Sure thing! Thanks for pointing me to the work. It's some interesting thought food. :-)

Pretty good (and funny/well written). A lot of the criticism is pretty well-founded. But I disagree with some parts. For example:

As a result, many Marxists—we can skip the internal disputes at this stage—held that, under feudalism, the means of surplus extraction are extra-economic, being largely political in nature; goods are expropriated under the threat of violence. Under capitalism, in contrast, the means of surplus extraction are entirely economic: nominally free agents are obliged to sell their labour power in order to survive in a cash economy, in which they no longer possess the means of subsistence—yet the highly exploitative nature of this ‘voluntary’ labour contract remains largely invisible.

I find this to be a kind of ridiculous distinction. Wage slaves may have (some) freedom to move between bosses under capitalism, but once they've subjected to a master, the extraction of the surplus labor is still every bit as violent. Go ahead and try to take what you produce (whether real goods or a measure of the revenue you generate) home with you at the end of the day, and see how violent it gets; see how "voluntary" and "economic" is the restriction that you must leave that surplus behind. Your labor isn't "sold" at all, but exercised at the tip of a gun (cops, rather than the spears of the guards/soldiers of a feudal lord), and the surplus extracted before you get your hands on it. There is no exchange. Calling labor a "market" in the sense of actual economic markets where commodities are bought and sold is mostly just liberal propaganda. Its an abstraction that works in some ways and appears close enough that people can be convinced to ignore the gap.

And there are conditions under which that "freedom" to move between employers is also very heavily constrained, as we all know. The cost and lack of access to education and training helps with this, as does the tendency to monopoly, as does the free movement of production capitalists exercise between countries/areas/etc., as do other forms of control like regulation, criminalization, background checks and credit scores (modern black-balling), etc. Your industry is moving your kind of work to a country where neoliberalism has made labor exploitation more lucrative? Then if you are currently employed, you're pretty much stuck where you are because you're not getting another job if you lose this one, and you're not getting another education so you can change roles/industries real easily. Capitalism suddenly looks a lot more feudal, and as we all know this neoliberal shift and monopoly tendency is a pretty "natural" outcome of the structure of capitalism...the shift toward something more feudal, and the erosion even of that limited freedom of workers to change jobs/employers.

And the "invisibility" of the surplus extraction is more a function of propaganda and conditioning than it is fundamental to the mode of production. It varies, and to some people who haven't been subjected so much to the liberal brainworms since birth (or which have traumatic lived experience due to their relative lack of privilege to counter that propaganda), it's a lot more visible and obvious. It also varies from context to context and industry to industry.

So I'd say this is a good debate, and I tend to agree more with the folks saying there's no reversion to feudalism or other fundamental difference in the economic system of now compared to that 25 or 50 or 100 years ago, but I also think they're going too far with outright, offhand dismissal of the idea and its arguments. A synthesis is possible.