fascism
Dear friends,
This morning’s headlines included an article titled: “Australia has ‘no alternative’ but to embrace AI and seek to be a world leader in the field, industry and science minister says” [1]. The chief scientist has never been an appointment of visionaries; indeed, the office’s entire raison d’être has been capitalist reproduction, but nationally we’re being guided to skate to where the puck was. Who needs leadership when you have both the chief scientist and the LLM regurgitating an algometric reconfiguration of hegemonic narratives. Is there a thread here?
If we were to embrace, nationally, an agenda which promoted (re)training to better understand and develop applications of artificial ‘intelligence’ we might offer some students an opportunity to become very wealthy. But, by and large, to expect any kind of systematic or publicly beneficial economic growth as a result of Australians taking to the AI “science” space would be lunacy. Though, this is far from new, the chief scientist has always been a mouthpiece for the hegemony: eurocentric, bourgeois, and anti-ecological. We know the dangers of unfettered, unregulated, and ‘wild’ AI [2]. And we know that neoliberal market policies love those very things. So, here, we have a dangerous combination of factors: promotion of engagement with AI, a neoliberal anti-human “market”, and a bourgeois mouthpiece suggesting further engagement with ever more anti-humanist praxes. Let’s backtrack for a second.
Artificial intelligence technologies are not inherently evil, bad, or problematic. However, as we’ve discussed here on mind reader, their application and their use are currently extremely dangerous. From water usage that accelerates us even faster toward ecological collapse, to regurgitation of appropriate knowledges and hegemonic narratives, through the undermining of human artistic talent the current AI technology set does far more harm than good. More recent exposés have shown a decline in worker productivity (if you believe such things) and growing concerns over impaired cognitive functions. Naturally, all of these things could be countered by an ecological-forward ontology: valuing the role of nature, environment, animals and people in ecological harmony. But that’s not the values of the political economy under which we live.
You might see an opportunity here to subvert the hegemonic narrative – in which case, well done. As an educator, these kinds of narratives about what ‘should’ be done have dominated the field in western thought for as long as there was ‘education’ (in a hegemony’s civil society mode). As a supporter of building counter-hegemonies, I might suggest that we use this new narrative to teach young people and students about how LLMs and other AI technologies work – including coverage of the ecological dangers inherent in their current formulation. We might also use this as an opportunity to challenge hegemonic forms, relating with students over sources of training data and asking them to (re)imagine these toward more equitable outputs. But that’s not how this will be done broadly. Indeed, there is unlikely to be any serious education in the AI space done in public education due to the economic landscape which created the current raft of popular technologies.
AI scientists on the ‘bleeding edge’ have, for many decades now, been employed privately, even secretively. Once they ‘make a name for themselves’ (are wealthy, male and somewhere in the ballpark of knowing one or two things) they are paid lucratively, and their outputs are nondisclosure’d and locked up by corporate giants. While arXiv papers [3] from corpos pepper the scene of AI and Data Science, these are frequently a partial picture, describing abstract techniques or ‘proving’ what we already knew about these ‘sciences’ [4]. Of course, there are some who are involved with the development of AI technologies who have left the corporate scene, with an even smaller handful of these committing to public discourse about AI technologies and participation in teaching through higher education institutions (even if such an audience remains an extremely narrow slice of ‘publics’). However, the vast majority of AI technology remains stunningly locked up [5].
Regardless the landscape of current AI technologies, there are growing calls to rethink how AI is currently working [6], and ever more papers about the environmental, social, and human cost of AI. As corporations increasingly dominate narratives about embracing AI futurism, the public (worker) excitement about these technologies dies. This is not subaltern cultural repression directly, rather a hegemonic subsumption of technology and a more public embrace of the despotic “leadership” ever on display under capitalism. Any initial excitement from workers about the possibilities of AI technologies in their personal or work lives has surely been replaced by distain, disinterest or complacency. As more hegemons gesture towards futures of replacing workers with algorithms, worker disinterest or resistance grows. This is an indicator of the trajectory of our culture more broadly, not about the specific technologies used in AI.
