While Lenin did not predict technofeudalism because in 1917 the internet, AI, and personal computers were not really even the stuff of science fiction yet. He did predict that the forces of capitalism would increase consolidation via continuous automation and process improvement, to the point where there would no longer be any people left in the equation. At the point when the banks own everything, and the people own nothing, that is the point where the system can no longer sustain itself.

Interestngly the World Economic Forum (WEF) is now pushing the slogan “you will own nothing and be happy”. Perhaps this is the sugar that is supposed to go down with the medicine. But why would anyone want to trust the same people who got us into this mess to get us out?

The relationship between right-wing accusations that corporations are “communist” and Lenin’s State and Revolution involves a complex interplay of ideology, perception, and historical context. Right-wing critics often conflate corporatism (a system where corporate interests significantly influence government policy) with communism, seeing any significant government regulation or intervention as a step toward a socialist or communist state. This stems from a broader ideological belief that any challenge to free-market capitalism threatens individual liberties.

Many right-wing ideologies emphasize individualism and free enterprise. When corporations are seen as collaborating with the state—particularly through lobbying or regulatory capture—this can evoke fears of a centralized power structure reminiscent of Marxist theory, where the state plays a significant role in controlling economic resources. Some right-wing populists use accusations of “corporate communism” to rally support by framing their opposition as a struggle against an elite cabal that undermines both capitalism and democratic freedoms. This rhetoric often simplifies complex economic systems into binary oppositions.

In “State and Revolution”, Vladimir Lenin argues that the state is a tool of class oppression. He contends that the existing state apparatus must be dismantled and replaced with a dictatorship of the proletariat to achieve true socialism. His emphasis is on worker control over production and the eventual “withering away” of the state. Lenin would likely view large corporations as instruments of the capitalist class that perpetuate class inequality. His vision of a socialist society contrasts sharply with the current capitalist model, where corporations often wield significant political influence.

Lenin acknowledges a form of “state capitalism” as a transitional phase after revolution, where the state assumes control over production to redistribute wealth. This concept could be misinterpreted in modern contexts where right-wing factions accuse corporations of being part of a “communist” agenda when they engage in practices that seem to align with social responsibility or extensive regulation. The right’s invocation of communism to criticize corporate practices reflects a broader cultural war, where any perceived shift toward collective responsibility or regulation is framed as a threat. Lenin’s framework provides a theoretical background for understanding how capitalism can evolve into state control, but this is often misrepresented in contemporary discourse.

The irony lies in the fact that many corporations, through their lobbying efforts and influence over policy, may contribute to the very centralization of power that Lenin warned against. In that sense, right-wing accusations can reflect a genuine critique of how corporate interests may align with state power in a way that diverges from classical capitalism. While right-wing accusations of corporations being “communist” stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of both capitalism and socialism, Lenin’s State and Revolution offers a framework for analyzing state power and class struggle that can illuminate these tensions. The key lies in how these concepts are perceived and employed in contemporary political rhetoric.