As industrial civilization unravels—its foundations cracked by climate chaos, biosphere collapse, and the sixth mass extinction—humanity confronts a paradox. The crises demanding collective, democratic action are instead fueling the rise of a new authoritarian order: technocracy. This system, where power is centralized among technological and corporate elites, traces its lineage to the 1930s, when engineer Howard Scott founded Technocracy Incorporated during the Great Depression. Today, figures like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and J.D. Vance have resurrected Scott’s vision, positioning themselves as saviors armed with algorithms, AI, and privatized infrastructure. Their promises of “efficiency” and “innovation” mask a darker reality: the erosion of democracy, the weaponization of scarcity, and the birth of a digital feudalism where survival is rationed by Silicon Valley’s code.
The Historical Roots of Technocracy
The seeds of modern technocracy were sown during the Great Depression, a time when faith in capitalism and democracy crumbled. Howard Scott, a self-proclaimed engineer later exposed as a fraud, launched Technocracy Incorporated, arguing that elected governments were obsolete. He envisioned a “technate” ruled by engineers and scientists, where money would be abolished, production standardized, and society managed through energy credits tracked by central computers. Scott’s manifesto, Technocracy Study Course, dismissed politics as a relic of “the horse-and-buggy age,” insisting that only technical experts could navigate the complexities of modern industrial society. Though his movement collapsed under scrutiny—exposed for its pseudoscientific claims and Scott’s fabricated credentials—its core tenets endured: distrust of democracy, crisis-driven centralization, and faith in elite expertise.
The Cold War deepened this ideology, fusing technological innovation with militarized ambition. Institutions like the MITRE Corporation and DARPA channeled state funds into computing and surveillance technologies, shaping early computers to model nuclear strikes and manage espionage. The 1956 antitrust case against AT&T, which forced the sharing of Bell Labs’ transistor patents, unleashed the computer revolution—but one tethered to Cold War paranoia. Early tech pioneers like Norbert Wiener, father of cybernetics, warned that machines designed for warfare would inevitably shape civilian life. By the 1990s, Silicon Valley’s “disruptors” rebranded these tools as instruments of liberation, masking their roots in state power. The internet, once a Pentagon project, was sold as a democratizing force, even as its infrastructure remained under corporate and military control.
The Technocratic Promise and Its Perils
The allure of technocracy lies in its promise to transcend the gridlock of democratic politics. As David Pakman observes in The Echo Machine, societies mired in debates over settled science—climate change, public health—waste “energy, time, and resources pushing against those who refuse to accept uncontroversial science.” In theory, technocratic governance offers a rational alternative: decisions made by experts insulated from partisan strife. Yet Pakman’s analysis reveals a fatal flaw in this vision: the collapse of a shared factual reality.
In the United States, algorithmic curation has fragmented the public sphere into “echo chambers and filter bubbles,” where misinformation thrives and empirical consensus dissolves. Media ecosystems, driven by profit and polarization, reward sensationalism over truth. The American right wing, Pakman notes, capitalizes on this crisis, leveraging disinformation to erode trust in institutions. The result is a populace ill-equipped to evaluate expertise, viewing technocracy not as problem-solving but as elite imposition.
Modern Technocrats: Architects of Digital Feudalism
Peter Thiel, the billionaire founder of Palantir, epitomizes technocracy’s ideological core. A vocal critic of democracy, Thiel has declared freedom and democracy incompatible, advocating instead for corporate-run enclaves free from democratic oversight. In his essay The Education of a Libertarian, he writes, “The great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms.” His venture capital firm, Founders Fund, bankrolls projects like anti-aging research and CRISPR gene-editing startups, reflecting a eugenicist vision of “optimizing” humanity. Thiel’s investments in Seasteading Institute, which aims to create floating city-states beyond government jurisdiction, reveal his disdain for collective governance.
Palantir, initially funded by the CIA’s venture arm In-Q-Tel, exemplifies the merger of tech and state power. Its software, used to coordinate drone strikes in Afghanistan and ICE deportations in the U.S., frames surveillance as “efficiency,” dismissing ethical concerns as sentimental obstacles to progress. During the 2020 pandemic, Palantir secured contracts to manage public health data, raising alarms about privatization of critical infrastructure. Thiel’s philosophy mirrors the colonial logic of earlier technocrats: the belief that “empty” spaces—whether physical or digital—are frontiers to be conquered and controlled.
Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, merges technocratic ideals with a calculated, spectacle-driven persona, leveraging viral controversies and media storms to position himself as a visionary solving existential threats. Yet beneath the rhetoric of sustainability lies a darker agenda: leveraging government institutions to cement technofeudal control. Through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk and his private equity ally Antonio Gracias—a billionaire investor whose firm, Valor Equity Partners, manages 1.7 billion in public pension funds—are gutting agencies like the Social Security Administration(SSA). Under the guise of “efficiency,” DOGE has slashed 7,000 jobs, shuttered field offices, and sabotaged benefit systems, deliberately marking immigrants and vulnerable citizens as “deceased” to deny payments. These disruptions pave the way for privatizing Social Security, a 3 trillion prize long coveted by Wall Street.
Gracias, a Tesla board member and Musk confidant, epitomizes the revolving door between Silicon Valley and private equity. His firm, funded by pensions for teachers, firefighters, and public workers, funnels capital into Musk’s ventures like SpaceX and xAI—while charging exorbitant management fees. Meanwhile, DOGE’s “reforms” mirror private equity’s predatory tactics: asset stripping (selling public infrastructure to lease it back), cost-cutting (defunding the IRS to enable tax evasion), and exploiting public data (integrating SSA records with Homeland Security to fuel deportation raids). As former SSA Commissioner Martin O’Malley warns, these actions risk “total system collapse,” forcing Americans into reliance on privatized alternatives controlled by Musk and his allies.
The endgame? A technofeudal order where public institutions are hollowed out, and critical services—retirement security, internet access, even identity verification—are governed by Musk’s algorithms and Gracias’ financial networks. With Trump’s backing, DOGE is fast-tracking projects like the “Golden Dome” missile shield, a $300 billion SpaceX contract that would further entrench Musk as a defense-industry warlord. Meanwhile, public pensions—the life savings of workers—are weaponized to bankroll this takeover, trapping citizens in a loop where their own retirement funds finance their disenfranchisement.
Critics liken DOGE’s tactics to “plundering the government”—a hallmark of private equity’s extractive model. By dismantling civil service protections (via “Schedule F” employment) and centralizing data under loyalists like Scott Coulter (a Blackstone alumnus), Musk and Gracias are not just cutting costs—they’re erasing the line between corporate and state power. The result is a world where survival hinges on loyalty to Silicon Valley’s feudal lords, and dissenters risk algorithmic exile from essential services.
Musk’s lineage ties directly to technocratic history: his grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, led Technocracy Inc.’s Canadian branch before relocating the family to apartheid South Africa. Haldeman’s belief in elite-driven progress, forged in the settler-colonial violence of South Africa, echoes in Musk’s ventures. His recent merger of AI projects like xAI with the U.S. government signals his ambition to shape governance directly, bypassing democratic checks.
J.D. Vance, a political protégé of Thiel, exemplifies technocracy’s infiltration of governance. Bankrolled by Silicon Valley, Vance rose from memoirist to far-right ideologue, championing AI-driven policymaking. His 2023 Algorithmic Accountability Act proposes replacing “inefficient” bureaucracies with AI systems to allocate healthcare and streamline law enforcement. Vance’s rhetoric, which blames climate refugees for societal collapse, aligns with eco-fascist “lifeboat ethics,” urging militarized borders and austerity for the marginalized. His alliance with Trump—brokered by Thiel—signals technocracy’s merger with far-right populism, a partnership forged in boardrooms and think tanks.
Mechanisms of Control: Tools of Technocratic Rule
Surveillance Capitalism and the Death of Privacy
Silicon Valley’s extraction of human experience for profit—termed “surveillance capitalism” by Shoshana Zuboff—has normalized the commodification of personal data. Firms like Google and Meta harvest behavioral insights to manipulate consent, while platforms like X (formerly Twitter) amplify divisive content for engagement. This erosion of privacy, Pakman argues, is compounded by declining media literacy, leaving citizens vulnerable to narratives that conflate opinion with fact.
Algorithmic Governance and the New Scarcity
Algorithmic systems, from China’s Social Credit System to Palantir’s predictive policing software, enforce compliance through data-driven control. In the U.S., the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by Elon Musk, epitomizes this shift. By merging federal databases into a centralized “database of ruin”—a term coined by Georgetown law professor Paul Ohm in 2009 to describe systems that aggregate sensitive personal data to enable blackmail, discrimination, or harassment—DOGE enables unprecedented political targeting, weaponizing personal information under the guise of efficiency.
The Information Crisis and Technocratic Vulnerability
Pakman’s critique extends to the economic incentives driving media fragmentation. Platforms prioritize engagement over truth, fostering distrust in expertise. This crisis of legitimacy undermines technocracy’s foundational premise: that experts can govern effectively. Without a shared reality, even well-intentioned interventions risk rejection as partisan impositions.
