Over the past decade, “neofeudalism” has emerged to name tendencies associated with extreme inequality, generalized precarity, monopoly power, and changes at the level of the state.

This seems sound. I paused at "precarity" but it's obviously a reference to economic insecurity. The only thing I can really fault this sentence for is that "changes at the level of the state" is vague. I'd hope that the article delivers on that with some details later, or else this bit shouldn't be there. (Edit: though...the other three things sound more like 19th century capitalism than feudalism.)

You guys need to do a better job of critique. Denunciatory dismissals are what we don't want on HN; they're cheap, nasty, and uninteresting. Note the site guideline: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

In case anyone's worried: I'm not siding for or against the article ideologically. I don't know if I agree or disagree with it; I don't even know what it says. I just know that (1) it clears the bar for an interesting discussion; and (2) commenters also need to clear that bar, or not comment. It's not that high a bar!

If you don't like that I'm saying this about a left-wing article (which I guess this is?), there have been just as many right-wing ones we've treated the same way. Every time it happens in either direction, someone assumes bias, since on the internet, any data point is dispositive.

But it's not just nonsense. There is evidence of this theory working in international affairs. The idea is that there is an informal global government that functions largely by the control of federated groups. By and large these groups are corporate but they may also be governments, power blocks within national governments, NGOs and individuals. These groups manipulate international law to receive benefits and defer consequences. They are responsible directly for the structure many peoples way of life. They get laws made and unmade. They affect the fortunes and misfortunes of countries.

It is a kind of feudalism because the entities setting out the parameters of people's lives are powerful groups who are using international law and economic influence to circumvent local and democratic forms of control. So power is determined by am entity's wealth, existing influence and ability to accrue more wealth and influence. Rather than a Nobel elite there is a professional or plutocratic elite.

There isn't a grand conspiracy at work but rather lots of small coordinated efforts to enrich interests and accumulate influence.

It can sound crankish but there are definitely some disturbing examples that have surfaced and lend credibility. The case of Steven Donziger is a recent example. Interesting and kind of scary case to read up on.

A historic example is how for nearly 100 years despite that adminstrations come and go that U.S. foreign policy in South and Central America has consistently benefited American business. From raw imperialism at the turn of the century through 1940s "good neighbor" policies that benefited United Fruit through the Commie busting Reagan era. Strange how despite varying ideologies and international objectives American foreign policy redounds to the benefit of large companies that try to monopolize natural resources and oppose any laws that might keep economic power local to those countries.

Anyway, the whole theory might be crap but again I don't think it's complete nonsense. This is just a poor introduction.