Worse than Fascism

Eight Points on Techno-Oligarchy

In recent years, with the rise of Big Tech and its authoritarian socio-political ambitions, it has become commonplace to speak of “techno-fascism”. This is understandable. The embrace of authoritarian political agendas by Big Tech elites, their disdain for liberal democracy and deliberative process, their concentration of power without accountability – all of this invites the comparison.

And yet the term is misleading, and its inadequacy matters. The phenomenon I prefer to call “techno-oligarchy” is neither merely, nor so much, a variant of fascism dressed in Silicon Valley aesthetics. It represents a radical rupture from virtually all modern political traditions – and a threat that, in its anti-humanism, transcends even the murderous anti-humanism to which the label “techno-fascism” gestures. To call it fascism is not only imprecise; it may cause us to misunderstand what we are facing and therefore to resist it less effectively.

Hence: eight points on how techno-oligarchy differs from fascism – and why it is more dangerous.

Before proceeding, three caveats are necessary.

1. This comparison does not aim to whitewash or normalise fascism, nor to diminish the immense suffering that fascist movements inflicted on people around the world, both in power and on their way to it. None of the fascist crimes are forgivable – neither the genocides of Jews and Roma, nor Fascist invasions of African countries, nor the mass euthanasia programmes, nor the postwar neo-fascist terrorist violence, among countless others.

2. The argument is not that techno-oligarchy has already committed crimes against humanity on the scale of historical fascism. The claim is more specific: that the underlying logic of techno-oligarchy points toward a socio-political configuration that even fascism, by design, could not and, arguably, cannot reach.

3. Framing this as “worse than fascism” does not imply that fascism was/is the only or, indeed, the worst totalitarianism. The comparison is chosen as a direct response to the term “techno-fascism” – and several of the eight points that follow apply, with appropriate modification, to other totalitarian traditions as well.

One. Fascism glorifies the collective; techno-oligarchy abolishes it.

Fascism places the collective – defined as an organically conceived nation or race – at the heart of its political doctrine. The survival and health of that exclusive collective becomes the ultimate purpose of politics, justifying extreme violence against all those deemed to threaten it, whether by their mere existence or their social practices.

Techno-oligarchy’s sorting principle is purely functional and economic. It is radically individualist, and rejects social responsibility as such, treating public interest as an obstacle rather than an obligation. The private goals of techno-oligarchs, and the momentum of technological development, are pursued regardless of the human cost.

Two. Fascism’s enemies are ontological; techno-oligarchy’s enemy is oversight itself.

Fascism requires visceral, permanent enemies – defined by what they fundamentally are: a nation or race, a class, a sexual identity, a health condition, etc. Their persecution is not incidental but constitutive; eliminating entire categories of people is inseparable from fascism’s collectivist project.

Techno-oligarchy’s enemy is the very idea that political collectives have the right to oversee and constrain technological development. Every specific target is an embodiment of that deeper threat – the principle of accountability itself. But its concrete enemies are functional and situational – whoever currently represents an obstacle to techno-oligarchs’ grip on power. Nobody is permanently targeted, but nobody is permanently safe either.

Three. Fascism commands the state; techno-oligarchy hollows it out.

Fascism advocates for a strong, centralised, totalitarian state – often concentrated in a single leader or party. The state is the supreme authority; individual freedoms are subordinated to its goals. Rights are not universal but conditionally granted to a privileged in-group, defined by ethnocultural background or political loyalty.

Techno-oligarchy captures the state and hollows it out, stripping it of its redistributive and protective functions while retaining its enforcement capacity. What remains is a shell that coerces without caring. Rights and freedoms are no longer grounded in citizenship but in economic and functional worth – a subscription model of protection, cancelled the moment a person ceases to be useful.

Four. Fascism collectivises the future; techno-oligarchy privatises it.

Fascism offers its privileged in-group a future-oriented project in which all can participate through collective rituals of belonging. Its promise of symbolic immortality – the survival of the race, the nation, the movement – is open to every member of the in-group. The future is shared, even if it is blood-soaked.

Techno-oligarchy also embraces the future – but reserves it for a handful. For everyone else, the present is indefinitely stretched: an endless, personalised, algorithmically generated stream in which past, present, and future are indistinguishable. Meanwhile, techno-oligarchy’s immortality projects – digital consciousness, biological enhancement, life extension – are private acquisitions, available only to those who can afford to escape the human condition entirely.

Five. Fascism censors information; techno-oligarchy introduces epistemic control.

Fascism systematically “burns books”: censoring ideas, art, and media deemed threatening to its ideological or national project. Such censorship enforces conformity, eliminates dissent, and consolidates power under a totalitarian state.

Techno-oligarchy’s information control operates on algorithmic manipulation which is epistemically inaccessible: ordinary people do not know what is being suppressed, demoted, or amplified, nor by what logic. There is no identifiable boundary to cross, no rule to break – only a probabilistic, constantly shifting, proprietary system optimising for undisclosed objectives, which is a qualitatively deeper form of epistemic power than censorship.

Six. Fascism surveils citizens; techno-oligarchy converts them into data.

Fascism surveils to enforce political loyalty and ideological purity – national, racial, social, cultural. Such surveillance is a hallmark of totalitarian control, aimed at eliminating opposition and shaping society according to an exclusionary vision.

Techno-oligarchy surveils to extract behavioural data, which serves as the raw material of its economic and political power. Its targets are not political subjects but data sources to be mined. Human experience – attention, desire, movement, relationship – becomes a commodity to be predicted, monetised, and governed. Where fascist surveillance sought to eliminate dissent, techno-oligarchic surveillance seeks to preempt it, which is a deeper form of social control.

Seven. Fascism demands devotion; techno-oligarchy demands engagement.

Fascism constructs a culture that embodies its modernist political project, blending revolutionary aspirations with a mythic vision of national rebirth. This culture is deeply aestheticised, transforming politics into a form of political religion through spectacle, ritual, and symbolism.

Techno-oligarchy feels no need to produce culture. The humanities, the arts, historical consciousness are seen as inefficient obstacles to clear thinking. In their place: science fiction slogans, ancient Rome cosplay, fantasy imagery – a collection of borrowed aesthetics in service of no vision whatsoever. Culture is dissolved into content optimised for engagement metrics, valued not for what it means but for how long it holds attention.

Eight. Fascism creates “a new man”; techno-oligarchy renders humanity obsolete.

Fascism operates within recognisably human parameters. Its vision of a “new man” – purified, disciplined, collectively oriented – remains biologically and historically human. Fascism’s telos is anthropocentric, even if its methods – genocide, eugenics, totalitarian control – are inhumanly murderous.

Techno-oligarchy aims to supersede the human species – through AI that renders human intelligence obsolete, through biological enhancement available only to techno-oligarchic elites, through brain-computer interfaces, through the technological singularity as horizon. Techno-oligarchy is the first political formation in history whose implicit endpoint is the obsolescence of humanity itself.

Resistance to techno-oligarchy is harder to build than resistance to fascism. Persecuted groups under fascism can develop solidarity because their enemy status is stable and shared. Techno-oligarchy’s ever-shifting targeting prevents the formation of durable coalitions – each group is isolated, often before others recognise what is happening to them.

The most coherent basis for resistance is humanism: the insistence that humanity, in its diversity and collectivity, is not obsolete. Techno-oligarchy knows this, and works systematically to prevent it – amplifying division, deepening antagonism, and often deploying fascism’s own methods to fragment any potential united front.

The defence of humanity is not a metaphor. It is the political task of our time – and democracy remains the only framework in which that defence can be meaningfully mounted.