The Rise of DOGE: A Case Study in Technocratic Surveillance
The creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk and the Trump administration exemplifies the fusion of corporate tech power with state surveillance. Framed as a tool to streamline federal operations, DOGE has instead become a vehicle for constructing a domestic surveillance apparatus unparalleled in U.S. history. By merging data from agencies like the Social Security Administration, the IRS, and the Department of Health and Human Services into a centralized database housed at the Department of Homeland Security, DOGE has created a “database of ruin.” This system compiles comprehensive dossiers on U.S. residents, enabling the Trump administration to target political opponents, federal employees, and immigrants with alarming precision. Whistleblowers reveal that DOGE uses AI to sift through communications for anti-Musk or anti-Trump sentiment, while teams fill backpacks with laptops loaded with stolen agency data—a brazen testament to its disregard for privacy.
As Georgetown law professor Paul Ohm warned in 2009, such a database risks enabling “blackmail, discrimination, harassment or financial or identity theft” on an unprecedented scale. The parallels to authoritarian regimes are unmistakable: DOGE’s infrastructure mirrors China’s social credit system, where compliance is enforced through omnipresent surveillance. Unlike other countries, the U.S. lacks robust privacy protections. The Federal Privacy Act of 1974, designed to prevent cross-agency data sharing without consent, has been rendered toothless by decades of underenforcement and legislative stagnation. Despite over 30 lawsuits challenging DOGE’s actions—including court orders limiting its access to Social Security and Treasury data—the agency continues its unchecked expansion.
Marc Rotenberg, founder of the Center for A.I. and Digital Policy, observes, “In no other country could a person like Elon Musk rummage through government databases and gather up the personal data of government employees, taxpayers and veterans.” DOGE’s operations reflect a broader technocratic agenda: the consolidation of power through data monopolization. Federal workers’ payroll records, veterans’ health data, and taxpayers’ financial details are no longer siloed but aggregated into tools of political coercion.
Digital Feudalism: The Dark Side of Technocratic Control
Technocracy’s promise curdles in a society fractured by disinformation. As civic engagement wanes—Pakman contrasts Scandinavia’s participatory culture with U.S. apathy—power concentrates in the hands of a technocratic elite. Algorithms designed to manage populations, not empower them, entrench a feedback loop where dissent is dismissed as ignorance and authority is conflated with expertise.
Elon Musk’s ventures—Neuralink, SpaceX, and DOGE—embody this digital feudalism. Neuralink’s brain-computer interfaces and DOGE’s surveillance apparatus exemplify systems where human agency is reduced to data points. Meanwhile, Thiel’s investments in anti-aging and CRISPR startups reflect a eugenicist vision of “optimized” humanity, privileging elite survival over collective resilience.
The Algorithmic Logic of Control
Pakman’s analysis of algorithmic curation—echo chambers, filter bubbles, and the reinforcement of existing biases—reveals how technocratic systems could weaponize these tools for population management. In a technocracy, dissenters might be algorithmically flagged as “risks,” their access to resources or platforms restricted based on predictive analytics. This creates a self-reinforcing system where expertise becomes indistinguishable from authority, and critical inquiry is stifled.
The Erosion of Civic Trust
The decline of political engagement in the U.S., as Pakman notes, contrasts sharply with Scandinavian models of civic participation. In Sweden and Norway, high voter turnout and robust public discourse underpin trust in institutions. In the U.S., however, “not voting, not engaging, and not being informed do not have the negative connotation that they once did.” This disengagement creates fertile ground for technocratic rule, where apathy allows elites to govern unchallenged.
Techfeudalism and the Rise of Digital Power
Economist Yanis Varoufakis warns that a new system, which he calls technofeudalism, is replacing traditional capitalism. Instead of factories or land, power now comes from controlling digital tools like AI, social media, and cloud platforms—what Varoufakis terms “cloud capital.” Giant tech companies (think Amazon, Palantir, or Elon Musk’s ventures) act like modern-day feudal lords, using algorithms to control markets and profit from data, rather than competing in fair, open markets.
How Does Technofeudalism Work?
Varoufakis outlines three key strategies tech elites use to dominate society:
- Replacing Humans with AI Everywhere: Even jobs we once thought required creativity or care—like writing, teaching, or healthcare—are being handed to AI systems. This lets tech giants cut labor costs and pocket more profits (called “cloud rents”).
- Taking Over Government Systems: Tech companies are embedding their tools into public institutions. For example, Elon Musk’s DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) mines personal data from agencies like the IRS, while Palantir sells surveillance software to the Pentagon. This turns public data into private power.
- Controlling Money Itself: Tech giants are merging finance with their platforms. Musk’s “Everything App” (X) aims to handle payments, social media, and more, while Trump’s push for government-backed cryptocurrency helps Big Tech bypass traditional banks.
