One of the proclaimed goals of Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy at its head, is to reduce the US federal budget by about a third, or 2000 billion dollars. Trump said DOGE would help “dismantle government bureaucracy, remove excessive regulations, cut wasteful spending, and restructure federal agencies[[1]».
In August 2024, Trump said during his campaign that, if elected, he would be willing to give Musk an advisory role. In response, Musk wrote a message about[[2]». The New York Times wonders whether the fact that Musk’s companies are subcontractors to the federal government would not lead to a conflict of interest with his proposed work within the new department. Is there still time to ask these kinds of questions, about simple “collateral damage” from the creation of DOGE, while the algorithmic artificialization of political, economic, social decision-making methods, etc., is taking place under our eyes at an astonishing speed? Musk also responded in advance to the New York Times. He describes deregulation as alone path towards the Mars colonization program by SpaceX (!), and, less anecdotally, he promised to “ rid the people of the government, who will no longer dig into their pockets[[3]».
According to CBS News: “These appointments, announced by Mr. Trump on Tuesday, raise a range of questions, including whether Mr. Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy will have the power to change federal spending, given that it is the Congress that authorizes the nation’s spending, as well as areas in which businessmen might seek to cut spending. Under the plan, DOGE is not a formal government ministry, raising further questions about its powers and how it operates.
“Speaking Thursday evening at Mar-a-Lago at a gala hosted by the right-wing think tank America First Policy Institute, Mr. Ramaswamy thanked Mr. Trump ”for making sure that Elon Musk and I are able to start the mass deportations of millions of unelected federal bureaucrats in the Washington bureaucracy. And I don’t know if you already know Elon, but he doesn’t bring scissors, he brings a chainsawand we will tackle this bureaucracy,” added Mr. Ramaswamy. ”It will be very fun’’[[4]».
The government efficiency is not new, contrary to what we read here and there in the world press. As early as 1990, for example, the IMF published 9 Measuring Efficiency in Government : Techniques and Experiencepar Jack Diamond[[5]. It was then a methodology for calculating the efficiency of government, using, above all, mathematical tools. In the 2010s, Antoinette Rouvroy alerted us to the rise of “algorithmic governmentality”[[ ou encore .” id=”nh6″>6]”. Which, on the other hand, is completely new, in the government efficiency of Trump, Musk and Saraswamy, is the violence of their speeches and their ideological justification. “Mass deportations”, “chainsaw”, “very funny”: these are terms which, in the political domain, are explicit allusions to the most extreme forms of totalitarianism and cynicism – an “ultra” libertarian discourse.
The election of Trump marks the death of what was left of democracy. Certainly, there was not much left, and in the United States, it would be entirely possible to show that, from the beginning, in the 18th century, there were hardly any. Slavery was constitutionally permitted in the Southern states; Native Americans began to be driven from their lands and deported legally to reservations, most often very far from their original territory.[[7]and it must be added, recalling this double genocide, that the very heart of the Constitution immediately offered the entirely realistic possibility of doing without, precisely, democratic constraints – or, at the very least, of circumvent them, thanks to the articulation between the federal government, the Supreme Court, the Senate and the President. Indeed, this small group could, in fact, direct the State, without taking into account the opinion of the House of Representatives (which in any case did not offer the certainty of a completed democracy…). It turns out that in 2024, American voters have just placed a camarilla of leaders with avowed totalitarian aspirations at the head of the most militarily powerful state in the world.
It’s time to learn some lessons from this. No point waiting for a second January 6: a new attack on the Capitol might not even be necessary for what little of the democratic system by representation that remained in the United States to be abolished. Pure and simple. Constitutionally.
We must not wait for this moment of definitive change, otherwise we risk reliving, for the worse (due to US military power and the psychosocial debasement of populations in industrial societies), the darkest hours of the previous century. And it’s not because the new ones subhuman designated for popular vindictiveness by the Trump triumvirate Musk Saraswamy are federal officials, Black, White, Latino or Asian, and not a specific “racial” group, that their policy does not carry the worst consequences imaginable. Because the now plausible annihilation of federal budgets devoted to the social sector, the fight against global warming, education, health and youth in general will lead to an increase in misery and violence in a country which locks up 0.7% of its population (i.e. a proportion six times higher than in France) and in which the prison-industrial complex (the term is from Angela Davis) is already operating at full capacity[[8]. Repression is the order of the day!
Totalitarian perspectives
The role of ideology in any political system – including neoliberalism which claims to be eminently logical, and which would only be a consequence practical of capitalist economic efficiency – is, at certain moments in history, fundamental. Indeed, when a system “stagnates” or faces difficulties, as is the case today without the slightest doubt, it often happens to pose perspectives through speeches supposed to bring out a possible, credible, even desirable future. In this case, Saraswamy uses the terms “mass deportations” and not “cuts” of jobs, nor “reclassification” of personnel or “reorientations” of state agents. The use of this term “deportation”, which is usually only used for the deportation of slaves from Africa or those of Jews[[9]is therefore not neutral. This terminology is no more neutral than Macron’s “people who are nothing”, the speeches of the Argentinian Milei or the Salvadoran Bukele (who broke the record in terms of imprisonment rate: 1.5% of “its” population is incarcerated[[10]), etc., and all the examples of “negationist” speeches, in a certain way, which are, unfortunately, becoming legion among leaders.
