As the article points out, the classical economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo in particular did predict the growth of monopoly (land) rents and there are political schools of thought which make this observation central (Georgism in particular). It stands to reason that as capitalism develops the capitalists will monopolize further markets previously thought impossible (private equity buying out all the plumbers, vets, etc). But Marx was generally critical of this line of thinking, to the point of publicly feuding with Henry George.

I think it is better to view techno feudalism as a case against Marx's unidirectional progressive view of history, and in favor of the classical economics take on this topic.