By FABIO C. ZUCCOLOTTO*
Ultraliberalism, extremism and the origins of totalitarianism.
In the text “The entropic subject: an essay on social networks, structure, recognition and consumerism”, published in 2022, I wrote: “Globalized society has its rationalizable infrastructure in new technologies. A Cartesian, technical, scientific and amoral foundation, where each advance is calculated, giving continuity to the geostrategic and historical disputes between nations, organized groups, ethnicities and corporations, for political primacy in access to natural resources, which are increasingly scarce. It is in its most external layer, therefore, visible and perceptible, sociocultural field of morality and ethics – where, until a few years ago, social relations were carried out in an apparently more solid and structured form –, that the earthquake of the subject of virtual social networks occurs. Fundamentally, before the astonished gaze of those born in the pre-globalism world”.
“Due to the enormous technological advances in a short space of time, in their micro and exponential logic, there has been an almost total alienation of the masses regarding the potential and effective achievements of what we call rationalizable infrastructure in the new global dynamics. This alienation also affects more visible sectors of the States and institutional politics, as possible regulatory agents of socially reckless actions.”
Expanding on the meaning of alienation to which I referred, in light of recent events, I consider the following article to be pertinent.
Social engineering, a technique of psychological manipulation to influence the behavior and decisions of individuals and entire societies, has been widely used in the contemporary global scenario. From intelligence operations by secret services to large-scale disinformation campaigns by powerful political and economic groups, this approach exploits human and institutional vulnerabilities to achieve strategic objectives. This practice has been used by Big Tech, especially those aligned with the interests of the US elite, as a tool to preserve power amid the decline of the country's geopolitical hegemony.
From neoliberalism to ultraliberalism
The transition from neoliberalism to ultraliberalism represents a radicalization of the economic and political premises that emerged in the second half of the 20th century. Although both concepts are anchored in a defense of the free market, state deregulation, and the primacy of private capital, ultraliberalism deepens these ideas, resulting in an even more extreme form of concentration of economic power and the dismantling of democratic and social institutions.
Neoliberalism emerged as a reaction to post-war interventionist policies, drawing on the theories of economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. It advocated limiting state intervention in the economy, privatizing public services, and making labor relations more flexible. These ideas gained traction during the governments of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States, establishing the belief that the market, when free from regulation, would be capable of self-regulation and generating prosperity.
However, what we have seen over the decades is an increase in inequality, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and the progressive weakening of social safety nets. Financial crises, such as the one in 2008, have highlighted the flaws of this model by demonstrating how excessive deregulation of the financial system led to a global collapse, affecting mainly the most vulnerable populations, while economic elites continued to profit and concentrate income and power.
Ultraliberalism emerges as an even more radical response to this context, not only deepening the principles of neoliberalism, but also eliminating any commitment, however minimal, to social well-being and democratic balance. In ultraliberalism, the market is not only prioritized, but is seen as the only legitimate regulator of human relations, even surpassing the role of states and democratic institutions. This model advocates the extreme financialization of the economy, speculation as the central driver of wealth accumulation, and the drastic reduction of public policies aimed at the common good.
Unlike neoliberalism, which still operated under the narrative of “shared prosperity,” ultraliberalism openly embraces inequality as not only an inevitable but desirable aspect of a society where the supposed individual merit of billionaires and the unrestricted accumulation of capital are exalted, as if they did not historically benefit from tax breaks, direct government investment, and scientific advances from public universities around the world.
This ultra-liberal model is clearly manifested in technology and finance companies that operate under monopolistic logic, such as Big Tech, which use algorithms to manipulate markets and social behavior, thus reinforcing their concentration of power and informational control.
In the political sphere, ultraliberalism is often associated with authoritarianism and neofascism, because by undermining the foundations of the modern state as a mediator of plural social interests, it fosters and organizes the extreme right, while its counterpart acts as a shield and overseer. This ideological fusion can be seen in figures such as Jair Bolsonaro, Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni, who, despite adopting nationalist and “defending the people” discourses, implement economic agendas that dismantle labor rights and weaken democratic institutions.
Thus, the transition from neoliberalism to ultraliberalism is not just a theoretical evolution, but the intensification of a global power project that seeks to consolidate the supremacy of a speculative financial elite, while progressively dismantling the social achievements and mechanisms of popular participation in the political process, hard-won throughout the 20th century.
Big Tech, information control and ultraliberalism
Big Techs control the main information flows and, thus, exercise unprecedented power in manipulating the masses. This influence has been instrumentalized to promote an ultraliberal ideology that weakens government regulations and delegitimizes democratic control mechanisms. The appointment of figures such as UFC President Dana White to the Meta board, reflects this logic, as White is associated with extremist rhetoric and associated with the values of extreme deregulation.
Additionally, we bring Meta has abolished fact-checking on its platform in the US, replacing it with a “community ratings” system, inspired by Elon Musk’s X. This approach, presented as a defense of freedom of expression, weakens the verification of information and allows the proliferation of misinformation and extremist content.
