Debate: Plutocracy or Techno-Millionaire Rule?

From Influence to Control: The Ultra-Rich Take Power

The debate over whether the United States has entered a plutocracy—rule by the wealthy—has moved beyond academic hypothesis to become a central issue spanning from Marbella to Washington. The opening argument is stark: it is no longer about traditional influence by power brokers or lobbying by large fortunes, but rather that the ultra-rich will impose their conditions and interests by governing directly, according to one participant. The example cited is Elon Musk, whom this participant places at the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The discussion quickly shifts to corruption. The case of Marbella and Jesús Gil is recalled as a textbook precedent: extreme wealth and extreme corruption go hand in hand, the initial argument claims, warning that while there are few global examples, the combination is lethal. The response arrives swiftly with irony: Biden and Soros are also rich, and Pedro Sánchez did not live in a chicken coop, but in an upscale neighborhood in Pozuelo. According to this rebuttal, the left’s argument is selective: wealth is only denounced when the rich person is not one of their own.

The Techno-Millionaire No One Voted For

The core problem, according to the emerging consensus, is not that Musk is wealthy, but that no millionaire has ever held the power Musk holds, says one participant. He is not just another donor or a typical celebrity endorsement; he is described as the “Chief Buddy”, a figure with no elected office who sits at the table where decisions are made. The comparison with Steve Bannon—the strategist who clashed with Trump after time in the inner circle—anticipates the outcome: two roosters cannot share a henhouse, and conflict between them seems inevitable.

Defense of the techno-millionaire hinges on a simple idea: Musk funded and campaigned for Trump just as many other celebrities and wealthy individuals have done for Democratic candidates. If Soros can fund campaigns without accusations of plutocracy, why not Musk? The counterargument is that the difference lies not in money, but in position within the state structure: Soros never held office, Musk does. This is where the line between influence and governance blurs.

The “Technocasta”: Naming the New Phenomenon

Amidst the clash emerges a concept attempting to capture the phenomenon: the “technocasta”. The coinage is not innocent. It is described as a social marketing operation requiring invented terms to grab public attention and shape perceptions, redefining existing concepts or using strategically designed language. According to this view, the goal is to associate technology with “evil” rich people to build a narrative that will fail.

Irony trinc when comparing the term to reality: if the technocasta is the problem, what happens when the State promotes its own AI? The announcement of ALIA, a Spanish-language artificial intelligence presented as a public, open-source model, is cited, asking if this too is technocasta, or only when taxpayers pay for it. The debate over who controls technology becomes a debate over who controls the narrative.

Proge as a Smokescreen

One uncomfortable line of analysis suggests that proge may have been invented by Elon and company to later present their brilliant “solution,” much like was done with vaccines. Formulated as suspicion rather than certainty, the idea is that people are easily manipulated: a few algorithms here and there suffice. Proge, described as a cancer, would be replaced by something equally destructive: techno-oligarchy and megacorporations.

This position distances itself from both left and right. Capitalism, communism, and liberalism are criticized as adjacent dangers, with warnings that these actors could destroy Russia in two weeks by cutting off electricity and killing millions. They are argued to be more dangerous than any ruler and accumulate far more power. The counter-response notes that the discourse of “Trump controlled by techno-tycoons” lasted less than half an hour: Trump just eliminated subsidies and mandates for electric car purchases imposed by Biden. Who is the largest EV manufacturer in the US? And who is the supposed techno-tycoon controlling Trump? The argument collapses under its own weight.

Double Standards of Media and Platforms

The discussion pauses on a point transcending Musk: the shift in allegiance by platform owners. Until recently, when Dorsey, Zuckerberg, and Bezos supported Biden and censored information to manipulate the 2020 elections—as they admitted themselves—everything was fine. They were socially responsible entrepreneurs. Criticizing them meant being told that as private companies, they could do as they pleased, and if you didn’t like it, start your own right-wing Twitter. Now that they switch sides, La Sens calls them “oligarchs” and “plutocrats” and warns of the danger they pose to democracy.

The diagnosis drawn from this evolution is that the left does not complain about plutocracy per se, but about losing control of mass media and thus the hegemonic narrative. Musk is criticized more than Trump, it is noted, because Musk might belong to the centrist politics of a decade ago. The grievance is not against economic power, but against economic power that has ceased to be an ally.

Is Interference Between Powers Legitimate?

The fundamental question is whether a democracy can tolerate one branch interfering with the others, even with the noble aim of preventing far-right rule. Separation of powers exists precisely to prevent interference, and a democrat must accept that if the far-right—or an Sarracinist party—wins freely, they have the right to govern. Vigilance is another matter: we must remain alert to ensure no rights or freedoms are curtailed.

The problem, it is warned, is that those who could change the system are those who benefit most from maintaining it. The press depends on government subsidies, complicating oversight. The lingering reflection is uncomfortable: if rule by the rich begins today, it is because until now, the poor ruled us. Or did mega-rich not influence politics until yesterday? The Bilderberg Club and the World Economic Forum have existed for decades. Plutocracy is not new. What is new is who leads it.