The phenomenon of “Muskism: When technology swallows the state and engineers public space”
At a stage when the international system is witnessing major structural transformations and the rise of new strategic powers relying on central state planning and strict control over global supply chains, the Western capitalist system is producing an antithetical phenomenon that is no less impactful on the future of international interactions: the phenomenon of “Muskism.”
Power in the twenty-first century is no longer the monopoly of states, their fleets, and their traditional institutions. Rather, a new kind of actor has emerged, possessing satellites, global media platforms, and capital that exceeds the budgets of entire countries. In this complex geopolitical and economic context, the book “Muskism” by writers and thinkers Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff arrives to dissect a phenomenon that goes far beyond the mere personality of the billionaire Elon Musk, to become an integrated ideology and a new, fierce model of technological capitalism.
A Biography of Capitalism, Not the Individual
Slobodian and Tarnoff begin their approach by rejecting the usual journalistic simplification that confines Musk to two contradictory images: either the genius savior who will lead humanity to Mars, or the reckless, eccentric billionaire. Instead, the book treats “Muskism” as a case study that embodies profound transformations in the global political economy.
The book does not read Musk’s career as a story of individual success, but rather as an inevitable product of the accumulation of economic policies that have diminished the role of the state in favor of the unrestricted influence of giant tech companies. It is the post-classical neoliberal stage, where free markets no longer operate in isolation from monopolistic dominance. Rather, Silicon Valley pioneers have begun to act as new feudal lords in the digital age, owning the vital infrastructure upon which states, armies, and individuals alike depend.
The Privatization of the Public Sphere
One of the most prominent intersections that the book brilliantly presents is the idea of controlling the public sphere. While modernist philosophers have long theorized the importance of the public sphere as a rational arena where opinions are formed and ideas clash freely, “Muskism” comes to nationalize this space and completely privatize it.
Purchasing massive social media platforms does not represent, in this context, a mere commercial investment, but rather a strategic acquisition of the semantic infrastructure of modern society. Here, the book points out how “Muskism” blends populist discourse that claims to protect “absolute free speech” with the exercise of absolute algorithmic and financial power that controls who speaks, how they speak, and whose voice is heard. This glaring contradiction between claims of direct democracy and oligarchic practice (rule by the few) is at the core of the ideology dismantled by Slobodian and Tarnoff.
The Rise of the “State-Company”
The book also takes us on a journey through the strategic repercussions of this influence. Owning satellite networks that control vital communications during armed conflicts, and establishing infrastructure for critical future industries such as electric vehicles and space, makes “Muskism” an entity that negotiates with fully sovereign states on an equal footing. The book highlights how the state, even in the most powerful Western democracies, has retreated to become a customer dependent on these private technological entities, raising serious questions about the nature of the transition in global power balances. Are we facing merely a transfer of power between great nations, or is power itself leaking outside the borders of the “nation-state” to settle in Silicon Valley?
The Ideology of “Muskism”: Between Techno-Utopianism and Political Reactionism
If classical capitalism relied on “laissez-faire, laissez-passer,” then “Muskism,” as posited by Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff in their book, relies on the principle of “let him tweet, let him own the infrastructure.” The book does not merely trace the rise of Elon Musk as a financial phenomenon, but dives into the philosophical and ideological depth driving this new economic and political model, revealing a complex and confusing mix of extreme futuristic visions (Techno-utopianism) and reactionary political and social tendencies.
The False Contradiction: Libertarianism Feeding off the State
One of the most prominent illusions that the book deconstructs with journalistic and academic rigor is the stereotype that promotes “Muskism” as a triumph for rebellious Libertarianism against state restrictions. The declared discourse of this model is hostile to government regulations, despises bureaucracy, and calls for the liberation of markets and entrepreneurship from any oversight.
However, with a closer look at the political economy of this model, the book reveals how advanced technology empires, from manufacturing electric cars to space exploration and high-precision industries, would not have stood on their own feet without intense and systematic reliance on massive government contracts and enormous subsidies from taxpayers’ money. “Muskism” here does not reject the state; rather, it seeks to hollow it out of its regulatory and social role, transforming it into a mere “financier” and “customer” subordinate to major tech companies. This shift reflects a structural change in the international system, where the authority of the center (the state) erodes in favor of non-state actors monopolizing the tools of the future.
The Assassination of the “Public Sphere” and the Manufacturing of Techno-Feudalism
When deconstructing the acquisition deal of major social media platforms, the book places us before a deep philosophical and political crisis. Philosophers, led by Jürgen Habermas, have long viewed the “public sphere” as a fundamental condition for rational democracy; a deliberative space liberated from the dominance of capital and the coercive power of the state.