Google has also demonstrated this behavior by manipulating, in December 2024, the dollar exchange rate on its platform, reporting inflated values during the holiday, when the market was closed. Another piece of evidence was the case in September 2024, when Google hid information about certain political candidates in Brazil, favoring right-wing and far-right candidates while hiding center-left profiles, suggesting biased algorithmic interference.
A pressure exerted by Google and Meta on the Brazilian Congress to overturn Bill 2630, known as the Fake News Bill, in 2023, exemplifies the modus operandi of these companies when fighting regulation. For 14 days, the companies promoted massive campaigns, including threats of content removal and targeted attacks on parliamentarians to prevent the approval of legislation that sought greater accountability for digital platforms.
Extremism and political manipulation
The rise of the global far right, evidenced by events such as the election of Donald Trump and the rise of ultraconservative leaders in Europe and Latin America, is directly linked to the informational manipulation promoted by these platforms. The 2007-2008 financial crisis played a central role in this process, as it intensified austerity policies and social precariousness, factors exploited by far-right movements that channeled popular discontent into identity-based and anti-immigration agendas, instead of questioning structural neoliberalism.
This discursive strategy does not reject neoliberalism, but rather exploits resentments surrounding globalization, multiculturalism, and the mass immigration of survivors—displaced by wars waged by capital—by directing frustration at minorities and weakening democratic debate. Episodes such as the invasion of the Capitol in the US and the destruction of the Praça dos Três Poderes in Brazil reflect the rise of neofascism in this global dynamic, as a violent, mass-produced bouncer instrumentalized to defend the ultraliberal projects of local financial elites.
In the Latin American context, in addition to the rhetoric against multiculturalism in globalization, there is the use of a delusional anti-communist discourse, in which those who defend the institutions of liberal democracy, democratic socialism, humanism, the arts and the regulation of ultra-liberalism, including Big Tech, are often labeled as enemies of the social order and the nation.
This rhetoric not only delegitimizes critical voices, education and science, but also fosters an environment of extreme violence against critical thinking, in which any opposition to corporate dominance and the dismantling of social rights is treated as a threat to the system they defend, even if they consider themselves anti-system.
This is a decisive framing in the observation that there is no longer neoliberalism, but an advance towards the form of ultraliberalism, which uses lies and mass distortions to indoctrinate sectors of the masses and to marshal their frustrations arising from neoliberalism, which has become unsustainable after its last global crisis. By diverting the focus from the consequences of economic deregulation and the concentration of power in the hands of a few companies, this extremist discourse protects hegemonic financial and political interests, while attacking and weakening the foundations of democratic debate and the search for a more just and balanced society, including with weapons in hand and organizing domestic terrorism.
Ultraliberalism and the defense of the global speculative elite
The ultraliberalism promoted by Big Tech serves the interests of a global financial elite that is numerically tiny but has immense power over the world’s economy and politics. This elite uses informational control and algorithmic manipulation to maintain and expand its influence, fueling a cycle of economic inequality and social injustice that, in turn, fosters extremism and ideological polarization. This dynamic reflects the values and worldview of the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) establishment, historically linked to financial and cultural dominance in the West.
The WASP establishment has its deep roots in the colonial and racist origins of the United States and Europe. In the North American context, for example, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) played a key role in preserving a deeply rooted racial hierarchy, defending a segregated and white society, while in the Old Continent, European colonial powers such as the British Empire and France imposed a system of exploitation based on the racial and cultural subordination of native populations. This colonial and racist legacy, in turn, consolidated the economic supremacy of the West after World War II, with the United States and the United Kingdom emerging as the financial centers of the world.
The rise of neo-Nazi and neo-fascist movements, such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the National Front (now Rassemblement National) in France, the Alloy of Matteo Salvini in Italy and the Fratelli d'Italia-Alleanza Nazionale, led by Giorgia Meloni, illustrates the persistence of such ideologies in the current scenario. Recently, in an article published in World on Sunday, Elon Musk expressed support for the AfD, a German far-right party that, since 2021, has been classified by the German domestic intelligence agency as extremist. Elon Musk, billionaire and owner of companies such as Tesla and SpaceX, with American citizenship, stated in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that “only the AfD can save Germany”.
This position led to the dismissal of Eva Marie Kogel, the newspaper's Opinion editor, who left in protest, highlighting the importance of freedom of expression, but also of journalistic responsibility.
Elon Musk's support for the AfD is part of a broader context of support from ultra-wealthy figures for right-wing populist movements that not only advocate the dismantling of democratic structures but also perpetuate a system of global exploitation that favors large corporations, as demonstrated by Elon Musk's stance on the 2019 coup d'état in Bolivia. When commenting on the interest in overthrowing the government of Evo Morales to secure control over Bolivian lithium, Musk uttered the phrase “We will coup whoever we want!”, in response to a provocation about the impact of its economic influence in the region.
Elon Musk, by supporting an agenda that aims at the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources in Latin American countries, follows a logic of power based on neocolonialism, where the interests of global financial elites override the sovereignty of nations and the rights of local populations.
