Showing posts sorted by date for query AMERICAN CONSPIRACY THEORY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query AMERICAN CONSPIRACY THEORY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, August 26, 2026

Interview

Silicon Valley’s Billionaire Cults Are Coming for Democracy

“We can have billionaires or we can have democracy. We cannot have both,” says Gil Durán.

August 20, 2026

LONG READ



“We can have billionaires or we can have democracy. We cannot have both,” Gil Durán says. In this episode of Movement Memos, Durán and host Kelly Hayes discuss the bizarre fixations and political fantasies of tech billionaires like Peter Thiel, and how those ideas are being translated into real-world governance. Durán and Hayes also discuss Silicon Valley’s Christian cosplay, and how traditional Christian ideas are being used as wrapping paper for the pursuit of AI-first, corporate fiefdoms.


TRANSCRIPT

Note: This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.

Music: Son Monarcas and Dusty Decks

Kelly Hayes: Welcome to “Movement Memos,” a Truthout podcast about organizing, solidarity, and the work of making change. I’m your host, writer and organizer Kelly Hayes. Today we are talking about how the cults of Silicon Valley have seized vast amounts of institutional and political power, and how tech billionaires like Peter Thiel are seeking to remake the world — while repackaging some of their most radical, anti-democratic ideas in the language of Christianity. We’ll be hearing from Gil Durán, author of the new book, The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy.

The growing public animus toward data centers and AI presents us with an opportunity right now to unmask these billionaires and explain their bizarre ambitions and political fantasies to our friends and neighbors in plain terms. I believe that kind of narrative work is a moral and strategic imperative. With Gil’s help, we’ll talk about how Silicon Valley capitalists developed their ideas, the threat they pose to our communities, the forces we will need to defeat their projects, and why we must fight back.

If you appreciate this podcast, and you would like to support “Movement Memos,” you can subscribe to Truthout’s newsletter or make a donation at truthout.org. You can also support the show by subscribing to “Movement Memos” on Apple or Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, or by leaving a positive review on those platforms. Sharing episodes on social media is also a huge help.

Truthout is an independent news organization, publishing stories that the craven corporate press won’t touch. We are a union shop with the best family and sick leave policies in the industry, and we could not do this work without the support of readers and listeners like you. So thank you for believing in us and for all that you do. And with that, I hope you enjoy the show.

[musical interlude]

Kelly Hayes: Gil Durán, welcome to “Movement Memos.”

Gil Durán: Thank you for having me.

Kelly Hayes: How are you doing today?

Gil Durán: Pretty good. Staying busy. Lots of interest in the book, so I’m doing a lot of talking about these ideas these days.

Kelly Hayes: Well, I can understand why there’s a lot of interest. It’s a really fascinating read. Can you tell our audience a bit about your work?

Gil Durán: Well, I’m a journalist who got the journalism bug at a very young age in the fifth grade and went into journalism after college after working on my college paper and doing a lot of internships. But after a few years in journalism, the industry started collapsing (the newspaper industry), and I ended up spending, unexpectedly, 17 years working in politics as a spokesman and communication strategist for a host of California Democratic elected officials like [Governor] Jerry Brown and [Senator] Dianne Feinstein and Attorney General Kamala Harris at the time. And then, in 2018, I got the chance to return to journalism, and I jumped on it. I’d always felt there was something missing. It was this feeling that I was supposed to be somewhere else, not wearing a suit and being in government and consulting and such.

So I returned to journalism in 2018 and was the editorial page editor of both The Sacramento Bee and then the San Francisco Examiner where I stumbled into the thicket of extremist tech politics in 2022. And this led to the next few years of my life where I burned through tremendous amounts of my own money in order to self-fund my research, and it unexpectedly has resulted in a book.

Kelly Hayes: A lot of the story you tell begins with The Sovereign Individual, a relatively obscure 1997 book that imagined technology weakening governments, destroying jobs, and allowing a wealthy cognitive elite to escape taxes, regulation, and democratic control. Peter Thiel seems to have taken that book extremely seriously. What did he find in it, and how much of the political project you describe can be traced back to that vision?

Gil Durán: I believe Peter Thiel found his entire worldview in The Sovereign Individual. He was already pretty right-wing as a young man and in college, but The Sovereign Individual provided a futuristic framework for how, in the 21st century, democracy in nation states would collapse, and we would witness the rise of these wealthy individuals who would be able to float around the world as sovereigns unto themselves, unbeholden to democracy rules, regulations, or laws. And what Peter Thiel subsequently did was build a cult of Silicon Valley apocalypse capitalism, a group of billionaires who believe technology will make democracy obsolete in the 21st century, and that indeed it is their destiny to hasten and accelerate the process of this democratic collapse and specifically, The Sovereign Individual, which was written by two guys who wrote a lot of kooky conspiracy theory stuff. These were not intellectuals or respectable, credible writers or journalists by the time they did this work.

The Sovereign Individual predicted that two technologies would play a key role in the 21st-century attack on democracy. One was called cybercurrency, a new kind of digital money that would undermine government authority and allow the wealthy to exfiltrate their wealth from democratic nations. We would call that crypto today. And the other was advanced automation, which The Sovereign Individual predicted would kill most employment and jobs, thereby leading to an economic collapse that would hasten the democratic collapse. And this book was so influential on Peter Thiel that he’s named it as part of his inspiration for starting PayPal, which was an effort to get ahead of this predicted digital currency. It didn’t quite result in a digital currency. It became a pretty basic payments app. And by the way, Peter Thiel and Co. no longer own PayPal. They sold it a long time ago, but it did make him a multimillionaire and provide the basis for the fortune that would eventually make him a billionaire and make him one of the most powerful and influential people in the world.

So basically, Peter Thiel, who has said he no longer believes that freedom and democracy are compatible and that government is fundamentally evil, was totally turned out by this very weird and kooky and scary apocalyptic conspiracy theory book, and we are currently living with the ramifications, I believe.

Kelly Hayes: And I want to talk more about Peter Thiel, but first, you describe Silicon Valley as a landscape of overlapping cults and quasi-religious movements, including the constellation of ideas known as the TESCREAL bundle. Why has the tech industry produced these totalizing belief systems and what political work do those beliefs do for the people who hold them?

Gil Durán: Well, it was Dr. Emile Torres and Dr. Timnit Gebru who came up with TESCREAL as an acronym that bundles these strange beliefs: transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism, and longtermism. And at the heart of these very weird ideas, which I won’t explain every single one of them because that could take all day and it’d be better if one of them explained it, is this idea that technology is about to fundamentally transform everything, how the world works, how politics works, how money works, how human beings work, how life works. They believe that they’re going to create this sort of AI God that will allow for eternal life or multiplanetary colonization and for humans to merge with machines and become godlike creatures.

And much of the AI discussion these days from the industry is based on these ideas that AI is not just a tool that will make certain parts of life better or make a better spell checker or recipe generator, but to fundamentally transform what it means to be human and to fundamentally shift the economy by getting rid of jobs and turning us into a society where somehow we have a superabundance that allows us all to live happily though we have no meaning and no work in our lives. This is the narrative coming out of the AI industry or else a technology that could possibly, in addition to killing all jobs, wipe humanity from the face of the earth because it will be so powerful and magical that it’s like this big monster we’re creating. But the only way to stop the monster from being created and killing us is to pour trillions and trillions of dollars into the pockets of a small handful of Silicon Valley billionaires so they can stop it from doing the bad thing and make it do the good thing.

Now, that’s a lot to say there, but it’s not too hard to understand why this religious narrative of AI has spawned some cult religions like transhumanism, like longtermism, like cosmism. The idea is that AI will be the savior and liberator of these people, and all we have to do is burn up the earth and maximize compute and acceleration in order to create our new God. I know this sounds really kooky if you haven’t heard of it, but they’re pretty explicit about this stuff. They talk openly about things like creating the thermodynamic god, which is this mysterious boom loop that will appear if we only burn enough fossil fuels to create the mega super AI, which by the way may not even be possible or realistic in any way. That’s part of the mythology is that this is actual intelligence that will create some superintelligence. But I think it’s important because the question is why do the most successful and wealthy people in our society seek to destroy the country and the society and the system that allowed them to achieve such success?