The Danger: A World Run by Algorithms
Varoufakis argues this system replaces capitalism’s “invisible hand” (the idea that markets self-regulate) with a “divine algorithm”—centralized, unaccountable AI that decides who gets jobs, loans, or even healthcare. The consequences?
- Economic chaos: As tech monopolies hoard wealth, ordinary people have less money to spend, destabilizing economies.
- Democracy dies: Decisions are made by algorithms, not voters or elected leaders.
- Institutions collapse: Universities, hospitals, and media risk being replaced by AI-controlled systems that prioritize profit over people.
Trump’s Role: Turbocharging Tech Power
Varoufakis calls Trump a “godsend” for tech elites. His policies—slashing AI regulations, letting tech companies avoid taxes on digital profits, and promoting crypto—give corporations like Musk’s or Palantir even more control. While Trump’s trade wars might cause short-term chaos, the long-term goal is clear: locking in a future where a handful of tech giants govern access to money, information, and basic rights through their algorithms.
Why Should You Care?
This isn’t just about gadgets or apps. It’s about who controls your job, your data, and your voice in society. Without pushback, technofeudalism could mean:
- Fewer jobs as AI replaces humans.
- Constant surveillance via tools like DOGE’s “database of ruin.”
- A financial system where tech companies, not governments, hold the keys to your money.
In short, it’s a digital power grab—and once it’s entrenched, reversing it will be nearly impossible.
Resistance and Alternatives: Paths Beyond Technocracy
Rebuilding Democratic Foundations
Pakman’s work underscores that technocracy cannot succeed without addressing the informational and cultural crises enabling it. Media literacy, critical thinking, and civic engagement are prerequisites for meaningful governance. Initiatives like Taiwan’s g0v movement, which crowdsources legislation, demonstrate how participatory democracy can counter algorithmic control.
Democratic Technologies
Platform cooperatives like Stocksy and open-source projects like Mozilla’s AI offer ethical tech models. Germany’s Bürgerenergie movement decentralizes renewable energy, reinvesting profits into communities. These efforts, Pakman implies, must be paired with systemic reforms—antitrust action, data sovereignty laws—to dismantle technocratic power.
Legislative and Cultural Reforms
Congress must defund DOGE, repeal Trump’s executive orders, and modernize privacy laws with enforceable penalties. The European Union’s model of independent data protection authorities offers a blueprint, but the U.S. must go further: establish a federal agency with the power to investigate, fine, and halt abuses. Culturally, media literacy programs and civic education initiatives are essential to rebuild trust in democratic institutions.
Conclusion: The Fork in the Path
Technocracy’s allure fades under Pakman’s scrutiny. Without a shared reality or civic trust, it risks devolving into digital feudalism—a world where Musk’s DOGE and Thiel’s Palantir ration survival while elites hoard privatized, climate-controlled enclaves shielded from the worst consequences of collapse. Yet Pakman’s analysis also charts a path forward: rebuilding democratic engagement to harness expertise for the common good.
Grassroots movements, from Land-Back campaigns to mutual aid networks, prove that alternatives exist. The choice is stark: surrender to algorithmic control or reclaim democracy through education, equity, and ecological repair.
As wildfires raze forests and oceans acidify, survival demands collective action—not Silicon Valley’s fragile, profit-driven algorithms.
Collapse of Industrial Civilisation
Reference List:
Angwin, Julia. “‘This Is What We Were Always Scared of’: DOGE Is Building a Surveillance State.” The New York Times, April 30, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/opinion/musk-doge-data-ai.html. (https://archive.ph/qneQl#selection-694.1-707.12)
Duran, Gil. “The Nerd Reich.” Newsletter, accessed May 2, 2025. https://www.thenerdreich.com.
Duran, Gil, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Payal Arora, and Cori Crider. “How Technocracy Has Become Our Reality.” The Listening Post. Al Jazeera, April 26, 2025. https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-listening-post/2025/4/26/how-technocracy-has-become-our-reality?ref=thenerdreich.com.
Matthew Cunningham-Cook, “Elon Musk and His DOGE Bro Have Cashed In on Americans’ Retirement Savings: Antonio Gracias, a Little-Known Private Equity Titan, Is Helping Musk and DOGE Gut the Government – While Living High off the Public Hog,” Rolling Stone, May 3, 2025, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/elon-musk-trump-doge-antonio-gracias-social-security-1235330658/.
Pakman, David. The Echo Machine: How Right-Wing Extremism Created a Post-Truth America. Boston: Beacon Press, 2025.
Varoufakis, Yanis. “Trump and the Triumph of the Technolords.” Project Syndicate, April 30, 2025. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/technofeudalist-ideology-emerging-from-neoliberal-rubble-by-yanis-varoufakis-2025-04.