In parallel, the neo-Nazi movement in Germany, personified by the AfD, continues on a path of denying cultural and racial diversity, aiming not only at the deconstruction of the welfare state, but also at creating an ideological environment favorable to white supremacy and ultra-nationalism. These movements have gained strength, particularly with the support of figures like Elon Musk, who, by defending anti-democratic positions, feeds a global narrative that aims to further consolidate the global speculative elite at the expense of marginalized peoples.
Furthermore, the ultra-liberal ideology, driven by figures like Balaji Srinivasan, promotes an even more extreme agenda: the replacement of modern states by private corporate fiefdoms. Balaji Srinivasan advocates the creation of digital and physical microstates, where companies and financial elites would hold absolute control, abolishing state sovereignty and the rights guaranteed by constitutional democracies.
This concept of “Networked States”, promoted in Silicon Valley, not only disregards the fundamental principles of modern States, such as those proposed by Rousseau in the social contract, but it also goes back to the feudal model of governance, in which power was centralized in a few hands and citizens' rights were practically non-existent.
This philosophy, in addition to being utopian and dangerous, is already beginning to materialize in practices such as the Próspera project in Honduras, a private city that seeks to impose its own laws to the detriment of national legislation, generating an environment of exploitation and corporate authoritarianism.
This alliance between financial interests and far-right movements is an expression of what can be understood as a globalization of elites, where, contrary to the economic globalization that falsely promised prosperity for all, what is consolidated is an even more exclusionary, unequal and violent system. In a world where economic power is in the hands of a few, the manipulation of information and the organization of extremism become fundamental instruments for social and political control, creating conditions for an endless cycle of concentration of wealth and power.
The origins of totalitarianism and the practices of Big Tech
The Big Tech project reflects the dynamics described by Hannah Arendt in The origins of totalitarianism. Arendt highlighted how totalitarian regimes promote the systematic distortion of truth, creating parallel realities in which facts are manipulated to favor power structures. This manipulation, according to her, is not only a form of control, but an essential part of the disintegration of objective reality, a process fundamental to the maintenance of authoritarian systems.
The recent allegation of Mark Zuckerberg on “secret cuts” and censorship in Latin America, as well as his statement on an alleged “institutionalization of censorship” in Europe, reflect a rhetorical strategy to escape regulation. However, the history of Big Tech, including information manipulation, political interference and campaigns against regulations such as PL 2630 in Brazil, shows that these claims are attempts at self-preservation in a sector that is increasingly out of control.
Contemporary social engineering conducted by these companies not only distorts facts, but also encourages the fragmentation of collective reality. The techniques described by Arendt, such as informational isolation and the disintegration of the perception of truth, are visible in the way Big Tech operates. Algorithmic manipulation, by prioritizing polarizing and misinformative content, atomizes public debate and demobilizes critical thinking.
Hannah Arendt analyzed how totalitarianism disarticulates public space by replacing rational debate with a flood of fabricated and contradictory narratives, a phenomenon that finds an echo in the functioning of digital platforms. Big Tech, through opaque algorithms, not only amplifies false information, but also creates information bubbles that isolate users in alternative realities, undermining inexorable facts and the concept of shared truth.
The massive disinformation promoted by these platforms reflects Arendt’s notion that totalitarianism depends on the destruction of critical judgment. According to Hannah Arendt, continuous exposure to contradictory versions of reality is not intended to convince, but to disorient and weaken individuals’ capacity for autonomous judgment. Similarly, the business model of Big Tech, based on engagement through polarization, encourages informational confusion and passivity in the face of distorted narratives.
Another central aspect of Hannah Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism is the role of depersonalized bureaucracy and diffuse power structures, which make accountability nearly impossible. Big Tech replicates this logic by fragmenting its operations through complex networks of subsidiaries and their respective endless algorithms whose functioning and impact are kept deliberately obscure. As in the totalitarian regimes described by Arendt, the concentration of power occurs at the same time as individual responsibility is diluted.
Hannah Arendt’s critique of totalitarianism thus illuminates the way Big Tech operates today: by manipulating information, distorting the collective perception of reality, and fragmenting public space, these companies not only threaten democracy, but also come dangerously close to the practices of domination described in her work. Their tactics are not merely failures of an unregulated market, but rather structural strategies that concentrate power at the cost of society’s autonomy and critical discernment.
The future
The advance of Big Tech in manipulating the global flow of information under an ultra-liberal and anti-democratic logic demands an urgent and coordinated response. Inspired by the reflections of Hannah Arendt, it is possible to identify the totalitarian dynamics that emerge when control over information is concentrated in a few corporations.
It is imperative that governments, civil society and multilateral institutions act together to establish regulations that limit the power of these platforms. Imposing accountability and transparency, especially in the use of algorithms and Artificial Intelligence, is essential to preserve informational sovereignty and ensure a more ethical, plural and truly democratic digital environment. Only with these measures will it be possible to face the challenges of a multipolar order and resist the ideological manipulation promoted by Big Tech on a global scale.
*Fabio C. Zuccolotto, theoretical and clinical psychoanalyst, graduated in social sciences from the State University of Campinas (Unicamp).
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
