A few days ago, I attended a debate featuring experts delving into the emerging threat of “Techno-Fascism” and how the manipulation of big data can sway elections and public opinion. I went in hoping to gain fresh insights into possible alternatives to this looming issue. However, about two-thirds of the event felt like preaching to the choir - lots of analysis, but not much in the way of actionable solutions.

It was assumed the audience was already familiar with current events (Quote: “I hope that I don’t have to remind you here in Berlin about the historic connections between capitalism and fascism, between technology and Nazism. I hope you know very well the connections between Henry Ford and IBM on the one hand and Nazism and Holocaust on the other hand”), and much of the discussion reiterated known analyses. In my perception, this sidestepped the hard question: “OK, what are we doing now?”

The focus was largely on Technofascism as a new form of domination - where technology, especially AI and digital platforms, is used to control, manipulate, and suppress autonomy. It was argued that this represents an evolution or mutation of capitalism (Quote: “They are trying to privatize the state and transform it into an AI-facilitated enterprise startup,” or as Varoufakis put it: “Capital mutated into what I call cloud capital… Capital used to take the form of produced means of production. Think of tools, steam engines, telephone systems. Even today balancing industrial roads. But cloud capital does not produce anything. It only produces an automated power to modify our behavior”). Elon Musk was singled out as a key figure in this development - not only wielding immense economic power, but also significantly influencing public opinion and political discourse. His actions and ideologies were interpreted as manifestations of “irrational instrumentalism,” where long-term ambitions, like colonizing space, overshadow immediate consequences, such as fatalities resulting from autopilot errors.

Another critical aspect discussed was the intersection of AI and agriculture. There’s growing concern that automation in this sector doesn’t serve the common good but instead maximizes profits for individual corporations. As agricultural machinery becomes increasingly automated, farmers find themselves dependent on software licenses that could be deactivated amid embargoes or conflicts. This dependency signals a shift in control over the means of production - “Digital colonialism is a new empire not of borders and class but of platforms and protocols.”

The debate drew some unsettling parallels between current developments and the rise of fascism in the 1930s. For instance, comparisons were made between recent events around Zelensky and Trump, suggesting that some tactics mirror those employed by the Nazis. I need to investigate which specific events were being referenced to fully grasp these connections. Another example highlighted was how right-wing populist parties in countries like Austria are recycling rhetoric from the Nazi era. Assumingly, many of their voters are too young to recognize these historical echoes.

In my view, Ece Temelkuran provided some of the most compelling insights during the panel. She asserted that the phenomena she outlines in her book aren’t isolated incidents confined to “crazy countries like Turkey” but are global patterns observable even in Western nations. She critiqued how Western countries have lost precious time under the false assumption that fascism can only emerge in “immature democracies.” Temelkuran recounted an anecdote about meeting with extremely wealthy individuals from Silicon Valley, whom she perceived as embodying an “incredible, amoral emptiness.” She compared them to “teenagers who burn the house down just to see what the flames will look like.”

One poignant warning she made emphasized the importance of friendship as a political concept. In times of creeping fascism, friendship can serve as a bulwark against descending into madness. As societal pressures mount, people might be driven to turn against one another, especially when they sense the potential defeat due to fascist forces. In this context, fostering genuine human connections becomes an act of resistance.

Reflecting on the event, I couldn’t help but feel that while the analysis of Technofascism was thorough, the pressing question of “What are we doing now?” remained insufficiently addressed. It seemed the conversation skirted around providing tangible solutions, which was somewhat disappointing given the urgency of the issues at hand.

Perhaps the path forward really does lie in nurturing our bonds with one another, as Temelkuran mentioned. The fundamental human values of connection and compassion remain our strongest assets.