What might a future which re-centres ecology and humanism actually look like? If we were to continue honing the underlying technologies such that environmental destruction was not requisite to technological growth we might have a start. Unfortunately, while some AI and Data Scientists work towards this kind of thinking, the majority of the corporate world has jumped on technologies which consume gigalitres of water and hundreds of kilowatts of (unclean) energy daily. The race to embrace AI as a core part of the modern workplace has meant that rather than spending time on perfecting the underlying technology (i.e., the approach to AI, not the models) we have seen exponential growth of hardware (and, therefore, water, power, etc.) requirements. The call from the chief scientist is one to supply corporations and despotic leadership with ever more resource intensive models – not to innovate for the future. Moreover, while some ‘change management’ professionals with an AI focus may be employed, increasingly we are seeing workers literally phased out in favour of quantitatively worse AI deployment.
While it is not uncommon to see neoliberal corporate subservience in STEM areas [7], blatant calls to engage further with skating to where the puck was will only set back our learners and young people – not to mention gut knowledge workers. If we had a vision for the future that demanded ecological and human justice we might find an application of novel forms of AI technologies which are fundamentally different than the current destructive forms. We lack, in this country, a unifying vision for the future. Instead, we’re seeing corporate bootlicking and hegemonic capitulation across every sector.
I’m not particularly interested in detouring through all the evidence of the despotic shift in our governments, governance, corporate arena, and anti-everybody sentiment. But look no further than: Labor’s continuing approval of new coal and gas projects which have impact reports suggesting massive contributions toward >3º warming; or to the stark Trump fascism in California; Greta’s deportation after attempting to bring aid to those being genocidally murdered by Israel in Gaza. I’ve seen bandied about a saying: “if you ever wondered what you would have done during Hitler’s genocide, think about your actions during globally rising fascism and genocides today”. It’s a bleak picture. LLMs have been trained on an ontological corpus which normalises this anti-human and anti-environment sentiment, and all it can do is regurgitate the same narratives it has been fed. There is no creativity under current AI technologies, only rabid fanatical hallucinations.
In solidarity,
Aidan
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/12/australia-ai-no-alternative-industry-and-science-minister-tim-ayres ↩︎
https://mndrdr.org/2025/at-the-nexus-of-knowledge-appropriation-and-ai https://mndrdr.org/2024/on-forestalled-innovation https://mndrdr.org/2024/the-power-of-ai ↩︎
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about ↩︎
especially because of the widespread belief in “science” as a religious substitute; and adherence to empiricist positivism which disregards human ethics and values for the fallacy of “objective truth”. ↩︎
Has anyone else noticed that Apple’s iOS keyboard/autocorrect recommendations in the latest iOS no longer autocorrect the word fascism? They’ve literally given it the same treatment as low level swears. Fascinating what this very small move signals about corporate views of fascism in the US. We’re living it — and we’re moving towards not being allowed to talk about it. Too few own the means of knowledge sharing and critique. Meta and Twitter are not public goods.
Dear friends,
I am constantly forced to think about Elon Musk and his egomaniacal, loud, and unearned positioning in society and emerging formal role in government in the US. Today I want to talk about consent, particularly in how consent has forged Musk as either a “super genius” or “capitalist success story”. He seems to have been depicted, at least in Australia, as an underdog innovator whose singular fortitude has allowed him to rise to power — this, at least, is Rupert Murdoch’s position on things, and you can bet that he wishes he was Musky, too. Obviously, this is a manufacturing of consent to Musk’s businesses — none of which he has meaningfully contributed anything to — and a demonstration of how consent is built. From “humble beginnings” Musk has “changed the world”, they say, which is a significantly empathetic narrative verging on outright lies. The reality, of course, is that “daddy got rich killing people” and he bought some investments with daddy’s money at a good time at the advice of others. I know which story I’d prefer to be told about me. What interests me, in this, is how even when critiquing Musk, the manufactured complicity and volume of (“quiet”) fascism still forestalls real systemic change.