Moreover, it turns out that Trump’s idea of imposing this “ministry” which will not really be one in order to circumvent its validation by Congress (if indeed he proceeds in this way, as the New York Times or CBS News), while imposing it as the central organ of its new organization of power, is a crucial indication of its respect for democracy. Trump will circumvent formal democratic obstacles – again: even if there are very few left in the United States – as he already did during the attack on the Capitol. That day, in fact, he managed to incite a huge crowd to seize this symbol while not participating in the action himself. A bit like Mussolini and his “March on Rome” which gave him power, and in which Mussolini did not participate in person! Which did not prevent him, subsequently, from creating a fascist legend showing him at the head of his blackshirt troops.
These elements of language and institutional (or anti-institutional) formalism do not seem neutral to us. Should we draw the conclusion that our future is to live under a totalitarian regime? On a global, global level? And if the answer is perhaps yes, or this is one of the possible perspectives, is it not time to devote ourselves to avoiding this totalitarianism which can, in the long term, only lead to generalized armed conflict? ? Because this system is not viable and will perhaps soon have, as its only horizon, the suppression of part of the world’s population in order to release the pressure posed by all of the challenges that pose it. threaten. In other words: the immediate political perspective is war and totalitarianism.
A totalitarianism undoubtedly of a new kind, made of all-out control thanks in particular to digital tools, of stupidization of populations (through the destruction of educational systems and the generalization of so-called artificial “intelligence”), of destruction health systems, all with infinite growth in military budgets (which has already been the case for more than ten years almost everywhere in the world[[11]) before coming to open armed conflicts. The leaders, cloistered in their gated comunities (and aiming for the immortality of the transhumanists dear to Elon Musk?), will watch us from above as we try to survive and tear each other apart, a bit like gladiators in Rome, or rather voluntary martyrs at the Maxime circus ( yes, who elected Trump, Milei, Bukele, Macron, Meloni, etc.?). The Roman people will simply have been replaced by a caste of leaders with strictly speaking inhuman ambitions. Not even terrestrial, moreover, if we consider Musk’s Martian program plausible…
Elisha Person
What specific aspects of “algorithmic governmentality,” as described by the author, do you find most concerning, and why?
This is a powerful and troubling text! It paints a bleak picture of the future under leaders like Trump, Musk, and Sara Swamy.
Here’s a breakdown of potential open-ended interview questions divided by thematic sections:
**Section 1: The Death of Democracy and the Rise of “Algorithmic Governmentality”**
* **Do you believe the author’s claim that the election of Trump marked the death of democracy in the United States? Why or why not?**
* **What does the author mean by “algorithmic governmentality,” and how do you think it is different from traditional forms of governance?**
* **How do you interpret the author’s use of historical examples, like slavery and the treatment of Native Americans, to contextualize the current political situation?**
**Section 2: Language, Ideology, and the “Totalitarian Perspectives”**
* **The author uses strong language to describe the rhetoric of leaders like Trump, Musk, and Saraswamy. Do you agree with their characterization of this language as “totalitarian”? Why or why not?**
* **How does the author connect ideology to the “stagnation” of political systems? Do you find this connection convincing?**
* **What is the significance of the examples of “negationist” speech cited by the author? How do they contribute to the overall argument?**
**Section 3: The Future and the Potential for Resistance**
* **What are the potential consequences, according to the author, of the unchecked growth of military budgets and the destruction of public services? Do you agree with this assessment?**
* **The author predicts a bleak future with the rise of totalitarianism and possibly global armed conflict. Do you see any alternative paths or possibilities for change? What could individuals or societies do to resist these trends?**
* **How do you interpret the author’s closing statement about the leaders being “cloistered in their gated communities”? What message do you think they are trying to convey?**
**Interview Structure:**
1. **Introduction:** Begin with brief introductions and set the stage for the conversation, emphasizing the importance and complexity of the themes discussed in the article.
2. **Thematic Exploration:** Engage with each thematic section, asking open-ended questions and encouraging the interviewee to share their perspectives, insights, and experiences.
3. **Critical Analysis:** Encourage critical thinking by asking the interviewee to analyze the author’s arguments, consider alternative viewpoints, and explore the implications of the ideas presented.
4. **Personal Reflections:** Invite the interviewee to share their own thoughts and feelings about the issues raised in the article, drawing connections to their own lives or experiences.
5. **Conclusion:** Summarize key takeaways from the discussion and offer a closing statement that reflects on the significance of the conversation.
Remember, the goal is to create a thoughtful and engaging dialogue that explores the multifaceted challenges posed by the ideas presented in the article.