And that’s where you get into this idea of technological accelerationism. They feel that they are on the cusp of this magical, mystical, religious breakthrough to defeat death and to create a new kind of god in their own words. Many of them say this explicitly. But the only thing standing in the way of this unfettered expansion and acceleration of AI is democracy, is law, is regulation, is the needs and wants and desires of regular people. And so one of the reasons, maybe the core reason why they need to destroy democracy is in order to enable this unfettered acceleration. They call it effective accelerationism, this acceleration into the future. So there’s a religious basis underlying this desire to destroy our democratic system because otherwise, it doesn’t make much sense. Why would you want to destroy the exploitative capitalist machine with nuclear bombs that has created and enabled your success? No one has less of a reason to complain about our system than the billionaires do. They’re the ones winning.

So it doesn’t make any rational sense for them to adopt this extremist political viewpoint, except that they are animated by a sort of religious idea of what technology will enable them to achieve. A lot of them are also afraid to die, and they think AI is going to save them. So they’re preaching this sort of apocalypse, and that’s why I call this Silicon Valley apocalypse capitalism. They’re not promising to create new widgets and devices that make us happy and more connected like it was in the past 20 years. This is about, “Hey, we’re creating the thing that’s going to kill everybody maybe. So just sit back and hope that we cut you off a piece of our abundance later, and everything will be okay.” And that’s a very strange message and it’s no wonder now that people are rising up against data centers and AI and starting to hate billionaires in larger and larger numbers.

Kelly Hayes: We had Émile Torres on the show back in 2023 to talk about TESCREAL and longtermism, and I love Émile — they’re just so incredibly insightful, and I’m so grateful for their analysis. But I remember some friends feeling like they didn’t quite know what to do with that episode. They thought, sure, these people who are prioritizing the well-being of trillions of theoretical, future digital people over the billions of people alive today sound absolutely bananas, but what are they gonna do with that ideology? You can’t sell that to the masses. So, how dangerous could these people and their cults really be?

But what I was seeing, and what I was trying to convey to people, was that the people building power around these ideas had already consolidated an enormous amount of economic, political, and institutional power. If we look at the decades-long political project that brought some of the objectives of Christian nationalism to fruition in recent years, with TESCREAL, we’re talking about something that’s advanced much more quickly. Because while these tech power players haven’t necessarily been marketing these ideologies to the masses, over the last few decades, they have been marketing products that have sort of containerized and redefined modern life, and they’ve translated that wealth and that industrial and institutional capture into a whole lot of political power.

Now, a few years after Émile and I had that conversation, these tech-right ideologies have a shocking level of influence inside the federal government and over AI and crypto policy. They’re devouring some of the inner workings of government, in a similar manner to how they’ve devoured industries. And they’re also doing something else — they’re sort of repackaging these fringe ideas of theirs in more marketable, palatable ways. Which brings us to Christianity. Let’s talk about Peter Thiel’s fixation on the Antichrist, which is one of the stranger threads in the book, but you argue that it has real political significance. What is Thiel actually saying when he talks about the Antichrist? And how does that kind of apocalyptic thinking shape the way he understands political enemies, technology, and power?

Gil Durán: When Peter Thiel talks about the Antichrist, he’s confessing. He’s confessing his worldview. He believes we are in an existential battle over the future. And on one side is the billionaires and accelerationism, and on the other side is democracy and the majority of people in the world. He often throws communism in there as one of his demonized enemies, but he’s really talking about democracy if you look more deeply into it because they’re the ones aligned behind Trump and this authoritarian leadership. So when Peter Thiel describes the Antichrist, he describes this mysterious force or figure that will rise up suddenly to seize massive amounts of power and seize total control over the world by preaching peace and safety. None of this comes from the Bible, by the way. This is all his weird interpretation of the Bible.

But when he describes Silicon Valley, which he has also said it would be a religion of technicity that seeks to create an artificial world where people can no longer distinguish their real lives from the lives that are artificially being created for them, he said this in an essay back in 2007, he’s describing Silicon Valley, but I don’t know that he knows that he’s doing that, or else he’s doing it on purpose. It’s a double entendre. So the framework of the Antichrist is this idea that we’re in an existential battle, which we are. It’s a war of the billionaires against everyone else. But he uses it to try to scapegoat all of his enemies. It’s Greta Thunberg, it’s AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], it’s democracy, it’s AI regulation, it’s anybody who opposes tech acceleration. Anybody Peter Thiel doesn’t like is the Antichrist in Peter Thiel’s Antichrist spiel. And by the way, theologians have completely rejected, mocked, and scorned all of his gobbledygook. This is a DIY theology from a guy who, as far as I can tell, isn’t even really Christian, Christian in name only.

Thiel has himself said that he’s religious but not spiritual, which means he likes the order and hierarchy and rules of religion without the mystery and spirit of religion. Usually, people say the opposite. They say they’re spiritual, but not religious. Thiel likes to reverse things a lot. I call it “Thiellian inversion.” He takes something and does the reverse of it. So it’s strange that he’s talking about the Antichrist because he’s, like, a terrible spokesman for Christianity. But I think the other thing he’s doing that relates to what we just talked about with the TESCREAL bundle is Thiel is trying to put a Christian mask on these TESCREAL ideas. And I think he’s trying to hush the louder voices in the TESCREAL movement and encourage them to adopt a Christian pose because that’s essential to this alliance they’ve made with the Republican right and the evangelical base of Trump’s MAGA fascist movement, which is so important because there’s a tension where the evangelicals in Trump’s base are very suspicious of the tech guys and understand that they’re a bunch of godless weirdo heathens.

And so, there’s been this news recently where, oh, there’s this Christian revival in Silicon Valley and it’s led by none other than Peter Thiel, where they’re having these meetings to talk about how basically, I don’t know, Christ would be a VC [venture capitalist] if he returned to earth. It’s total bullshit, but I think it’s got multi-layers. One is Thiel confessing his worldview that we’re in an existential crisis and everyone he doesn’t like is the Antichrist. The other is that, “hey, guys, let’s act like we’re Christians and speak in Christian terms while essentially pursuing acceleration TESCREAL goals.” And if you look at the TESCREAL bundle of beliefs, what are they promising through AI? They’re promising salvation, the creation of God, eternal life, escape from earth, transcendence into the heavens, the stars, multiplanetary life, paradise, an abundance that comes after we overcome our enemies and achieve the new paradisical realm that will be created by AI.

Their ideas literally map directly onto Christianity in this perverse anti-human way, which some might say is very much like what the Antichrist would do. Now, I don’t believe in the Antichrist. I’m not a Bible-thumping Christian. I was raised in Catholicism, but I don’t obsess over these ideas. I don’t go to church. But the very idea that Peter Thiel’s talking about the Antichrist so much is in itself a signal of the kind of emergency that we’re in. And I believe that it’s an example of this billionaire psychosis that gets created when people have too much money, too much power, and no one around them to tell them to sit down and shut up and stop sounding weird. So it’s a saving grace that he’s sounding an alarm. Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist. We should be very afraid given his proximity to power and the number of people he influences directly.

Kelly Hayes: That quote about him being religious but not spiritual was one of my favorites in the book because it is so sitcom-silly. It sounds like something a character on Parks and Rec would say. But it also feels revealing, because what seems useful to these guys about religion isn’t necessarily faith. It’s authority. It’s hierarchy. It’s having a set of simple ideas that people are supposed to defer to. That way, nothing is interrogated.

I’m thinking about Elon Musk calling himself a “cultural Christian” and making these very utilitarian comments about Christianity — maybe religion is good, maybe it keeps people from being sad. There’s something so instrumental about that. And I think it connects to a much broader hostility toward the Enlightenment and toward critical thought that runs through these politics. Because at the same time that they’re repackaging themselves in this language of faith and tradition, they’re building technologies that encourage us to outsource more and more of our own thinking and judgment. Sam Altman talks about intelligence becoming a utility that people pay for. And I keep thinking about what kind of political subject that vision creates — people who are increasingly de-skilled and dependent on systems controlled by a handful of enormously powerful people.

