As we observe growing economic inequalities and the concentration of power in Western democracies, a disturbing parallel emerges with a system we believed we had transcended: medieval feudalism. This is not merely historical suggestion, but profound structural similarities that challenge the very foundations of our ostensibly medieval feudalism, democratic societys.
From feudal lords to oligarchs
In the feudal system, wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few: feudal lords owned land, the fundamental resource of the era, while the vast majority of the population lived in subsistence conditions as serfs. Today, despite a formally different context, we witness an equally dramatic concentration of wealth.
Economist Thomas Piketty, in his monumental Capital in the Twenty-First Century, documented how capitalism does not solve inequalities; it creates them. The statistics speak clearly: a handful of individuals possess wealth equivalent to the GDP of entire nations. As Piketty observes, for millions of people, ‘wealth’ amounts to little more than a few weeks of salary in a checking account.
The substantial difference from the Middle Ages lies not in wealth distribution, but in the nature of assets. While control was once exercised through land ownership, today it passes through financial capital, intellectual property, technologies, and data. Today’s technological and financial oligarchs play a structurally similar role to feudal lords: they control essential resources and, through this control, shape society.
The illusion of mobility
The feudal system was characterized by rigid social stratification, where birth determined destiny. While modern societies have formally dismantled these barriers, social mobility has progressively diminished. Access to higher education, credit, real estate ownership — all crucial elements for social advancement — is increasingly tied to starting economic conditions.
As Piketty notes, the inequality of human capital is totally inefficient because it is based entirely on a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those born into affluent families have access to better educational opportunities, influential social networks, and starting capital, thus perpetuating inequalities across generations.
From Church to media corporations
In the Middle Ages, the Church controlled information through its monopoly on literacy and book production. Monasteries were centers of knowledge, and the clergy filtered which knowledge should reach the people. Today, this role is fulfilled by media conglomerates and digital platforms.
Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, in their seminal Manufacturing Consent, analyzed how the national media typically target and serve the opinion of elite groups, groups that provide an optimal ‘profile’ for advertising purposes and play a role in decision-making processes in private and public spheres.
Information control today is more sophisticated but no less effective. Social platform algorithms determine which content reaches users, while concentrated media ownership ensures certain narratives dominate public debate. As Chomsky and Herman observe, especially where issues involve substantial U.S. economic and political interests and relations with friendly or hostile states, mass media typically function as propaganda agencies of the state.
From divine right to lobbying
In the feudal system, political and economic power were formally fused. Feudal lords were simultaneously landowners, military commanders, and political administrators. Their dominion was legitimized by divine right and the natural order of things.
In modern democracies, this fusion is more subtle but equally real. Economic elites exert decisive influence on political processes through:
- Campaign financing: those with resources can influence who gets elected
- Systematic lobbying: privileged access to political decision-makers
- Revolving doors: continuous exchange of personnel between private and public sectors
- Think tanks and foundations: production of research and opinions apparently independent but funded by specific interests
As John Jay, one of the American founding fathers, already noted: The people who own the country ought to govern it. This logic, though not explicitly declared, continues to operate in contemporary democracies.
From divine to meritocratic
Every power system requires ideological justification. In the Middle Ages, inequality was legitimized by divine will and the natural order of creation. Today, the dominant myth is meritocracy: those who succeed deserve it, those who fail are responsible for their own destiny.
This narrative systematically ignores structural starting advantages, relationship networks, and differential access to opportunities. As Piketty observes, we live in “a land of egalitarian promises, a land of opportunity for millions of immigrants of modest background; on the other hand, it is a land of extremely brutal inequality.”
Formal democracy, substantial oligarchy
The result of these mechanisms is a paradoxical situation: we maintain the forms of democracy while real power concentrates in the hands of a few. As Chomsky observes, they determine, select, shape, control, restrict — to serve the interests of dominant and elite groups in society.
This concentration of power has concrete consequences:
- Economic policies systematically favor those who already possess capital
- Regulations are often written by the same industries they should regulate
- The political agenda is determined by economic elite priorities
- Systemic alternatives are marginalized from public debate
Toward awareness
Recognizing these parallels does not mean falling into historical determinism, but acquiring tools to understand contemporary power dynamics. As Piketty notes, I believe in the power of ideas, I believe in the power of books, but you have to give them time.
History teaches us that power systems, however solid and immutable they may seem, can be transformed. Feudalism was overcome not through natural evolution, but through social struggles, political revolutions, and economic transformations.
Similarly, the new feudalism of oligarchic democracies is not an inevitable destiny. But to change it, we must first recognize it for what it is: not a system malfunction, but its normal functioning. Only then can we begin to imagine and build more authentically democratic alternatives.
What’s at stake is not only social justice, but the very survival of democracy as something more than a facade for elite dominance. As history reminds us, systems based on extreme inequalities inevitably lead to their own crisis. The question is whether we will know how to guide this transformation or suffer it.