The reaction to Musk’s Twitter acquisition reveals an interesting contradiction in how social media shapes resistance to oligarchic power. While communities like Reddit’s r/enoughmuskspam and the entirety of first, Threads now, Bluesky, emerged as spaces for critiquing Musk’s growing influence, they ironically seem to be contributing to a form of controlled opposition that ultimately serve his interests. By containing anti-Musk sentiment within echo chambers and focusing on his personal foibles rather than systemic critique, these spaces inadvertently helped normalise his broader accumulation of power. The obsession with Musk as an individual figure — even in opposition — distracted from more substantive analysis of how his ascension represents capital’s broader turn toward direct political control. Or, at least, this is the story I’m telling today. While users shared memes mocking his management of Twitter or cataloguing his numerous failures, his actual consolidation of power through strategic alliances with Trump and other far-right figures continue unchallenged. This phenomenon exemplifies how social media’s tendency to transform political resistance into entertainment and personal grievance can neutralise genuine threats to capital’s interests. Hegemony working as described. Rather than building class consciousness and organised resistance, the energy of critique became contained within platform-managed spaces that posed no threat to Musk’s growing power. If anything, they waited eagerly for the next blunder to fuel new memes. The result was a kind of “safety valve” that allowed people to feel they were opposing oligarchic control while actually participating in structures that enabled its expansion. Eek — but we need to talk about the broader political movements here.
Oligopoly and dictatorship, while seemingly distinct forms of power concentration, share fundamental characteristics in their service to capital accumulation. An oligopoly represents the consolidation of market power among a small number of firms, while dictatorship centralises political power — but both serve to protect and advance ruling class interests. And aspects of both of these power ‘consolidating’ approaches are in effect before our eyes in the US. The blueprint for almost every other western “democracy” the world over due to their amassed imperial power. From a Marxist perspective, these governance forms naturally emerge from capitalism’s inherent interest in monopolisation and the need to maintain class dominance through increasingly direct forms of control. As contradictions within capitalism intensify, the pretence of market competition gives way to oligopolistic domination, just as liberal democracy’s facade crumbles to reveal increasingly authoritarian forms of rule. From indirect manipulation through donations, lobbying and backing favourable candidates to direct filling of government with billionaire capitalists, the future of “democracy” is beyond bleak in the USA.
This shows us the financial capture of ostensibly “democratic” political systems by mega-corporations is but a heartbeat away in the rest of the west. Not only does direct control ensure capitalist interests, it also enables the system to quell dissent and analysis — two things we hold dear here, reader. Whether through the Democratic and Republican parties in the US, Labor and Liberal in Australia, or similar “opposing” party binaries in other nations, corporate funding ensures policy outcomes that protect accumulation regardless of electoral results. But the “two party” systems of these nations serves to narrow the window of acceptable political discourse. The illusion of choice between parties masks their shared commitment to maintaining capitalist hegemony. This process has accelerated as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated among a smaller circle of tech oligarchs and corporate behemoths who can directly shape policy through unprecedented financial influence. Now, instead of pretending there’s a choice between two fascist regressives, some countries are moving to a capitalist populism ruled by oligarchs feeding their angered masses misinformation. What a world.
The shift from performative “two-party democracy” to direct oligarchic rule through populist manipulation is yet another capitalist mask-off moment. Where previously the ruling class maintained hegemonic control through the illusion of democratic choice between barely distinguishable parties (Labor/Liberal, Democrat/Republican). Their growing confidence for oligopoly capitalism stems from their unprecedented control over information and their successful fragmentation of working class consciousness through sophisticated deployment of identity politics and algorithm manipulation. Oligarchs like Musk can now openly declare their intention to rule directly while using their platform control to manufacture consent through carefully curated misinformation and manufactured outrage. This represents a more “efficient” form of class domination — rather than maintaining expensive electoral theatrics, the billionaire class can simply channel popular anger toward manufactured enemies while consolidating their own power.
