By El Indio (original article in Italian published on Globalproject on January 31, 2025)
translation by the editorial team of Globalproject
It has been just over a week since Donald Trump’s (re)inauguration at the White House, and the political-media ecosystem has been flooded with an unprecedented wave of inputs. From Elon Musk’s raised-arm salute to the shocking photo of migrants in chains at the airport, from the alleged “Americanization” of TikTok to the plan to “cleanse” Gaza of Palestinians, the world appears to be caught in the eye of an ever-expanding tornado. The sensation is so overwhelming and widespread that it has triggered messianic ramblings across the political spectrum, proclaiming, in no particular order, the end of war, NATO, and globalization. For the fervent believers in geopolitics, this is a golden opportunity to fantasize about how this storm will redraw the global chessboard.
But rather than a strategic game with pieces moving across a map, what is unfolding is a contest on a playing field without clear borders, where the stakes are no longer just territorial control but the ability to impose a dominant narrative. Trump’s return and Musk’s rise are not merely an acceleration of plutocracy or the ultimate privatization of the public sphere—as Ida Dominijanni wrote in Internazionale—but a sign of a deeper transformation: power is no longer exercised solely through institutions and parties but through a constant flow of provocations, algorithms, and personalized narratives.
This is politics as permanent spectacle, a never-ending competition for attention. With Musk reshaping the boundaries of public discourse and Trump occupying it with his unmatched ability to ignite every conversation, we are witnessing what Anton Jäger calls hyperpolitics: a structureless, unmediated political arena driven by instant mobilizations, virality, and communication shocks. Everything is hyper-politicized, yet politics is reduced to a top-down exercise of decision-making.
This is not merely the failure of traditional politics but a profound transformation. The rise of Trump 2.0 marks a rupture, yet at the same time, it fits within a systemic fracture that has long been emerging—where capitalism, authoritarianism, and technology merge, radically altering the very essence of contemporary democracy. The roots of this phenomenon lie in the structural crisis of neoliberal capitalism, which we will soon revisit.
Trump has been the catalyst of this mutation, refining a strategy that blends aggression and unpredictability. His method, often described as the “madman theory” or “bully strategy,” is based on unilateral and destabilizing moves aimed at securing immediate advantages without concern for long-term consequences. Over the past days, we have seen this tactic become even more aggressive than during his first term. Whether in domestic policy or international relations, his approach accelerates geopolitical fragmentation, creating new fault lines of conflict and deliberately fueling the uncertainties of this transitional hegemonic phase.
But the real battleground is the digital infrastructure. Platforms are no longer mere tools for governing the existing order; they have assumed governmental power themselves. They do not just influence opinions—they redefine the very conditions of politics, sometimes turning it into a simulation. The parade of Big Tech CEOs at Inauguration Day is the symbolic image of this transition: not just Trump’s new court, but a blurring of the lines between who truly holds power and who serves it. This marks the transition from platform capitalism to an overtly oligarchic phase, where control is concentrated in the hands of a few, and virality becomes the primary instrument of governance.
In this context, the “fascism of platforms” is not just a metaphor but a concrete reality: a power structure that uses technology to normalize authoritarian dynamics, making them an integral part of daily life.
Given these dynamics, the real turning point of Trump 2.0 lies in his ability to accelerate and consolidate a governance model based on the fusion of political power and technological dominance. This new alliance between authoritarianism and technocracy is rooted in the crisis of neoliberal capitalism—a term that perhaps should be used with greater caution. Rather than collapsing, neoliberalism seems to have adapted, incorporating authoritarian and technocratic elements to strengthen its own hegemony.
Recalling some of Michel Foucault’s categories, the Trump-Musk tandem perfectly embodies the capitalist rationality that reorganizes not only the relationship between rulers and the ruled but also the fusion of political and economic power into a new form of governance. Trump manipulates cultural and identity codes, transforming them into political capital, while Musk presents himself as the symbol of a technocracy that promises futuristic solutions to present problems, as exemplified by his “Mars project.”
Trumpian authoritarianism does not contradict neoliberalism but rather represents its functional extremization. Whereas classical neoliberalism sought to minimize the role of the state, allowing markets to regulate economic and social dynamics, the current phase marks a reversal: state power is no longer dismantled but reconfigured as a direct instrument for sustaining capitalism in an era of limited resources and systemic crises. Trump, in this logic, does not govern according to the liberal idea of mediating social interests and collective bargaining; instead, he operates as a CEO, treating the state as a company to be managed with efficiency, profit, and branding in mind. Citizens are no longer subjects of rights but resources to be optimized, segmented, repressed, and mobilized for economic productivity and global competition.
This is not a new model, but today this mutation responds to a specific historical necessity: in a world where unlimited growth clashes with the planet’s material limits—from ecological crisis to resource depletion—capitalism can no longer rely solely on markets for expansion. It requires a new level of political intervention to protect itself from its own imbalances and to survive in conditions of scarcity. Trump, with his mix of selective protectionism, extreme deregulation, and charismatic authoritarianism, is the perfect interpreter of this new phase. His governance model does not oppose neoliberalism but radicalizes it, transforming the state into a machine that disciplines market chaos, secures strategic resource control, and directly manages social conflict, neutralizing structural opposition.
This is the necessary evolution of a system that, to survive its own crisis, must comprehensively redefine the relationship between political power, the economy, and citizenship. Perhaps this is why—as Marco Bascetta wrote in Il Manifesto—governments across Europe, from Italy to Hungary, along with the rising far-right forces on the continent, see the new American administration as a strategic reference point, sharing similar visions, ideologies, and political objectives.
The response to this transformation cannot be limited to sterile rejection or nostalgic calls for a past that no longer exists. A new political-economic paradigm must be built—one capable of rethinking the relationship between democracy, technology, and social justice in an era where power is exercised not only through institutions but also through data flows, information manipulation, and algorithmic governance of lives.
Escaping the logic of hyperpolitics and the illusion of participatory engagement created by digital platforms is no easy task, as it means swimming against the current of a system designed to channel dissent without allowing it to effect real change. The issue is not just the influence of social media on politics but the way they have redefined collective action itself: everything revolves around visibility, speed, and immediate reaction, whereas real transformation processes require time, organization, and grassroots connections.
Outrage that dissipates within a single trending cycle and ephemeral mobilizations that fade within hours may create an illusion of participation but often end up reinforcing the status quo, making conflict harmless and easily governable. The public sphere is not merely occupied by power; it has been redesigned to shape collective behavior, fostering fragmentation, isolation, and the dispersion of dissent. In this scenario, adapting to the rules imposed by algorithms means accepting a predefined cage where every move is anticipated, analyzed, and, if necessary, neutralized.
To break this vicious cycle, politics must be radically reimagined: no longer as immediate reactions to media stimuli but as the construction of practices that have a concrete impact on material living conditions. It is not enough to denounce digital technocracy; autonomous organizational tools must be developed, collective action spaces rebuilt, and forms of conflict redefined—freeing them from the performance-driven logic imposed by platform capitalism.
(cover image: Creator: Free Malaysia Today | Credit: Free Malaysia Today,; Copyright: © Free Malaysia Today, 2025; Attribution 4.0 International; https://shorturl.at/PMFod)