The strange political philosophy motivating Musk

I have always been a huge science fiction fan, and I find these days that it’s helping me in my work life. Great science fiction often deals with geopolitical issues, broad social pendulum shifts, and large-scale systems failure (think Dune, or Isaac Asimov’s The Foundation trilogy, which I inhaled when I was about 12 and re-read for fun every decade or so). All these are in play today, particularly in the US, where politics is totally in flux. The Democratic party is trying to find its centre, Catholics are playing a bigger role in politics than they have in decades, Trump is throwing out new and bizarre ideas every day, and Maga and Musk are colliding.

Among all these vectors, one of the weirdest and most disturbing developments is the rise of the “neo-reactionary movement” (NRx), also called Dark Enlightenment. The name alone is spooky and intriguing. NRx is an ideology founded by the British philosopher Nick Land and the American software developer Curtis Yarvin (who was recently interviewed in the New York Times). The philosophy argues that democracy inherently leads to social decline, because of the development of deep state bureaucracies that are unable to control oligarchic forces, and that societies should be run like corporations, with a kind of CEO Monarch in charge. As Yarvin has said, “If Americans want to change their government, they need to get rid of dictator phobia . . . One way of dealing with that is . . . hire two executives and make sure they work together and there is really no other solution . . . ”

Are Trump and Musk those people? Some think so. Between Trump’s 19th century-style tax, tariff and territorial-seizure threats, and Musk’s attempted takeover of the plumbing of the federal government (see my column today on why his Treasury meddling, which has been temporarily thwarted by a federal judge in the US, is so worrisome), it feels like there is a kind of self-coup happening in America right now. And some people I’ve spoken to in both political and technology circles feel that it’s been driven by the Dark Enlightenment crowd, which includes many of the people — from Peter Thiel to Marc Andreessen to Musk himself — who stand to benefit most from it. As Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir (which has seen its stock price surge off the back of a raft of expected government contracts) said recently: “This is a revolution . . . some people will get their heads cut off.”  

Maya Angelou once said: “When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.” The techno-libertarians in Silicon Valley have been showing us who they are for a long time now. Check out this incredible Cade Metz piece, which has a back and forth between Thiel, Yarvin and investor Balaji Srinivasan talking about how Dark Enlightenment forces should be turned on journalists who write unfavourable pieces.

Then there are the various Musk statements, like this one: “I think it’s a false dichotomy to look at government and sort of industry as separate . . . government is . . . the ultimate corporation,” he says, referring to it as a “monopoly that can’t go bankrupt, or usually cannot go bankrupt.” I could go on and on with interviews and articles in which Musk and the tech bros say things that make it clear they long for a world without government, but perhaps the clearest indication is what they’ve done — seized control of the Office of Personnel Management, allowed a bunch of 20-something Doge recruits with no government affiliation into the Treasury, attempted to shut down congressionally authorised departments like USAID, and fired anyone who disagrees. Sounds like a self-coup attempt to me. 

Richard, you are sitting in San Francisco. How real is Dark Enlightenment, and does what’s happening in the White House now have any serious ties to it? Or should I go back to reading science fiction?

Ahead of the German elections, Elon Musk has thrown his weight behind AfD, the far-right party threatening to upend the nation’s politics. And Trump’s new regime poses huge challenges for defence, trade and foreign policy. Hear from the FT’s experts on what lies ahead in this exclusive webinar on February 27. Save your spot here. 

Recommended reading

• I’m incredibly proud of my FT Weekend magazine feature about my week on an Arctic icebreaker. It’s a story that captures not only the colour (or lack thereof) of the North Pole, and amazing people I met on the ship, but also the larger geopolitical and economic forces that are making the Arctic one of the most hotly contested places on earth.

• The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser would seem to agree with me that Musk’s attempts to shut down USAID amount to something way more nefarious than Doge efficiency politics.

• I love James Gleick, and I really enjoyed his New York Review of Books take on Glenn Adamson’s “A Century of Tomorrows: How Imagining the Future Shapes the Present”. If ever there was a time for seers, it’s now. 

Richard Waters responds

What a fascinating question. If only this was just a sci-fi plot line we were discussing! 

I’ve always felt techno-libertarianism has been more a product of intellectual arrogance, self-interest and misdirected idealism, rather than any kind of coherent ideology. But I think now, surprised at its own political ascendance, we’re watching a powerful ideology harden in real time. Will we look back on this as the Dark Enlightenment? I hope not.

I think much of this has its roots in an intellectual culture in Silicon Valley that is aptly summed up in that New York Times story you link to, on the rationalists. People pride themselves on an engineering mindset that values taking everything back to first principles. Questioning received orthodoxies is the point. It can lead to outlandish ideas being given air time, particularly when people are talking about things they know little about. You find yourself in sweeping, simplistic discussions that remind you of late-night college dorms.

No one has thrived on this push-the-boundaries thinking quite like Elon Musk. I don’t think he’s had a moment of self-doubt in his life. He’ll respond with absolute certainty to any question you put to him. Impatience doesn’t leave room for self-reflection: If his ideas are so good for humanity, why should anything be allowed to get in the way?

There have always been people in the background ready to fit a more rigidly libertarian ideological framework to this impulse. Yarvin strikes me as a bit of a clown and hard to take too seriously, but Thiel has always been worth paying attention to.

This amazing piece he wrote just after the financial crisis, arguing that freedom is incompatible with democracy, bears rereading. Thiel’s answer was to escape politics into new realms opened up by technology, like cyber space or Mars. But that was back in 2009. There comes a moment when you get so rich and powerful you can’t hide from government any more: You have to take it over.

A few things have converged to create this techno-reactionary moment. I think we should take people like Marc Andreessen at their word when they say they swung right because of a “woke” ideology that forced tech leaders to bow down to their own workforces. Mark Zuckerberg’s recent pivot towards Trump wasn’t just political opportunism, he was frustrated at being pushed into clamping down on his company’s social networks.

But to me, the bigger forces at work here are more to do with the techno-oligarchs’ ambition and impatience. They also believe that technologies like crypto and artificial intelligence could remake society and the economy, and are certainly too important to be left to government bureaucrats.

Musk’s assault on government feels visceral. Yes, it’s hard not to see naked self-interest: What government regulator would dare to take him on now? But I think it’s more a product of impatience and frustration — that government is holding him (and, by extension, anyone trying to invent the future) back, while consuming resources for no overall social benefit. The only answer is to sweep it all away.

Trump’s willingness to surrender the remaking of government to outside interests has provided an opening that will never come again. It really does feel like a revolutionary moment. Over-reach seems inevitable.

Your feedback

And now a word from our Swampians . . .

In response to “A worthwhile Canadian leadership election:”
“Trump attacking Canada has made Canadians more aggressive than passive, defying customary stereotypes. It also makes it riskier for Poilievre to adopt a Trump-lite posture. Pitting yourself as a sober cosmopolitan technocrat versus a slick national populist now might sway a few more folks otherwise itching to jettison the Liberals after a decade in office.

That said, it is striking how all three candidates present themselves as outsiders, which stretches credulity: Freeland as against the “Ottawa establishment”; Carney as an “outsider” generally; Poilievre similarly, despite having spent his entire working life in parliament.

Another factor to consider is the ability to speak French, which might become an issue in an election. Carney was pilloried by pundits for his first attempt, even reading a prepared speech. Freeland bravely spoke on Radio Canada, but many noted grammatical mistakes too. Poilievre is a confident speaker, in contrast, and a seasoned debater.” — Sanjay Ruparelia