As the masks come off figures like Musk move from behind-the-scenes influence to direct political power through Trump’s promised cabinet positions. While this is more obvious than lobbying or political donations, it still evades genuine media analysis. Due more to complicity by billionaire media magnates who see benefit in supporting their capitalist brethren, rather than any actual ideological position. Indeed, the utter lack of morals, culture, knowledge, or ethics is quite the hallmark in contemporary media which would rather revel in capitalist accumulation than shine any investigative light on the massive challenges of today. And this, in part, reconnects with our /r/enoughmuskspam commentary above — too much time spent in the echo chamber, not enough spent critiquing the status quo. The shift from “democratic processes” to oligarchic rule reflects capital’s growing comfort with authoritarian governance as climate collapse and inequality explode past crisis levels. Rather than maintain the expensive facade of democratic legitimacy, capital increasingly embraces fascist solutions to maintain power — particularly as the contradictions of capitalism become impossible to manage through consent alone. The integration of tech oligarchs into direct state power represents a new phase where the distinction between corporate and political power dissolves entirely. And we continue to allow (social) media to control us in this way.
This whole situation demands both mindful awareness of how these systems operate and critical analysis of the narratives used to justify them. The mythology of “free markets” and “democratic choice” serves to obscure the reality of oligarchic control and growing authoritarianism. We need to carve new frameworks for understanding how these systems specifically harm workers and marginalised groups through intersecting forms of oppression. Rather than accepting, at face value, narratives peddled by mainstream media sources, we need to analyse how capitalism’s rapid movement toward fascism emerges from its fundamental contradictions — and it only serves to cement capitalists, not the “fall of society” which right-wing soothsayers peddle. Only through building class consciousness and solidarity across lines of identity can we hope to resist capital’s increasingly naked grab for totalitarian control. The alternative is accepting a techno-feudal future where even the pretence of democracy gives way to direct rule by billionaire oligarchs.
In solidarity,
Aidan
Dear friends,
With the increase in Musky headlines, I cant help but offer a christmas posting on oligopoly capitalism. This, I argue, is the next phase in the torturous helltrip that is our contemporary political economy, particularly if we see that the USA is the blueprint for modern economies all around the globe — particularly in the margins as they control the status quo for trade and economics from their substantial imperial torment. What we are seeing in the USA, to be clear, is an undeniable turn to fascism, which I need to repeat some of here so people understand the full scale and gravity of what Trump and Musk, amongst billionaire cronies are bringing to their people [1] [2]:
- » Gutting abortion access
- » Mass deportations
- » Abusing warrantless surveillance
- » Unleashing force on protestors
- » Severely limiting voting access
- » Censoring critical discussions in classrooms
- » Attacking trans people and regressing fought for rights
- » Changes to government (as already seen) including making the president alone responsible for Judiciary and Military
- » Complete cuts to climate change project funding, and the deregulation of coal and gas
- » Deregulating big tech (as long as they bend the knee), banning access to “woke propaganda” (as defined by Trump, et al.)
- » And many many more horrible details.
Make absolutely no mistake. Trump and Musk, as well as others who have ‘bent the knee’, as the internet has termed it, such as Zuckerberg (Meta/Facebook), Cook (Apple), Sarandos (Netflix), as well as a litany of others literally (soon to be) inducted into his government [3], are all supporters of this plan and each of these points. They are ardent defenders of human suffering. On a list of 1,000 billionaires, big tech CEOs, and other wannabe capitalists you would struggle to identify 1 who genuinely cared and acted towards human liberation. These people, the utterly worthless leeches on society, are the ones running the USA. Now, though, they are in direct control — rather than abstracted through lobbying.