And while these politics are strategically dehumanizing, toward all of us who aren’t billionaires or major players in the tech world, they’re also really insulting to people of faith, because what we’re talking about is a kind of perverse form of religious cosplay.

Gil Durán: Yeah, it’s weird. It’s really a touchy thing for billionaires to try to claim Christianity. Jesus Christ, who was known for his message of love and peace, one of the only groups he really shat upon was rich people who he said the camel had an easier chance of getting through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven. So it’s very strange and it’s very fraught with danger when billionaires try to embrace Christianity. And that’s what is happening though. This idea that the people who really need Jesus Christ or who are the most important in Christianity are the people in Silicon Valley today. This is something that Peter Thiel says in one of his Antichrist lectures in San Francisco. The people in this room, the people listening to his Antichrist spiel in San Francisco are doing the most important Christian work in the world today, which would be news to the Jesuits out in some poor, starving village full of poverty and misery trying to eke out some kind of salvation for people there.

This is a very arrogant and solipsistic claim to make. But I think one of the strangest things about this whole religious fervor is that JD Vance is pretending to be a Catholic largely because of Peter Thiel. And he has said that it was Thiel’s ideas that inspired his conversion to Catholicism. And similarly, if you look at Vance’s past interviews around the Hillbilly Elegy time, he described religion as a cultural tchotchke where he grew up. He was raised in a culture of Protestant evangelism, but he’s described it as something where you didn’t really have it. You didn’t go to church. It’s just that what’s part of your identity. Obviously, you believe in Jesus and there’s a picture on the wall. And he later becomes an atheist before converting to Catholicism at the age of 35. Apparently, he did that mostly in order to argue against the authority of the Pope, which he has infamously done for the past few years.

But you see this everywhere you look, this idea that religion has an important role to play in the lives of men who are essentially the opposite of Christianity. And that’s sort of scary because I think one thing Peter Thiel understands is the power of religion and apocalyptic language to motivate people to be a powerful force in politics. And that’s pretty much the same thing Elon Musk is saying. A cultural Christian is what JD Vance is describing as his upbringing, a cultural tchotchke. So they’re not seeding religion. They’re trying to claim religion as their motivation to give them this mask of familiar morality that obscures their true beliefs and their true aims and goals.

Kelly Hayes: Absolutely. And I appreciate you naming JD Vance’s role. I learned new things about Vance reading your book, including how mediocre he really was as a player in the VC world. But the role he now plays as a bridge between the Christian right and the tech right feels really important. Christianity offers these tech agendas a familiar moral language and a kind of traditional posture that can obscure how fringe and radical some of the underlying politics actually are.

And that repackaging makes me think about a broader shift in how Silicon Valley presents itself. A few years ago, I talked with Brian Merchant about the way the industry’s pitch to the public had changed. Tech companies once sold us the idea that technology would create a better world for everyone. Increasingly, billionaires seem to be selling us the idea that we’re already living in a dystopia, and that we should buy up every apocalyptic advantage we can. There’s also this strange tendency to invoke dystopian science fiction almost aspirationally — to take worlds that were imagined as warnings about alienation, social collapse, and technological domination and treat them as models for a future we’re supposed to adapt ourselves to. The pitch is no longer that technology will deliver a better tomorrow. It’s that upheaval is inevitable, their technologies will be at the center of it, and our best hope is to buy in. Is that shift part of what you call “apocalypse capitalism”?

Gil Durán: Most definitely, and they’re overtly selling it now, especially with the rise of AI. One of the major selling points has been that if we don’t invest in these guys so that they can develop this thing the right way, it will destroy us all. We have to align it with human needs. But they’re the only ones saying that, “Oh, this is going to be this supermonster that can kill us.” And if that were the case, why would we leave it to the private sector to develop such a dangerous technology? Would we allow corporations to independently develop big new weapons that could destroy the entire planet? No. So there’s this idea that they’re creating an apocalyptic technology that’s going to change everything and be the last invention. And fortunately for us, they’ve gone around saying that, which has created this popular rejection of AI and data centers and billionaires. So I definitely think that that’s a part of it.

The other part of it, I think, and Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor call it “end times fascism,” is this merger with the apocalyptic politics of MAGA, which also have a religious framework in which Trump is this figure sent from God as an instrument of vengeance and power to achieve some sort of return of Jesus through the coming of the apocalypse, the wars in Israel, et cetera. There’s a real crazy apocalyptic belief at the core of the MAGA movement as well. And it’s completely delusional and deranged. How could anyone see Trump as an expression or an ally of Jesus Christ? I mean, he literally posted a photo of himself as Jesus Christ and has multiple times compared himself to Christ with him being more favorable and better than Jesus Christ. This is not something that a real Christian, a real believer in Christianity would ever do.

So I think there’s that melding as well that makes it a fascist movement. On one basic level, the tech billionaires are fascist because they have aligned with the fascist movement. And at the core of that is this movement that melds government power with corporate power with religious power into one unified monopolistic authoritarian entity. And so, that religious element is very important because it’s totalizing. It’s all of your life. It’s not just your money or your political beliefs. It’s your moral and spiritual belief system. And so, that’s where the apocalypse capitalism gets a bit even more dangerous is because the tech fascists have become a parasite on the MAGA movement. They’re sucking its power in order to achieve their goals. Now, if you look deeper into what these guys say, they don’t really have respect for your average red hat Trump voter.

Those people are just temporary allies who help to fuel their own designs for power under a president who is raking in crypto corruption, creating a tower of political corruption so unprecedented and massive that it’s even hard to explain with words. So yeah, apocalypse capitalism. Yeah, I think we’ve seen it more fully develop in the past couple of years, especially under the return to Trump, the fact that we’re now speaking about this demonic communist threat. And when Charlie Kirk was shot, for a day or two on X, there was this trending idea that this was the work of demonic forces and we have to rise up against these demons who are basically Democrats and liberals. And so, you see this bubbling up, this idea that, again, we’re in this existential battle and we’re coming to the final moment here where we’re going to know the future. It’s going to be decided in some kind of terrible, violent upheaval where the world is completely different after that, whether we have democracy or where we don’t have democracy. And we’re still very much in the middle of this struggle.

Kelly Hayes: And these anti-democratic elites also have a vision for what comes next as democracy is demolished. What is the network state, and why do you see it as such an important part of the tech elites’ long-term political vision?

Gil Durán: The network state is this cult ideology which argues that democracy should be replaced by corporate-run tech city states, essentially, new startup nations that will replace existing nations and therefore replace democracy, for the most part. And the network state is important because even though it sounds like a fringe kooky thing… There was a book written by a guy named Balaji Srinivasan in 2022 called The Network State: How to Start a New Country, and you can read it for free online. You can find it with any search engine. And there’s a one-sentence version, a one-paragraph version, a one-page version, and then a 400-page version of this idea that the United States is collapsing and it’s going to be replaced by these new corporate-run fiefdoms, essentially, these corporate-run territories. And as crazy as that sounds, you got to keep in mind that Balaji Srinivasan is, of course, a protege of Peter Thiel.

And there’s a company called Pronomos Capital, a venture capital company that is brought into existence to fund these projects all over the world. In addition, we’re already seeing this idea being tried in Honduras where there’s a tech-funded wannabe city territory called Prospera. And Trump, in his 2024 campaign plan, called for the creation of 10 new Freedom Cities in the United States. There’s talk of building one of these cities in Greenland. That’s been part of Trump’s whole argument for stealing Greenland. You’ve got these tech guys pushing to build a new tech dystopia network state city there. And there’s even a proposal to build a new network state freedom city on the ruins of Gaza. I mean, the Wall Street Journal wrote about this. And it’s like Jared Kushner’s involved, and Trump tweeted out an AI-created video that showed a Trump hotel and casino on the beach at Gaza with money raining from the sky and Elon Musk sunning himself.

