Is the US about to turn into a neofeudal society?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The claim that the United States is “about to turn into a neo‑feudal society” condenses several distinct arguments: rising wealth concentration, privatization of public domains, declining mobility, and cultural narratives that normalize oligarchy; each appears in contemporary commentary, but they do not prove an inevitable, full‑scale reversion to medieval feudal structures [1] [2] [3]. Evidence shows worrying trends—growing inherited wealth and private control over formerly public functions—but scholars disagree about whether those trends amount to a true systemic transformation into neo‑feudalism in the near term [4] [2] [5].
1. What writers mean by “neo‑feudalism” and why the label resonates
“Neo‑feudalism” is a contested neologism that scholars and commentators use to describe a spectrum of phenomena: privatized governance, gated domains of mass private property, entrenched inherited wealth, and sharply reduced social mobility—an analogy to medieval hierarchies rather than a literal replay of serfdom [1] [5] [4]. Political critics like those at The American Prospect argue the term points to elites reclaiming “entire realms of public law, public property, due process, and citizen rights” for private control, while theorists note the term’s ambiguity and multiple usages across the political spectrum [2] [1].
2. The empirical trends that fuel neo‑feudal narratives
Numerous commentators document concrete trends that feed the neo‑feudal thesis: accelerated concentration of wealth and property (including a sharp rise in holdings by the largest private landowners), expanded use of private arbitration and other mechanisms that remove disputes from public courts, and the cultural emergence of an oligarchic “clerisy” and tech oligarchs who appear to shape economic life and policy [4] [2] [6] [3]. Observers such as Joel Kotkin argue that post‑pandemic economic scarring, demographic stagnation, and the vanishing middle class create conditions analogous to a feudal order dominated by a narrow elite [3] [7].
3. Contrasting perspectives and methodological caveats
Yet the literature is not unanimous: some analysts caution that neo‑feudalism is often a rhetorical frame rather than a precise prediction, noting that modern states retain central features—bureaucratic rule, democratic institutions, legal systems—that differentiate contemporary capitalism from medieval feudal politics [5] [1]. Others treat neo‑feudal warnings as partisan or market‑driven narratives: think‑tank and polemical pieces sometimes carry explicit agendas—defending liberal democracy, criticizing neoliberalism, or championing particular policy remedies—which shapes how threats are described and politicized [2] [8] [9].
4. Forces that could deepen or check a feudalizing drift
Drivers that could deepen a neo‑feudal drift are evident in reporting: private arbitration and de‑juridification of disputes, tech platforms’ outsized governance roles, and rising inheritance‑based wealth concentration [2] [4]. Conversely, countervailing forces are less developed in the provided reporting: public resistance, regulatory reform, political realignment, or redistributive policy interventions are discussed as remedies or possibilities but their viability and momentum are debated across sources [2] [10] [6].
5. How likely is a near‑term conversion into neo‑feudalism?
The sources converge on a middle position: warning signs are real and accelerating in ways that make neo‑feudal outcomes plausible if current trajectories continue, but a wholesale transformation into a medieval‑style feudal order is not presented as imminent or deterministic—rather, it is framed as one possible outcome contingent on policy choices, political mobilization, and institutional resilience [3] [2] [4]. Many authors use the term to galvanize political action; readers should therefore treat dire prognoses as both empirical claims and political arguments motivated by distinct agendas [2] [9].
6. Bottom line
The United States exhibits multiple worrisome trends—greater wealth concentration, private governance of formerly public domains, and weakened mobility—that justify the neo‑feudal label as a diagnostic metaphor and a political warning, but the claim that the country is necessarily “about to turn into” a neo‑feudal society overstates the immediacy and inevitability of that outcome according to the range of sources provided; the future hinges on policy choices, institutional checks, and civic responses that the sources treat as contested and actionable rather than foreclosed [2] [4] [3].