This transformation, unfortunate mostly for the already marginalised US citizens directly impacted by this soon-to-arrive despotism, is not unique to the US. It is not even the beginning of capitalist meddling in government and decision making infrastructure. Lobbying, back-room deals, and boys clubs have been hallmarks of our “democracies” worldwide, with little real power ever handed to the citizens — unless they believe their best interests are served by deregulating billionaires (and there are many stupid enough to believe that). Reinforced through media hegemony, c.f. Murdoch, the status quo has always favoured those with ill-gotten wealth — no, not pirates, something far worse, the capitalist class. The wool pulled over the peoples collective eyes, however, was somewhat lifted by the emergence of analytical thought on the internet. But we can’t have that — it creates a crisis of capitalism. That crisis has led to the fall of democracy, even notionally.
This ‘modern oligarchy’ represents capitalism’s (forever) penultimate triumph in consolidating both economic and political power within an increasingly small circle of elites. As Gramsci theorised, hegemonic control requires both coercion and consent, and today’s oligarchs have mastered this dual approach through their ownership of cultural institutions, media empires, and increasingly, direct political offices. The billionaire class no longer operates through intermediaries but directly shapes policy and public discourse, from Murdoch’s media manipulation to Zuckerburg’s platform control. This concentration of power serves capital’s interests by ensuring that any potential challenge to accumulation can be quickly neutralised, whether through manufactured consent in the media or direct suppression through captured state institutions. The oligarchy’s control extends beyond traditional economic dominance into algorithmically-mediated social control, using ownership of digital platforms to shape discourse and prevent class consciousness from emerging.
Between these forces there is little room for human freedom. The billionaire class do not care about you. The billionaire class want you to die to build their hoards. They want you to suffer while you work. To keep you distracted and fighting your peers. They want all of us to be angry, dumb, and lashing out at each other. The same way the deranged farmer herds cows by the thousands to their cruel deaths, the billionaires have you in their trap — right where they want you. This violence, the same violence used on animals, the same violence used to enclose humans, the same violence used in colonial projects, that violence never goes. Rather, that violence remains a threat. If you don’t “look right”, “act right”, “speak right” — if you don’t comply, you are eradicated, removed and marginalised — and this is naturalised through conceptions of a Just World™.
The Just World theory, which posits that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get, serves as a powerful tool of hegemonic control by naturalising systemic violence and inequality as inevitable outcomes of individual choices rather than structural conditions. This ideology, deeply embedded in what Gramsci termed “common sense” (as opposed to critical “good sense”), allows privileged groups to rationalise their position while blaming the oppressed for their own suffering. Through this lens, poverty becomes a moral failing rather than a necessary feature of capitalist accumulation, racism becomes a matter of individual prejudice rather than systemic oppression, and billionaires’ wealth appears as earned reward rather than stolen labour value. The Just World fallacy works hand-in-hand with capitalist meritocracy myths to transform questions of structural power into matters of personal responsibility, effectively masking how privilege operates through intersecting systems of class, race, gender, and ability. By positioning success and failure as purely individual outcomes, this ideology helps maintain hegemonic control by preventing the development of class consciousness and solidarity among oppressed groups. We see this operating powerfully in contemporary discourse around everything from housing access to climate change, where systemic violence is reframed as natural consequence rather than deliberate policy choice. This framing is particularly insidious because it doesn't just justify privilege to the privileged — it often convinces the oppressed themselves to internalise responsibility for their own exploitation, transforming potential revolutionary energy into self-blame and preventing recognition of shared class interests. Remember when you were told growing up that “good things happen to good people”, yeah that was a load of shit to justify colonial capitalism’s deep violence. Violence ardently vanguarded by Musk, Trump, Cook, and countless others — and they don’t even pretend its not violent any more.
The “mask-off” nature of contemporary billionaires, particularly their direct assumption of state power, signals capitalism’s growing comfort with openly authoritarian governance. Where previous generations of capitalists maintained a facade of democratic legitimacy through professional political proxies, figures like Trump exemplify a new breed of oligarch-politician who openly flaunts their “wealth” while claiming to represent “the people”. This turn isn’t an aberration, it is another step in capital’s need for ever-greater control as contradictions intensify. The billionaire class increasingly drops any pretence of serving the public good, instead nakedly wielding power to protect their accumulation while the planet burns. Their assumption of direct political control shows both a faux confidence in their hegemonic position and fear of growing systemic instability. Insurrections which must be quelled to ensure they die “king of the hill”.