So somehow this idea of creating these new billionaire-owned private territories has gone from being this weird niche cult in Silicon Valley with a self-published book that’s free online to becoming something that the Trump administration, at least on a superficial level, has been pushing as potential policy. Now, Trump hasn’t really mentioned the Freedom Cities in a while. There’s been a lobbying effort that Wired wrote about in Washington to get these things enabled. Kind of hard to do. But what’s interesting to me is that while Trump has called for these Freedom Cities and there’s a whole billionaire-funded lobbying effort to create them, the media has mentioned this idea a couple of times, but no one has explained what these things are, why we need them, or where the idea comes from. And I feel like if Kamala Harris had become president, The New York Times would do a full investigation of what the hell’s a Freedom City and does it come from this weird ass book written by a Peter Thiel protege. But instead, we have this weird silence around this idea.

And I think another key to understanding the Freedom City is that, as I write in the book, Balaji Srinivasan didn’t come up with the idea of the network state on his own. He got it from Curtis Yarvin who wrote a long essay in the 2000s called “Patchwork” in which he proposed a future in which the United States would be dissolved. And instead, we would have the rise of these corporate-run autocracies. And he used as an example, something he called Frisk Corp, a future San Francisco where there would be absolute total surveillance by an authoritarian corporate government that would be so powerful that it even had the power to execute its citizens for no reason and no cause. And he suggested that in this future Frisk Corp, unproductive people could be turned into biodiesel to fuel the city’s Muni buses.

But he said, “Oh, well, I’m just kidding. Instead we need to have a humane alternative to genocide,” and then suggested that we lock unproductive people, meaning the poor, into these individual cells where they would spend their whole lives in these basic virtual reality prisons and not be on the street. And that’s horrifying for many reasons, especially since it would be much cheaper to give them housing and health care and food instead of locking them in virtual reality prisons, which sounds pretty expensive. But this idea of creating these new patchworks comes from Yarvin. And what Balaji Srinivasan does in The Network State is strip out all of Yarvin’s crazy genocidal ideas and try to present the idea as this startup-friendly concept that now has a venture capital fund (Balaji Srinivasan is an advisor to Pronomos Capital) that is trying to build these things all over the world.

So it’s this dystopian idea from science fiction. A lot of people bring up Neal Stephenson. Quinn Slobodian, who’s a Boston University historian, wrote a whole book called Crack-Up Capitalism about the long history of the dream of building these new territories where the usual rules don’t apply to some wealthy group of capitalists. You could trace it back to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged where these wealthy industrialists hide out in their little private zone and wait for the world to fall apart. It’s basically a vision in which democracy no longer exists, and the wealthy are now the monarchs and the dictators of the world.

Kelly Hayes: Trump went from calling Bitcoin “a scam” to becoming deeply financially entangled with crypto as he returned to the White House. You write that crypto’s real political innovation turned out to be its ability to capture government through money and corruption. How important has crypto been to the tech right’s seizure of political power?

Gil Durán: Crypto was long envisioned as a way that anarcho-capitalists would be able to escape government authority and move around the world without being under government surveillance. It was seen as this liberatory tool that would be against government power, that would undermine government power. What has actually happened now is quite different. Crypto has become a major force in seizing government power and putting government in the hands of crypto billionaires. Donald Trump spent years deriding crypto as a scam and as a ripoff and as something that wasn’t even real money. And on the day he returned to the White House in 2025, Donald Trump became a crypto billionaire and subsequently became the crypto bro-in-chief, the main evangelist for crypto in the entire world. And it turns out that crypto is not an anti-government tool. Crypto is a tool for seizing government power because we have a system where you can buy government power.

And crypto, which wasn’t even a player in politics 10 years ago, is now suddenly in the last five years, the top monied force in American politics. Hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into our elections to take out politicians who are unfriendly to crypto and to install politicians who are basically owned by the crypto industry. It’s grown so enormously fast that it’s terrifying when you look at a chart, and it’s bigger than all of the other industries who have played in this game. And now, AI is following the crypto playbook of flooding their money into our political system. And I call crypto a weapon of mass corruption because that’s what’s happening. I mean, the Trump family has gained billions of dollars in wealth via crypto in the last two years openly, transparently. This is written about in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, you name it.

People are buying Trump’s crypto in order to curry favor with him. They’re losing their money through this mechanism. So crypto is just a form of political corruption. They finally found a use case besides terrorism, drugs, human trafficking, and gambling. It’s political corruption. And so, this, again, is delivering on one of the prophecies of The Sovereign Individual that crypto would be a massive tool for undermining government. And look at what they’ve been able to achieve so far. “DOGE,” even though it, at least in its first incarnation, didn’t last very long, has caused tremendous damage to the American government and to the country’s standing in the world. Millions of people are predicted to die in poor countries because of the cuts to USAID. And in my book, I call that a “Silicon Valley genocide.” The richest people in the world delivering a targeted hit to the poorest people in the world, causing massive amounts of unnecessary preventable deaths.

And it didn’t even save money, by the way. DOGE cost money. It added to the deficit. And the most chilling thing about DOGE, and this was written about actually in the Washington Post surprisingly and even in The New York Times, is that that idea was first written up by Curtis Yarvin in his blog in the 2000s where he said that a future president acting like a dictator should install a CEO and purge the federal government of federal employees and cut international aid programs and completely disrupt America’s diplomatic standing around the world. And he called this idea “RAGE,” retire all government employees, and this eventually becomes DOGE.

And what’s even more scary about this is that in 2021 when he was running for Senate, JD Vance gave an interview in which he quoted Yarvin’s idea specifically for purging the federal government. And Vance predicted that in 2024, that Trump would return to power and that he should do all of the things he is currently doing. And what we didn’t know at the time was that JD Vance would also be the vice president to Donald Trump, a man he once referred to as an “opioid of the masses,” as “cultural heroin,” and as “America’s Hitler.” But that’s the power of billionaire money and Peter Thiel, and that’s the corrupting power of crypto.

Kelly Hayes: The book also shows that these tech projects can be surprisingly vulnerable. You describe how, in Solano County, California, a group of tech billionaires spent nearly a billion dollars buying land for a planned new city, only to run into overwhelming local opposition and abandon their ballot measure. What does that fight tell us about the limits of billionaire power? And where else do you see vulnerabilities that organized people can exploit?

Gil Durán: Unfortunately, the California Forever story is not over. Now, the billionaires are going directly to Governor Gavin Newsom to try to get a state law to impose their city on the people of Solano County. They couldn’t win a ballot measure. They needed a ballot measure with the majority of people voting to create this new city on land that they had secretly bought up for five years. And 70 percent of the voters in the polls were opposed to this idea, including large amounts of Republicans. In fact, I think Republican voters were even more opposed to the tech billionaire city than the Democratic voters, but independents were also against it. So they abandoned the ballot measure. But it was clear early on that they weren’t done because they had hired up a lot of Newsom’s political advisors as their consultants. And lo and behold, they are now working to get last minute legislation passed this month in secrecy that would basically exempt their city from laws and allow them to build it there.

So we’re going to see what Newsom does on that. His Office of Economic Development put out a memo supporting the project, which pretty much means that Newsom supports the project. And the main lobbyist California Forever has hired is a guy named Jason Kinney, who’s a close friend of Gavin Newsom, Gavin Newsom’s favorite lobbyist. In fact, when Newsom got in trouble a few years ago for having that fancy dinner at The French Laundry during the pandemic lockdowns, it was Jason Kinney’s birthday party, the lobbyist’s birthday party. So California Forever is playing the Sacramento game now of hiring up people and trying to get the bill through. At the same time, everywhere these people go, they’re hated. Whether it’s trying to build a tech billionaire city and getting rejected by Republicans and Democrats alike or trying to put these data centers everywhere, people are pushing back, and that’s something that gives me hope.

People are also organizing against Flock. There’s the Purge Palantir campaign, which is getting lots of attention and helping make people aware of the degree to which Palantir is burrowing into every aspect of our government and needs to be rejected. I think there’s been a lack of focus on it from establishment politicians and from the establishment media. So the word is not getting out there as much as it should, but I think people are primed to organize against billionaire power. They’re already doing it. What we need is it to get loud enough so that even the mainstream politicians like Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla are out there talking about pushing back directly on billionaire power. There’s this weird silence coming out of the establishment, which is readily criticizing Donald Trump, who’s this doddering, old, crypto corrupt fool, but they’re very hesitant to say anything directly about the billionaires of Silicon Valley.

