Until recently, it was authoritarian capitalist regimes such as those in Russia and China that were described as plutocratic regimes. and the Chinese Communist Party, which over the past two decades has helped enable the prosperity of the country’s famous billionaires, who now number 1,000, including the likes of Zhong Shanshan and Ma Huateng.

But today, liberal democratic states are increasingly taking on this plutocratic character. The incoming Donald Trump administration in the US is the latest example of this – his “billionaire boys club” is filled with Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, and Vivek Ramaswamy, among many others. Ramaswamy and billionaire Musk (whose net worth is $100 billion or more) are scheduled to be appointed heads of the new “Government Efficiency Administration,” which aims to cut about $2 trillion in “government waste” and reduce “excess” state regulation.

Similar steps have also been taken under the Narendra Modi government in India, which has teamed up with a handful of businessmen such as Mukesh Ambani, Gautam Adani, and Sajjan Jindal, with the aim of promoting “business-friendly” policies and increasing neoliberalism in the economy. Such a shift in favor of the “billionaire raj” (billionaire rule) is to be found frequent Across many other liberal democracies around the world, including Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey.

So how do we understand this global shift toward plutocracy, where a few billionaires dominate not only the economy but also politics, in an unprecedented way?

An important explanation lies in what some analysts see as a structural change in the global economy from neoliberalism, which prioritizes “free market” mechanisms as a means of addressing economic as well as social problems, toward neofeudalism, which describes a period of extreme extremism. Inequality under which a growing underclass serves the needs of a handful of wealthy people – or as academic Judy Dean puts it: “a few wealthy people.” Billionaires“One billion precarious workers.”

This neo-feudal system is evident in the unprecedented rise in inequality worldwide today. Since the 1980s, for example, income inequality has increased sharply around the world. This trend has been observed in almost all leading industrialized countries and major emerging markets, which together account for nearly two-thirds of the world’s population. This increase has been particularly evident in the United States, China, India, Brazil, and Russia, precisely where, as mentioned above, plutocracy prevails. in india, The gap between the rich and the poor is wider now than it was under British colonial rule.

Perhaps most emblematic of this new feudalism is what is happening in the current “platform economy,” under which a small number of technology companies, for example, Apple, Google, Meta, Uber, and Airbnb, have become filthy rich and increasingly exploited. . The latter have succeeded in enriching their owners/shareholders, turning them into billionaires by relying primarily on low-cost labor, sweatshops, and/or precarious employment, as well as favorable state tax and investment incentives.

It is precisely the need to ensure beneficial tax and investment policies – and the need to continue to generate huge profits – that helps explain the increasing involvement of business leaders in government today. The likes of Trump, Musk, Adani, and Berlusconi may present themselves as men “of the people,” but their policies are primarily aimed at boosting corporate profits and market shares by cutting taxes, providing attractive business incentives, and protecting domestic industries threatened by foreign threats. Competition, and shrinking government environmental and investment regulations that they see as standing in their way.

Neofeudal economics/politics departs from neoliberalism in the greater degree of coercion required to generate the historically unprecedented profits that have enabled the rise of the world’s billionaires. Such authoritarianism is necessary to ensure low-cost and precarious employment, and to keep state surveillance and regulation of the economy at a minimum and consistent with the financial and power of global corporations.

But if neofeudalism is indeed the way of the world today, and if the billionaire class is on the rise, it likely means that liberal democracies may increasingly move toward authoritarian forms of government. Neo-feudal leadership seems to be what our “gig” and “platform” economy requires.

Does this mean that authoritarian capitalism in Russia and China may not represent exceptions to liberal democracy, but rather its future?

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.