding a way to maintain its grip. But it has never been inevitable—just convenient. The question is whether we continue to accept its latest form or use the tools at our disposal to build something better.
Join us in making the world a better place – you’ll be glad that you did. Cheers friends.