A lot of this stuff is coming out of California, and it’s strange the degree to which Gavin Newsom and none of our top elected officials will name that. That’s somewhere they could be effective actually, naming and shaming and pushing back on these billionaires behind Trump who live in our state, but they won’t do it. Why? Because they either are afraid of the billionaire money coming after them, or worse, they want the billionaire money funding their future campaigns. So I think we’re still on the fence in terms of how this ends up, but there are promising signs because people who aren’t even normally activists are organizing against billionaire power as it manifests in their communities via data centers. In fact, I was really heartened recently. A relative of mine who has never shown any interest in politics posting and urging her friends on Instagram to come to this data center protest in our hometown. And I thought, “Wow, even they’re getting engaged in this stuff now.” That’s how much the anti-data center movement has penetrated.

But I think what we need to help the public understand is that it’s not just the data centers that are invading our lives and our communities. It’s the crypto corruption. It’s the tech fascism on even the much higher level that has captured Washington, D.C. and is currently wielding a tremendous and dangerous amount of power in our system.

Kelly Hayes: I really appreciate that point, and I appreciate the point you make in the book that this threat extends so far beyond Trump. These forces are so deeply enmeshed with this administration that I think it can be easy to understand them as simply part of the Trumpian threat we’re up against right now. But even if Trump were removed from the equation, we’d still be contending with billionaire power, the tech right, and these anti-democratic projects. And the Democratic Party does not exist in opposition to those forces. So if we want anyone to actually constrain this power, we’re going to have to build a hell of a lot more political momentum around doing that.

Given that our audience is largely composed of activists and organizers, I’ve been thinking a lot about how people can talk about these issues in their own communities. When Émile Torres and I discussed TESCREAL a few years ago, part of the difficulty was simply explaining why these bizarre, cultish ideas were actually important and threatening. Now we’re in a different moment. People are organizing against data centers. Workers are pushing back against AI. Communities are confronting surveillance technologies and seeing how these systems affect their lives in really material ways. Those struggles give people something concrete to organize around.

But we’ve also been talking today about the larger political project behind some of this — the corruption, the cultish ideologies, the attack on democracy, the aspiration to replace liberal democracy with corporate dictatorships. Given your background in both politics and journalism, how do you think people should talk about those larger projects in their communities? What language or framing helps people understand what they’re actually up against?

Gil Durán: This is a battle of billionaires versus freedom. It’s a fight to defend ourselves against an unprecedented existential threat. We can have billionaires or we can have democracy. We cannot have both. And ours is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And right now, we have a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires. And that’s not all Donald Trump’s fault, by the way. The Democrats were doing this, too. The billionaires just acted a little more normal and polite when the Democrats were in power. But if we do not crush billionaire power in our time, the billionaires are going to crush us.

And right now, we have a situation where a lot of people are living in fear as the richest people in the world ally with Donald Trump to destroy the country and to terrorize the population. We’ve got masked goons with guns roaming around kidnapping people in the streets. And in a democracy, the people should not be afraid of the billionaires. The billionaires should be afraid of the people. So I think a message people understand, and you can see it in the polls, is that this is about the role of the billionaires in our lives. This is about whether we’re going to have… We cannot have a democracy if we continue to escalate and accelerate this massive inequality, and that’s exactly what AI and crypto are doing right now. In fact, I would say that’s what they are designed to do. And now, they have become completely enmeshed in our government, and our government power is being used to increase the already amazing and massive power of the wealthiest people in the world.

So I would say you have to name the enemy. You have to name the person who is doing this. The power that is most responsible for what is happening to us today. And Donald Trump’s an 80-something-year-old man. He won’t be around for long. But this is not really about Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a heat shield for these guys. Donald Trump is just the figurehead of what is actually a regime, and it’s a regime of billionaires, and it’s us or them. And there are only about 1,000 billionaires in the United States and 3,000 in the whole world. There are 8.3 billion people. We’ve got the numbers. And I’d say once we fully wake up to the threat that the billionaires pose to human life in general, not to mention jobs, the economy, our futures, the billionaires will be running for cover.

That’s why they’re building all these bunkers, by the way. The people promising to create abundance are also building bunkers and buying islands to hide out. What’s that all about? Well, that’s what they really think is going to happen in the future. And so, I think we need to start talking about billionaire accountability. And I think it’s important to do that because right now, they feel like they can do anything, and we need to make them aware that there’s a good chance of consequences in the future, and that consequences for billionaires will be a popular issue to run on in the next few years.

Kelly Hayes: I certainly hope so. Well, as we wind things down is there anything else you would like to share with or ask of the audience today?

Gil Durán: I’d say stay hopeful and stay positive. They haven’t won yet, and they haven’t thought of everything. They aren’t expecting the degree of pushback they’re going to get. And so, fascism thrives on fear, on making people afraid to speak out or to imagine a better future. And right now, the billionaires are monopolizing our visions of the future. And if they can imagine a world without us, we can imagine a world without them.

Kelly Hayes: Well, thank you so much for those insights. I’m really grateful for this conversation and I hope everyone will check out Gil’s book, The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy. You can also hear more from Gil by checking out his newsletter, The Nerd Reich, which you can find at thenerdreich.com. Gil Durán, thanks for your work and thanks so much for joining me today.

Gil Durán: Thanks for having me.

Kelly Hayes: I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today. And remember, our best defense against cynicism is to do good and to remember that the good we do matters. Until next time, I’ll see you in the streets.

Show Notes


End Times Fascism and the Fight for the Living World by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Kelly Hayes
Kelly Hayes is a Menominee author, organizer, movement educator and photographer. She is the host of Truthout‘s podcast Movement Memos, and the creator of Organizing My Thoughts, a weekly newsletter about politics and justice work. She is co-author of the book Let This Radicalize You, with Mariame Kaba, and editor of the upcoming book, Read This When Things Fall Apart: Letters to Activists in Crisis. Kelly’s written work can also be found in Teen Vogue, The Huffington Post, Yes! Magazine, Pacific Standard, The Appeal and numerous anthologies. Her movement photography is featured in the “Freedom and Resistance” exhibit of the DuSable Museum of African American History.

Friday, August 21, 2026

Modern counter-revolution and fascism

Monday 17 August 2026, by Norbert Holcblat




We know the first words of the Communist Manifesto: “A spectre is haunting Europe”. Today, two “spectres” with a material reality seem to haunt the capitalist world and weigh on the destinies of humanity: Donald Trump and artificial intelligence (AI). How do they fit together? What world are they likely to lead us to?

There are many terms to describe the period we are going through. In a recent text, historian Quin Slobodian and writer Ben Tarnoff list many of them: “A range of competing visions and frameworks have been proposed. We have heard of state capitalism, disaster capitalism, platform capitalism, chokepoint capitalism, vulture capitalism, spiderweb capitalism, archipelago capitalism, asset manager capitalism, surveillance capitalism, and even crack-up capitalism. Theorists have suggested that we live in an age of neofeudalism, techno-feudalism, techno-libertarianism, techno-authoritarianism, techno-populism, techno-fascism, end times fascism, neofascism, neoliberal fascism, post-neoliberalism, paleo-populism, neopatrimonialism, hyperpolitics, and geoeconomics.” [1] For their part, these two authors propose “Muskism” (which would merit discussion).

The number of these terms perhaps reflects a form of dismay in the face of something whose trajectory is poorly perceived, and each of them undoubtedly has its share of truth, but often emphasizes a particular aspect. It seems preferable to focus on the substance and dynamics of current processes beyond their particular features. The expression used by the American jurist and philosopher Bernard E. Harcourt to characterize Donald Trump’s presidency, a “modern counter-revolution”, seems the most appropriate for this objective. [2]

A counter-revolution is indeed on the agenda, not only in the United States but to varying degrees in a large part of the planet. It is characterized by the obsession with erasing all or part of the social and ideological gains of the post-World War II period to the 1980s, as well as the emancipatory aspirations that persist. And some do not hesitate to wave the banner. Pro-Trump activist Christopher Rufo told the New York Times in April 2025: “What we’re doing is really a counter revolution. It’s a revolution against revolution.” (quoted by Bernard E. Harcourt). At the gigantic far-right demonstration on 13 September 2025 in London, Tommy Robinson, its main organizer, also declared: “We are the counter-revolution.” [3] In another and older register, this proclamation by the libertarian Murray Rothbard in 1992: “We shall break the clock of social democracy. We shall break the clock of the Great Society. We shall break the clock of the welfare state. We shall break the clock of the New Deal. We shall break the clock of Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom and perpetual war. We shall repeal the 20th century.” [4] It is noteworthy that Argentine President Javier Milei has named one of his three dogs after Rothbard (all named after neoliberal economists whom he considers to be inspirations).