“Muskism” comes to demolish this idea from its roots. It does not merely privatize the public sphere, but transforms it into a digital fiefdom (Techno-feudalism). In this new feudal system, users are not citizens enjoying rights, but rather digital serfs producing data (wealth) for the benefit of algorithms controlled by the sole “feudal lord.” What is marketed as the protection of “absolute free speech” is revealed by the book as a mechanism to impose an arbitrary authority that determines who has the right to speak and whose voice must be hidden, based on the whims of the owner and algorithmic orientations that serve his interests.
Cold “Longtermism” vs. the Ethics of Care
The book also touches upon the ethical framework through which this model justifies its policies, known as the “Longtermism” movement. This philosophy posits that the greatest moral value lies in ensuring the survival of human civilization for millions of years to come, even if it requires sacrificing the pain and suffering of humans in the present.
Slobodian and Tarnoff explain how this philosophy is used as an ideal ideological cover for “Muskism.” Through an obsessive focus on colonizing Mars or developing super artificial intelligence, ignoring current crises and marginalizing concepts like the “ethics of care” and social and environmental justice are justified. It is an ideology that views humans as numbers in a mathematical equation for a distant future, stripped of any human empathy for the lived present.
Thus, “Muskism” stands at a dangerous crossroads: advanced technology possessing the ability to change the face of the planet, coupled with a social and political vision that reproduces the worst of the old oligarchic structures, creating a new class hierarchy that divides the world into a dominant technological elite and a fully subordinate and surveilled human mass.
The Geopolitics of “Muskism”: When State Borders Erode Before Space Algorithms
World maps are no longer drawn by geographic borders and barbed wire alone, but are now shaped by fiber-optic networks, satellite orbits, and rare-earth metal supply chains. In this shifting landscape, the book “Muskism” emerges to present a bold thesis: we are living at the dawn of an era that transcends the traditional “military-industrial complex” towards a transnational “technological-individual complex.” Here, “Muskism” does not appear as a mere commercial success story, but as a geopolitical actor possessing tools of influence that foreign ministers of great powers might lack, putting the concept of “state sovereignty” before an unprecedented historical test.
The Privatization of National Security and the Sovereignty Trap
One of the most exciting chapters of the book is the one that analyzes the growing reliance of states on technological infrastructure owned by individuals. Slobodian and Tarnoff brilliantly analyze how satellite communication networks have become a crucial element in contemporary conflicts, where the ability to wage war is no longer limited to possessing missiles, but to who holds the “key” to operating the internet on the battlefield.
This shift reflects a glaring paradox; while states seek to enhance their digital sovereignty, they find themselves forced to negotiate with private entities that are not subject to parliamentary oversight or international treaties. It is the “privatization of national security” in its most extreme forms, where the decision to provide or block service in a conflict zone becomes tied to individual assessments or narrow economic interests, far from the corridors of the Security Council or traditional decision-making centers. This reality poses a fundamental question about who actually rules the world in critical moments: is it elected governments or the owners of global infrastructure?
Supply Chains and the Balance of Power Between East and West
The book does not overlook the hard economic dimension in contemporary geopolitics, specifically the feverish struggle over high technology and clean energy supply chains. Here, the authors trace the path of “Muskism” in sensitive geographical areas, from lithium mines in South America to gigafactories in Asia. The book shows how this technological model plays on the contradictions between major powers, benefiting from the West’s desire to restore manufacturing and the East’s need for advanced technology.
At the heart of this scene, the issue of semiconductors and electric vehicles emerges as an arena for clashing wills. Slobodian and Tarnoff explain how “Muskism” does not adhere to traditional national loyalties, but rather moves according to the logic of “absolute efficiency” and control over inputs, even if this requires building deep strategic partnerships in the heart of global manufacturing centers that rival Western hegemony. This behavior weakens the ability of states to use the “weapon of sanctions” or “economic alliances” as effective pressure tools, because technological interests have become intertwined to a degree that makes surgical separation between political camps difficult.
The Diplomacy of the “One Man” and the New Legitimacy
In the past, major corporations exerted their pressure through lobbying groups in closed rooms, but “Muskism” has revolutionized this method. The book describes a new kind of direct “public diplomacy,” where official channels are bypassed to speak directly with peoples and leaders via digital platforms.
This diplomacy aims not only to influence policies but to extract a new kind of “technological legitimacy.” Instead of deriving legitimacy from ballot boxes or the social contract, “Muskism” markets itself as a “technically qualified” power capable of solving humanity’s problems (such as energy, mobility, and space colonization) that governments have failed to address. The book analyzes this discourse as an attempt to redefine citizenship; the citizen in this new world is a “user” or a “subscriber” in an integrated technical system, not just a member of a geographical political entity. Thus, “Muskism” becomes not only a competitor to the state in hard power but a competitor in the ability to formulate identity and belonging.
