Karl Marx argued that when the gap between the relations of production and the means of production becomes too large, society undergoes a fundamental transformation, often through revolution. By that logic, artificial intelligence may be precisely the kind of breakthrough technology that cannot function indefinitely within the existing social order. If it cannot be stopped—and that now appears impossible—then society will either begin operating under an entirely new set of rules or collapse.
The obvious question is why those who currently hold power should care if society collapses. Yet it appears that at least some of them genuinely do. I have already cited the fashionable political philosopher Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel, a billionaire with political influence comparable to that of Elon Musk. A few days ago, J. D. Vance joined them in strikingly forceful terms.
What matters is that all of them speak clearly and unequivocally about the need for a highly active state role in any new order, including the partial or complete nationalization of key AI companies. On the American right, this idea is nowhere near as absurd as it may seem to us. During Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, there was open discussion of forcibly breaking up Facebook into several companies and nationalizing parts of it. Nothing ultimately came of the proposal, but the seriousness with which it was taken was evident in Mark Zuckerberg’s alarmed response, when he pledged cooperation in transforming Facebook into a more competitive environment.
But America is not China. That means that even when the most powerful and influential figures support a particular idea, there is no guarantee it will actually be implemented. There is even less certainty that it will be implemented wisely. The issue will be debated for years. Various chaotic half-measures will be attempted. None of them will work particularly well. Only a generation later might a reformer emerge who is capable of restoring order. By then, however, events may have advanced so far that there is little left to save.
What we do know is that even the magnates have little enthusiasm for a future in which America becomes a post-apocalyptic wasteland, with drones chasing scattered bands of wild men while the wealthy retreat into fortified garden cities. They appear willing, at least in principle, to accept some limits on the growth of their profits if doing so is necessary for America’s survival.
There is, however, an important caveat. The fact that they care about America does not mean they care about the fate of small European nations. Those countries will have to look after themselves.