In France, in the same vein, in 2007 we had the declaration of an employers’ leader: “Today it is a question of getting out of 1945, and methodically undoing the program of the National Council of the Resistance!” [5] These references, and others would be possible, justify Bernard E. Harcourt’s assessment: “President Trump’s actions during the first hundred days of his second mandate are the latest episode in a vast and coherent modern counterrevolution with a longer historical arc and a broader global reach.” For Harcourt, this counter-revolution has been underway in the United States for several decades, particularly since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Counter-revolution? Of course, there is no revolutionary danger for the propertied today (at least in the states of the “North”), contrary to the context of the great reactionary wave which, from 1918 to the 1940s, swept through Hungary, Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Romania, among others. then Austria and Germany again, then Spain and finally France thanks to the defeat of 1940 (even if, from the beginning of the 1920s, the revolutionary upsurge following the Russian Revolution weakened). A wave that gave birth to reactionary and dictatorial regimes, but each with its own characteristics, particularly in the modalities of accession to power, the institutions and the balance between references to tradition (and compromise with the former political personnel) and the rags of rupture, or even of “revolution” (one of the last avatars being the “National Revolution” proclaimed by the Pétain regime). Despite their diversity, these regimes could all be described as fascist at the time (even if, more recently, historians insist on their differences). In the 1970s, the military dictatorships of Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay were often denounced as fascist, above all because of their repressive character, while the characterization of the Greek dictatorship (1967-1974) has been the subject of debate.

Today, it is true that components of the MAGA current in the United States (Christopher Ruffo, Steve Bannon, Elon Musk in his own way...) and the European far right consider the evolution of the family, the legalization of abortion, the rights of LGTBI, immigration and the mixing of populations, ... not as societal transformations or the fruit of struggles between social sectors, but as the result of a revolutionary conspiracy of the “wokeists” and the conspirators of the “great replacement”. A conspiracy, in the face of which it would be urgent to react to the risk of definitive alteration of “white and Western civilization”. Even if this is not the dominant analysis in the circles of the various powers, these fantasies can be more or less taken up and instrumentalized by various political currents to broaden their base in order to serve their counter-revolutionary aim because, if the revolution is not a near horizon, the counter-revolution does not need to wait for an imminent revolution; it can act preventively, by cancelling past gains and repressing resistance, as Richard Donnely observes in the above-mentioned text on Tommy Robinson. Especially in a context of systemic crisis such as the one capitalism is going through. It should be noted, however, that as far as the “South” is concerned, things must be nuanced: from the “Arab revolutions” to the recent movements in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Madagascar... Popular insurrections have indeed overthrown governments but have not, to date, been able to put in place alternatives to the ruling classes that have retained their hegemony through the military or the new powers that have emerged from “civil society”. In some of these countries, however, the revolutionary cloud continues to be fraught with threats and, for example, in Egypt, Field Marshal al-Sisi is certainly aware of this.

The Russian sociologist and activist Ilya Budraitskis, for his part, distinguishes between counter-revolution and what he calls “anti-revolution”: “Anti-revolution tries to prevent an imaginary revolution [...] This imaginary revolution that is looming has no obvious roots in society and does not have an apparent political subject with a strong will [...]. But this imaginary revolution leads a full-fledged existence in the consciousness of the leaders of the state. And it has been described by experts in dozens of documents”. [6] If we transpose this analysis outside Russia, we find, in France for example, that leaders and their media as well as certain intellectuals denounce day after day spectres that are supposed to endanger all social life: “wokeism”, “Islamic separatism”, the “savagery” of young people in the urban peripheries and so on. The police forces, not only constantly monitor these phenomena and individuals potentially considered “suspects”, but are preparing to repress all “excesses”". Like some of the MAGA themes mentioned above, all of this is largely part of the “imaginary revolution”. Budraitskis’ problematic has foundations and explains why the “anti-revolution” can be more progressive than the counter-revolutions we have known. However, it seems preferable to stick to the term counter-revolution, which has more historical and political resonances.

So counter-revolution, but modern counter-revolution that uses all the new technologies to build a despotic world with regard not only to bourgeois liberal democracy but to the process of production and work, as Juan Carbonell described it with regard to AI. [7] Marx applied the term “despotic” both to the process of production (“factory despotism”) and to certain states such as the Bismarckian German Empire. We can therefore think that to characterize the modern counter-revolution in its different dimensions, the expression “techno-despotism" would perhaps be the most appropriate.

Everywhere, we can see to varying degrees a shrinking of traditional bourgeois liberal democracy, a rise in police repression and surveillance techniques as well as militarization, attacks on social gains, increasingly exacerbated racism, identity and nationalist discourses. To borrow an expression from Claude Serfati about France, states are “becoming radicalized”. [8] And this is the case in Europe, including when “centrists” and social democrats are in power. In some countries (Poland, the United States and so on), there is a proliferation of discourses, pressures, and even legal decisions calling into question the right to abortion.

These elements are combined with the characteristics of the economic regime: the deployment of new technologies, the appearance of giant firms interpenetrated with the state and whose position of strength allows them to collect rents, the decline of trade union movements, the explosion of inequalities and so on. Relativization, ignorance (or even open denial for Javier Milei and Donald Trump) of ecological perils, of their increasingly immediate implications for humanity and of the urgency to act. But also the unprecedented deployment of the empire of the commodity with a race for innovations that allows firms to counteract the downward pressure on the rate of profit, innovations that citizens must swallow not only in a spirit of imitation but because they become indispensable to daily life (in synergy with the policies of states to destroy local public services).

Finally, contrary to the “democratic” discourse in vogue in the European Union, the counter-revolution has an essential social dimension. The so-called “illiberal” regimes carry out neo-liberal reforms – of the same ilk as those in “democratic” countries – such as the reform of working hours in Hungary, the postponement of the retirement age in Russia, the relaxation of employment legislation in Turkey and so on.

Several questions are being asked today: What are the driving forces of the counter-revolution? How does it relate to the economic situation? Is this counter-revolution fascist? And of course, how to deal with it, but that is not the subject of this contribution.

1. The driving forces

Until relatively recently, the responsibility for authoritarian tendencies and pressures was attributed, by most of the press and a good number of political scientists, to far-right forces “outside the system”, often described as “populist”, a convenient term to put them on the same level as more or less radical left-wing forces, also qualified as populist. These populists rely on the real or perceived resentment of the “people” towards the elites, the establishment as well as their underlying nationalism. In a number of countries (particularly in Europe), the growing interchangeability of political parties and the convergence of their policies offer the far right the opportunity to seduce voters by positioning itself on the margins of the consensus.

There is no doubt that there exists in various popular categories what Trotsky described as “counter-revolutionary despair”, reinforced in today’s world by the retreat of collective organization that favours the atomization of individuals and/or their withdrawal into reactionary identities (racial, religious or other). Or to put it another way, “the far right is winning the battle for leadership from frustration to reactionary radicalization”. [9]. Especially since it knows how to make effective use of the internet and social networks. But would pressure from below and from “non-system” groups sum up the current evolution?

