I agree 100 percent with the inexplicably deleted and downvoted answer by Hide-in-Plain-Site. Constraining digital information flows, growing at the rate of Moore's Law, in the legal terminology and mindset of 18th-century land ownership is a perfect example.
For Marx and Engels this dialectic between accelerating forces of production and the static social rules preserving a dominant social class was the driving force behind historical-social crises. Though Marx hated Malthus, it bears some similarities to the Malthusian, in that we have two social systems intertwined, with one growing only additively and the other growing exponentially.
The "forces of production" can be technological or administrative, as with the adoption of oxen to plow fields and the adoption of field rotation to enhance yield or the substitution of sheep from crops. If, for example, new agricultural methods and land enclosures for wool production increase farm capital, many peasants will be "let go" and form new supplies of wage labor and the basis of an urban proletariate.
This, in turn, may begin to erode the old customs of land holing and inheritance and urban guilds, etc., forcing landlords to borrow for more and more capital investment, eventually destabilizing and a semi-feudal system not only for the customary rights of guilds or fair hands, but eventually for the dominant landholding class as well.
This can happened incrementally as one industrial technology supplants another, but brings about a revolutionary crisis when the society's relatively static rules of "ownership" no longer make sense and constraint production, as the royal land patents and the custom of the commons, say, constrained the growing wool industry.
Information technology and symbiotic financialization are perfect examples, and while we can never see the shape of the historical moment we are in, everyone senses this crisis, even in the recent impacts on the laws of our elections. Information "wants to be free" as they say. Yet we attempt to bind up its very functions with copyright and patent laws based on the ownership of landed property and the ownership of produced commodities by the shareholders!
In the end, information producers like IT and pharmaceutical companies spend more on lawyers and financial managers than on research. I suspect it would be quite cheap to distribute nearly free medicines or free access to 5G bandwidth, except for all the legal and administrative expenses that must go into "owning" it and "preventing" access or free file distributions. That's where more and more of the money and social labor goes.
Additionally, the capacity for IT administration enables the dispersed global companies and supply chains that gut national tax bases and national workforces, giving rises to various accelerating crises of nationalism. From the legal definitions of national boundaries or citizenship to the "ownership" of common airwaves or images or copyrighted words, the productive forces are pushing hard against our current social structure.
This is oversimplified, of course. But already we can see a gathering of social and legal crises directly traceable to rapidly developing new forces of production. Our laws, political systems, and generally understanding of these forces is under great stress. According to Marx, this should lead to increasing class tensions and eventually the overturning of the dominant class, roughly the major "shareholders" in the developed world.
Marx was an optimist about technological progress and the collapse of class dominance. And he is still one of the best critics of modernity. But we have more history, more examples of revolutions to ponder. So a total political-social information "revolution" may be in our near future, but we probably aren't going to like it.
