Category: Technology

Militarised AI, Private Credit, and Iran War

Farwa SialLeave a comment

By Farwa Sial and C.P. Chandrasekhar 

Private credit markets are showing real signs of stress, with multiple major funds restricting withdrawals as investors struggle to exit illiquid holdings. The fears of investors in these funds, which explain the withdrawals, is driven by the success of AI, which, while driven by enormous capital spending financed in part by private credit, is perceived as disrupting the pre-existing software landscape, many of the creators of which had been financed with credit from these funds. These two dynamics are increasingly tied to military demand, with the US government encouraging private capital to build defence-linked AI infrastructure. The war on Iran is amplifying these trends by squeezing energy costs, tightening liquidity, and accelerating a shift wherein AI investment becomes less market-driven and more concentrated around state-backed priorities.

Around the 22 March 2026, two of the largest players in private credit, Apollo Global Management and Ares Management, dropped redemption gates on flagship retail credit vehicles, temporarily limiting and/or restricting investors from withdrawing their money. While investors had requested withdrawals of 11.2% and 11.6% respectively, both funds capped redemptions at 5%, leaving roughly half of requested capital locked in place.

The gating at Apollo and Ares is just one visible manifestation of broader strains across the roughly $1.8 trillion private credit market. On April 2, it was reported that Blue Owl capital had received redemption requests of upto $5.4 billion over the first quarter of 2026, with those requests amounting to 22% of its private credit fund and a much higher 41% of another of its funds target at software and technology firms. In response, Blue Owl announced a cap on redemptions of 5% of shareholder funds. Earlier BlackRock restricted withdrawals on its HPS Lending Fund, which stands at approximately $26 billion. Blackstone faced roughly $3.8 billion in redemption requests from its flagship private credit fund and stepped in with its own capital to help meet those withdrawals. Morgan Stanley saw around 11% repurchase requests in its North Haven Private Income Fund and Cliffwater honoured only about 7% of roughly 14% redemption requests.  

Read More »

Geopolitics isn’t killing global supply chains—it’s powering them

benjaminselwynLeave a comment

Global supply chains (GSCs) – which account for around 70 percent of international trade – are often referred to as the backbone of the world economy. As tensions rise between major powers—especially the United States and China – many commentators fear for the future of GSC’s and hence the world economy. Such projections overlook how geopolitical rivalries have stimulated the development of advanced technologies, which in turn enabled the rise and ongoing transformation of global supply chains.

A close look at the US-led development of technology during the Cold War shows that it enabled the formation and expansion of many contemporary global supply chains. China in turn has made efforts to catch-up to US technological development, and in response, the US has been deploying strategies to curb China’s tech rise amid a new geopolitical rivalry.

Read More »

Digital Lords or Capitalist Titans? Critiquing the Techno-Feudalism Narrative

Arif NoviantoLeave a comment

In recent years, the rise of platform monopolies such as Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft has sparked a growing discourse among scholars and public intellectuals, many of whom describe these developments through the lens of a supposed return to feudal structures. This narrative, often labeled as techno-feudalism or digital feudalism, suggests that contemporary digital capitalism is no longer driven primarily by labor exploitation, but by rent extraction and control over digital infrastructures (Varoufakis, 2021).

Prominent left-leaning thinkers such as Yanis Varoufakis, Mariana Mazzucato, McKenzie Wark, Jodi Dean, David Arditi, and Robert Kuttner have employed the techno-feudalism framework to highlight the increasing asymmetries of power and wealth in the digital age.

The term has gained significant traction, not least because of its rhetorical force and capacity to evoke historical imaginaries of servitude, hierarchy, and immobility (Morozov, 2022). Yet its growing popularity has also introduced analytical imprecision, with many adopting the label as a buzzword rather than engaging critically with its implications. At first glance, the metaphor appears appealing: today’s tech giants resemble lords presiding over digital fiefdoms, extracting value from users and workers who have little choice but to submit to the rules of the platform. However, this article argues that such analogies are conceptually flawed and politically misleading.

Drawing on the tradition of critical political economy, this paper challenges the techno-feudalism thesis by contending that the digital economy remains deeply embedded within capitalist logics, particularly in its monopolistic and financialized forms. What we are witnessing is not a reversion to feudal relations, but an intensification of capitalist accumulation strategies under new technological conditions. Platform monopolies do not derive power from land ownership or inherited status, but from their capacity to commodify data, enforce algorithmic control, and monetize access to essential infrastructures—especially through cloud computing and digital platforms. These dynamics do not mark a rupture from capitalism but rather its latest mutation, in which market domination is achieved through the mechanisms of monopoly, not feudal hierarchy.

By debunking the techno-feudalism myth, this article seeks to redirect the critique toward the enduring structures of capitalist domination that continue to define the digital economy. Understanding Big Tech as capitalist titans, rather than digital lords, offers a more precise analytical lens for grasping the mechanisms of exploitation, accumulation, and control that shape the contemporary political economy of platforms.

Read More »