In a book on Brexit published in 2021, two French sociologists challenged the current interpretation of the result, which sees it as the result of the divide between the winners and losers of globalisation. They show how important capitalist sectors, in fact a part of finance: investment funds and hedge funds, financed the Leave campaign. Their conclusion is clear: if a large fraction of the popular classes was opposed to the European Union (EU), the financing of Leave shows, according to them, that “the winners from globalisation did not lose to its losers, it was the winners who did not agree with each other”. [10] They explain their approach as follows: “... a critical part of the social sciences has analysed Brexit and the election of Trump from the perspective of the social geography of the vote and the resentment of the white middle and popular classes from deindustrialised, discriminated against and relegated sectors, against urban elites, winners from globalisation, often connected to each other on a regional or global scale. We do not oppose these analyses, but we must not only understand these two historical events, Brexit and the election of Trump, from the perspective of the voters’ reasons for acting. […] We thought we had to go and see what was happening on the side of the dominant, to understand what their interests were, in the case of Brexit, as in the election of Trump. [11] The “second finance” saw European regulations as an obstacle to their free activity and its actors were in favour of an authoritarian libertarianism. The trend is the end of neoliberalism. Some of the researchers’ conclusions (which Marlène Benquet developed in a more recent book, La finance aux extremes, 2026) are debatable both on the two poles of financialization and on the end of neoliberalism, but their work has had the merit of showing that political developments are not only the product of the manipulation of crowds by demagogues but the conscious choice of fractions of capital.

Their approach has been taken up by some analysts of Trumpism, see in particular “The Capitalist Interests Behind Donald Trump”, Vladimir Bortun, Jacobin, 24/02/202614. He points out that while it may very well be that Trump is only there for his personal enrichment and that of his family, Trumpism encompasses a coalition of capitalist fractions as well as fractions from the subordinate classes.

Various economic sectors thus appear to be increasingly favourable to powers that do not claim to regulate them and increase their tax rates, even if they are nationalist and authoritarian: the most speculative finance, the fossil fuel industries, the arms and surveillance sectors and, finally, the large groups of new technologies. Other sectors, sensing the wind, are ready to accommodate reactionary discourse, the prospect of systematically anti-union policies (whereas in Europe the unions often functioned as “partners” in the system of industrial relations), or even breaches of current democracy with its limits. The Medef (the main French employers’ organization) has significantly decided to invite Javier Miliei to its annual meeting (he finally declined the invitation). In the United States, Elon Musk or Peter Thiel (Palantir, he recently established himself in Milei’s Argentina) do not hide their reactionary and authoritarian activism. In India, Narendra Modi is supported by the main capitalist sectors.

States and elements of the ruling classes are therefore the main actors in the current processes. As for states, they can be active actors while sometimes distancing themselves from far-right currents, such as Emmanuel Macron proclaiming himself “progressive”.

Various arguments are used by states to justify the race towards authoritarianism, surveillance of populations and militarization: the terrorist danger, the disruptions created by strikes and demonstrations, the alleged invasion of migrants (although the “great replacement” and “remigration” still remain appendages of the extreme right, even if this theme permeates more widely), drug trafficking, petty crime, and, in Europe, Russian activities. Laws and regulations are piling up year after year. The French government has just added a new mechanism to the already extensive panoply of exceptional regimes with the “state of national security alert” which could be decreed for two months, before going before Parliament.

Donald Trump’s second election and his behaviour undeniably represent a factor of acceleration. Especially since he is returning to power with elements of a program and teams not linked to the Republican Party leaders. But everywhere, the political right is “moving rightwards” (Trump’s stranglehold on the Republican Party with the reining in of critics is an illustration of this) and the extreme right, yesterday marginalized, are increasingly frequented by the dominant circles of capital. All the more so since, in Europe, those of these forces that are in a position to come to power have given pledges on two subjects: the European Union (EU) and support for Israel (the denunciation of this country’s policy being now assimilated to anti-Semitism, supporting it becomes proof of non-anti-Semitism). In Italy, the Meloni government reconciles authoritarianism (with the adoption of several “packages” of security measures) and a neoliberal economic line.

However, even in the states most advanced on the path of counter-revolution, the political leaders are still subject to the electoral process (except in China, which does not fall under this type of analysis) - the defeat of Viktor Orban in the Hungarian parliamentary elections has shown this. In 2020, two American political scientists defined this type of regime by the term “competitive authoritarianism”. [12] In such a system, a party comes to power through a more or less democratic electoral route and then erodes the system of checks and balances. The executive fills the civil service and key appointments – including the judiciary – with loyalists. The media, academia and non-governmental organisations are then attacked to reduce public criticism and influence voters in favour of the ruling party. The rights of the opposition parties and those of citizens are being eroded. This type of regime, which tends to spread, persists in part because a truncated and manipulated form of multiparty system can be more manageable internally and more “presentable” internationally than a one-party system. But competitive authoritarianism can have several degrees: if Viktor Orban lost the elections, it is almost unimaginable that this would be the case for Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan is currently doing everything to avoid it.

A case of reduced rights that is now extreme must be mentioned: that of states whose institutions are considered democratic by the mainstream but where some inhabitants are reduced to the status of second-class citizens. This is the case of Narendra Modi’s India for Muslims and Christians, who are considered to be less legitimate peoples than Hindus. With the support or at least the tolerance of the authorities and the police, they are the object of permanent suspicion and violence. To characterize this situation, the researcher Christophe Jaffrelot uses the expression “ethnic democracy”. This qualification has long been used for Israel: non-Jews (mainly Palestinian Arabs) have, de facto and partially, been deprived of rights and, since 1948, have been considered less legitimate and discriminated against. This situation was proclaimed by the law of July 19, 2018: “The State of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, which exercises its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination. The realization of this right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is reserved for the Jewish people alone.” In the occupied territories, discrimination and oppression are even more obvious. Beyond these two emblematic and modern cases, other states, to varying degrees, discriminate against sections of their population.

All in all, even in states commonly described as “democratic”, the slope towards authoritarianism exists. Executives are increasingly resorting to clientelism, directly politicizing the civil service, strengthening the forces of “order”, reducing the rights of demonstration and spaces for protest as well as academic freedoms, stirring up racism while the freedom of the media tends to be eroded according to the goodwill of the capitalist groups that control them. Moreover, the spectre of war is being raised everywhere, well beyond the real wars (the impact of which is not negligible).

The counter-revolution therefore seems above all to be led by the state apparatuses, in conjunction with an extreme right that is not necessarily directly represented in power. The various states are more or less directly advanced in the process: Britain, for example, is less so than France, itself behind the United States, and especially India, Russia, Turkey or Israel. But in France, the accession to the presidency of the Republic of Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella (Rassemblement national) would greatly accelerate the process towards authoritarianism and the “nationalization” of social rights, especially since the constitution of the Fifth Republic gives the president much more weight than, for example, an Italian head of government such as Giorgia Meloni.

These developments on the states and the insistence on counter-revolution may lead to a debate with analyses centred above all on the far right and neo-fascist forces. We will come back to this.

2. How do the counter-revolution and the economic situation fit together?

In a November 2019 text entitled “The end of neoliberalism and the rebirth of history”, the Nobel Prize in Economics winner Joseph Stiglitz points out that “At the end of the Cold War, the political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote a celebrated essay called ‘The end of history?’. Communism’s collapse, he argued, would clear the last obstacle separating the entire world from its destiny of liberal democracy and market economies. Many people agreed. Today, as we face a retreat from the rules-based, liberal global order, with autocratic rulers and demagogues leading countries that contain well over half the world’s population, Fukuyama’s idea seems quaint and naive.” [13]

The theme of the end of neoliberalism is in vogue, especially in France; the economist and journalist Romaric Godin writes in a recent book: “The neoliberal project was that of a democracy framed by capitalism, accepting the rules deemed necessary for accumulation. […] The crisis of neoliberalism marks the opening of a period of separation for the democracy-capitalism couple.” However, the author is also cautious, explaining that democracy and capitalism are not intrinsically linked and that democracy is only acceptable to capitalism if it maintains the consensus necessary for its functioning. Faced with the crisis of neoliberalism since 2008, “the option that is emerging is that of an authoritarian state that suppresses protests, ensures social stability and protects the interests of capital.” [14] For Godin, the current phase is that of a new state capitalism in which the state, in the service of capital, replaces the market to facilitate accumulation.