Today’s billionaire class has perfected the art of manufacturing division while posing as populist champions. Through sophisticated deployment of identity politics stripped of class analysis, they redirect legitimate working class grievances into tribal conflicts that prevent solidarity from emerging. Figures like Musk exemplify this strategy – playing the role of free speech warrior and anti-establishment rebel while actively working to fragment worker consciousness and prevent organised resistance. Their performative, often “bumbling”, personas mask sophisticated manipulation of media narratives and platform algorithms to keep workers fighting each other rather than recognising their shared class interests. This manufactured conflict serves capital by preventing the development of genuine class consciousness while providing cover for accelerating exploitation.
The cultivation of toxic masculinity, at this juncture, serves as another tool of capitalist hegemony, redirecting legitimate male alienation and economic precarity into reactionary politics rather than class consciousness. As traditional paths to masculine identity through stable employment and economic security become increasingly unavailable under late capitalism, oligarchs and their cultural apparatus actively channel male anger toward marginalised groups rather than systemic critique. Figures like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and various “manosphere” influencers — promoted heavily by Zuckerberg’s platform algorithms due to “engagement” — offer superficially appealing narratives that transform structural critiques of capitalism into individualised grievances against feminism, “wokeness”, and other manufactured enemies. And quite literally fomenting violence, from the streets where rape and murder of women continues to be a significant problem, to the internet where misogynistic comments and cyberbullying also claim lives. This process serves capital’s interests perfectly – rather than recognising their shared exploitation with other workers, angry men are encouraged to view feminist, LGBTQI+, and racial justice movements as threats to their “status” (not that they ever had any), effectively fracturing potential class solidarity. The billionaire class actively cultivates these reactionary masculine movements, understanding that redirecting male rage toward cultural grievances prevents it from developing into genuine anti-capitalist consciousness. Due to the deliberate echo-chambers run by Zucc which practically speaking are the only social media platforms on the web a self-reinforcing cycle emerges where any ‘legitimate’ male suffering under capitalism is rapidly transformed into support for precisely the system causing that suffering, with toxic masculinity serving as the perfect vehicle for maintaining hegemonic control while preventing class consciousness from emerging. Anger, its a hell of a drug.
As capitalism’s contradictions become increasingly difficult to manage through consent alone, we see its mask of democratic legitimacy falling away to reveal naked authoritarianism. Anger, denial, hate, fear and rage are harnessed here to keep the violence lateral, rather than systemic. Angry men as enforcers of Trump’s empty bullshit, weak men as the defenders of Musk’s exploitative, murderous and despotic plans, and so on. The system’s fundamental incompatibility with genuine democracy becomes impossible to conceal as climate collapse and inequality reach crisis levels — ‘crisis’ so deep that they can’t contain CEOs being murdered. Rather than risk genuine popular control that might interfere with accumulation, capital increasingly embraces fascist solutions to maintain power. This shift isn’t happening in traditionally authoritarian states but in the heart of “liberal democracies”, where capital abandons democratic pretences in favour of direct domination.
These developments are deeply interconnected: the oligarchy’s consolidation of power enables the billionaire class’s despotic turn, while their manipulation of popular consciousness provides cover for capitalism’s shift toward naked authoritarianism. The system’s inherent drive toward fascism emerges from its need to maintain accumulation in the face of mounting crises, with the billionaire class serving as both architects and beneficiaries of this transformation. Their success in redirecting popular anger away from systemic critique and toward manufactured enemies enables capital's increasingly open embrace of anti-democratic governance.
This is precisely why we need to continue fighting for democracy. From our workplaces, to our government decision-making. Because once we loose the pretence of democracy, we loose our rights. When dumb, angry men are dictators of our society, we will truly have arrived at the hell on earth the billionaires use their bible to warn us about (“scary socialists”) — only hell is their plan — hell for us, heaven for them.
Happy fucking christmas, “consume it all”,
Aidan.