The Economy of “Muskism”: The Struggle of Automation and the Reproduction of Digital “Serfdom”
If the chapters of Slobodian and Tarnoff’s “Muskism” took us roaming the corridors of international politics and the philosophies of “longtermism,” its middle chapters (specifically from chapter three to five) dive into the core of the production process. Here emerges the sharpest contradiction in this model: the feverish desire to replace humans with machines, juxtaposed with an over-reliance on intense, exhausting, and non-unionized human labor. In this scene, “Muskism” does not appear merely as a technical philosophy, but as a harsh reformulation of the social contract between employer and worker in the twenty-first century.
The “Hardcore” Culture: Work as a Religious Ritual
The authors reveal how “Muskism” succeeded in transforming work from a mere means of earning a living into an “existential mission” that justifies sacrificing everything. The book analyzes the term “Hardcore” that this model imposes on its employees, where the worker is not only asked for professional competence but is demanded to have absolute loyalty and to work hours that exceed all legal and human standards.
This management style, which the book describes as “management by permanent crisis,” relies on creating a constant feeling of mobilization to save civilization. Here, objecting to working conditions or demanding union rights becomes not just a labor dispute, but a “betrayal” of the noble mission aimed at saving humanity. It is an ideology that makes “burnout” a badge of honor, and uses psychological pressure as a tool to achieve maximum productivity that exceeds the capacities of the human body, bringing to mind the worst models of industrial capitalism in the nineteenth century, but this time wrapped in the glamour of futuristic technology.
The Union Battle: When “Techno-Feudalism” Collides with Social Democracy
The book dedicates significant space to analyzing the inevitable clash between “Muskism” and the European model of labor protection. Slobodian and Tarnoff depict this battle as a clash between two eras; the era of unions and collective agreements that guarantee the rights of the working class, and the era of “platforms” that seeks to transform every worker into an independent contractor (Gig worker) stripped of protection.
From Sweden to Germany, the book traces how traditional labor structures resisted attempts to impose the “Muskism” model, which rejects collective bargaining. To this model, unions are considered an “obstacle to innovation” and a bureaucracy that hinders the speed of achievement. But the authors reveal that the hostility towards unions is not merely a desire for efficiency, but a political core aimed at concentrating absolute power in the hands of the “manager-owner,” and canceling any voice that could balance the influence of capital within the institution. It is an attempt to replace “industrial democracy” with “authoritarian paternalism.”
The Myth of Full Automation and the Fragile Reality
In one of the most profound analyses of the book, the authors address the paradox of “automation.” While “Muskism” preaches a world entirely run by robots and artificial intelligence, the reality inside the factories reveals a massive reliance on “left-behind labor” and arduous jobs that machines still fail to perform.
Slobodian and Tarnoff explain that promises of comprehensive automation often serve as a tool to threaten workers and lower their expectations; “if you don’t accept these conditions, the robots are coming to replace you.” However, the book proves, through reviewing a series of technical failures in production lines, that “Muskism” suffers from a massive gap between utopian discourse and technical reality. This gap is bridged by exhausting human workers, who are asked to act like robots while waiting for the day when technology will actually be able to displace them. Thus, automation becomes not a means to liberate humans from toil, but a sword hanging over their necks to ensure their compliance.
The End of the Technical Middle Class
This section of the book concludes with a disturbing result: “Muskism” does not only target factory workers but extends to the middle class of engineers and programmers. By transforming programming and technical work into “strenuous” tasks subject to the same standards of surveillance and pressure, the concept of the stable “technical elite” is destroyed in favor of an army of “digital proletariat” living in constant anxiety of replacement. This shift reshapes the social pyramid in global technology centers, where wealth is concentrated at a very narrow peak, while the base of workers who lack job security despite their high skills expands.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Popular Sovereignty Over the Future
In the “Conclusion” section, the authors pose the fundamental question: Is “Muskism” an inevitable fate? Here, the book steps away from absolute pessimism, presenting a vision for reclaiming technology as a “public good.” Slobodian and Tarnoff argue that the solution lies not only in regulating these companies or imposing higher taxes on them, but in “expropriating” the vital infrastructure monopolized by “Muskism.”
The conclusion discusses the necessity of creating a “public internet,” communication networks not subject to the whims of billionaires, and energy and space technologies that serve the collective goals of humanity rather than the personal ambitions of the elite. Reclaiming technology, according to the book, requires redefining our relationship with the tools we use; instead of being “users” in a digital fiefdom, we must become “technical citizens” who participate in determining the fate of the innovations that shape their lives.