It is true that, since the crisis of 2008-2009, capitalism has been increasingly on a drip from states but, even if it does so with a certain caution, the link between neoliberalism and democracy highlighted by Godin is highly debatable. Other authors have a contrary point of view and rely on a multi-decade history. We will cite a work with a clear title: “The Choice of Civil War”. [15] Another history of neoliberalism, the first chapter of which is devoted to Pinochet’s Chile, to the policies praised by Friedrich Hayek, another “Nobel Prize” in economics and inspiration for Margaret Thatcher. The authors review the long history of neoliberal thinkers since the 1930s and the complacency of some (with more or less reservations) towards the fascist regimes of the time. For them, "we are living in the moment when neoliberalism is secreting from within a specific political form that combines anti-democratic authoritarianism, economic nationalism, generalized competitionism and expanded capitalist rationality. This original governmentality fully assumes the absolutist, authoritarian and (if necessary) dictatorial character of neoliberalism without resembling historical fascism.” Two points are important in this analysis: first, the authoritarian turn does not call into question neoliberalism but is part of the continuity; secondly, we find ourselves faced with something other than “historical” fascism (we will come back to this).

Sounding the death knell for neoliberalism seems premature. For the time being, the ruling classes are on the offensive, calling into question more or less head-on, “zone” by “zone”" and state by state, everything that reduces the freedom of capital. One of the first texts enacted by Donald Trump on 20 January 2025 withdrew the United States from the global agreement on minimum taxation of multinationals, which is not very painful for them. Trump is pursuing a destructive action by the supervisory and regulatory authorities; he is also a promoter of cryptocurrencies. In Europe, layoffs are raining down in industry and cuts in public services are increasing, while in many capitals speculation and rising rents are pushing the popular classes out. Admittedly, the policy of states is now more openly introduced into trade and, to a lesser extent, into international investment and even into the encouragement of certain activities (first and foremost in the field of AI), but this does not mean the end of globalization but the struggle of the various imperialisms to set the conditions and/or defend their “share of the pie” in this “capitalism of finitude”. [16] This in a context where the United States wants to maintain its pre-eminence against China. As for new technologies, they lead to renewed forms of interweaving between private activities and the state; as Slobodian and Tarnoff write, far from being libertarian, “a core principle of Muskism is public-private fusion; the use of the state as funder, enabler, and backstop for high-risk, high-reward ventures—what we call state symbiosis. One can see this clearly in SpaceX, Starlink, and Tesla. Musk is a stalwart critic of bureaucracy and certain kinds of regulation but certainly not the state as such. On the contrary, he has consistently instrumentalized the state as a source of power and profit. He does so by promising to help governments fulfil their sovereign functions through reliance on his infrastructures: a dynamic we describe as sovereignty-as-a-service”. [17] The symbiosis of the state and digital firms is reinforced by the military factor: the many examples of collaboration between these firms and the armed forces and police show that “far from techno-libertarian fantasies according to which large technology companies are autonomous from the state, there is a military-digital complex”. [18] Moreover, Palantir, despite Peter Thiel’s libertarian tirades, lives largely in symbiosis with states and their armed and police forces.

3. Can this counter-revolution be described as fascist?

Trump and the various far-right currents present themselves as forces of rupture with respect to the famous Thatcherite acronym TINA (“There is no alternative”): this has a certain echo in a context of rising inequality where “those at the bottom” feel despised while the lefts of capital (Democrats in the United States, Social Democrats in Europe) appear at best to be powerless. at worst as co-responsible for the situation. As it is not a question for the far right nor (of course) for the radicalized traditional right to really attack inequalities and the power of capital, the scarecrow agitated is immigration, Islam, LGBTI... and, in a more disguised way today, an alleged Jewish conspiracy.

Donald Trump, as we have already pointed out, is at the confluence of state radicalization and the rise of neo-fascists. Generally speaking, what can be said of a process in which the evolution of the state and the ruling classes gradually creates the conditions not only for participation in power (this is already the case in many states) but for a takeover of institutions by coalitions of far-right politicians and neo-fascists, probably respecting the dress codes of other politicians (even if less civil groups are crowding behind them)? These coalitions could also be heterogeneous in certain areas (more or less national-social discourse, for example), as were the fascist parties of the first half of the twentieth century.

The various variations of the term "fascism" are at the centre of many analyses that are often interesting but seem on the whole questionable, in our opinion, to describe the modern counter-revolutionary process. Unless fascism is made a timeless concept, like Umberto Eco’s Ur-fascism (eternal fascism). And to forget that this is a political strategy.

As Enzo Traverso (who speaks of “a kind of post-fascism” for the present period) explains, “we are not facing a repetition of history, a return to the past; we are facing new problems and threats, but we only have concepts inherited from the past to analyse and interpret them. This is obviously frustrating: these words do not describe well the uncertainty of our time, which seems to herald a terrible storm.” [19].

Of course, it is not a question of minimizing the risks of the present situation, which can lead to situations as catastrophic as some of the fascisms of the 1930s. The invasion of Ukraine, the genocidal war in Gaza, the proxy wars for resources in eastern DR Congo are examples of this. The rejection or relativization of the impacts of the ongoing ecological catastrophe is another: despite proclamations and international conferences, false solutions and business as usual prevail.

There is a need to understand the ongoing transformations of capitalism and their political, social and ecological impacts, as well as on the fractures within the bourgeoisies. This implies moving away from the debate on “fascism” alone.

There is, however, an argument that can justify, despite its inadequacy and beyond analysis, the use of the term “fascist”": it brings us back to familiar ground and is therefore politically useful and could thus make it possible to mobilize mass resistance. The Brazilian academic Angela de Castro Gomes explains that the word “fascist” (while being intellectually very questionable to characterize various currents or current governments) “is an effective resource to fight against such experiences, insofar as, on the basis of a shared historical memory, it functions very well as a category of accusation”. [20]

As for the international anti-fascist conference held in Porto Alegre from 26 to 29 March 2026, its final declaration states without nuance: “The capitalist-imperialist system is undergoing a profound crisis and a sharp economic, social and moral decline. The response of imperialist powers to this decline has been the promotion of fascism everywhere, the imposition of neoliberal policies, military aggression against weaker nations and their recolonization.” [21]

7 July 2026

Translated by International Viewpoint from A l’encontre.

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

Footnotes

[1] LPE Project, 22 April 2026 “Muskism as Fordism.

[2] Bernard E. Harcourt, The Ideas Letter, 1 May 2025, “A Modern Counterrevolution”.

[3] Richard Donnelly, International Socialism, 31 March 2026 “‘We are the counter-revolution’: Tommy Robinson and the remaking of British fascism”.

[5] Denis Kessler, Le Club de Médiapart, 19 December 2011: “Il s’agit de défaire méthodiquement le programme du CNR”.

[6] Ilya Budraitskis, Dissident among dissidents: Ideology, Politics and the Left in Post-Soviet Russia, Verso 2022. See also his articles “The Extraordinary Adventures of Guy Fawkes” – Journal #65.

[7] Juan Sebastian Carbonell Un taylorisme augmenté. Critique de l’intelligence artificielle, Editions Amsterdam, 2025.

[8] Claude Serfati, L’Etat radicalisé, La Fabrique, 2022.

[10] Marlène Benquet, Théo Bourgeron, La finance autoritaire – Vers la fin du néolibéralisme, Raisons d’agir éditions, 2021, page 54.

[12] Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way, "The New Competitive Authoritarianism", Journal of Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press, January 2020.

[13] Joseph Stiglitz, “The end of neoliberalism and the rebirth of history”, 26 November 2019, Social Europe.

[14] Romaric Godin, [Le problème à trois corps du capitalisme], pages 208-209, La Découverte, 2026.

[15] Pierre Dardot, Haud Guéguen, Christian Laval, Pierre Sauvêtre, Le choix de la guerre civile: Une autre histoire du néolibéralisme, Lux éditeur, 2022.

[16] Arnaud Orain, Le monde confisqué, Editions Flammarion, 2025.

[17] Slobodian & Tarnoff, cited above.

[18] Sebastien Broca, “Les noces de l’IA et de l’Etat”, Le Monde diplomatique, April 2026.

[19] Enzo Traverso, “Fascism: a Theory with a History ”.

[20] Angela de Castro Gomes, Fernando J. Devoto, Politika, 2 October 2019 “Le gouvernement Bolsonaro: ni fascisme ni populisme, autoritarisme radical”.