Are we witnessing the rise of a new world order—one ruled not by governments, but by private armies, tech tycoons, and corporate fiefdoms? What sounds like dystopian fiction may, in fact, reflect the dream of a fringe of anarcho-capitalists, now alarmingly close to real power, especially within the ascendant far right.
But is it really a “Techno-Feudal” turn or something more fragmented and chaotic? To make sense of the forces at play—their ambitions, strategies, and contradictions—Reset DOC spoke with historian Quinn Slobodian, author of Crack-Up Capitalism: Market Radicals and the Dream of a World without Democracy.
The global political and economic order is facing a deep crisis. Is the 1990s-style neoliberal globalization coming to an end?
The core premise of neoliberalism is the prioritization of economic freedom over political freedom. Throughout the 20th century, this largely involved reconciling the rights of capital with the spread of universal suffrage and representative democracy: for many years, the multilateral economic order that resulted from this trend has often been called “neoliberal globalization.”
In the later decades of the century, however, non-democratic models of capitalism began to gain prominence. China, above all, but also the Gulf states—such as Dubai and Saudi Arabia—demonstrated that autocratic capitalism could be just as effective as any attempt to constrain and tame democracy.
During the Biden administration, there was an effort to transcend that kind of neoliberalism from the left. However, it is now impossible to ignore that Trump’s model is transcending that kind of neoliberalism from the right. He appears to be aligning himself more with the state capitalist models of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China, no longer feeling the need to make even token gestures toward democratic liberal norms—let alone multilateral governance.
The traditional categories of “neoliberalism” may in fact be no more helpful than “fascism” or “populism” to make sense of these shifts.
Terms “anarcho-capitalism” and “libertarianism” are increasingly mentioned alongside “neoliberalism”. But are they useful for understanding today’s transformations?
For a long time, anarcho-capitalism was a marginal ideology within the broader neoliberal framework. Most neoliberal intellectuals believed that the state played an essential role in protecting capital rights, maintaining law and order, enforcing contracts, and creating competitive markets. Thinkers like Friedrich Hayek even argued for a rudimentary social safety net. However, a small number of radicals—including Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, and his son David Friedman—advocated for a more extreme alternative: eliminating the state entirely and replacing it with private service providers. Though active in libertarian intellectual circles, these thinkers were often dismissed as extremists without a viable blueprint for realizing their vision in a modern political landscape.
In recent years, however, the fusion of tech-driven optimism and extreme libertarianism has led more people to believe that a form of fully privatized governance could become a reality. Key figures in this movement include Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a protégé of Rothbard, who has been influential in the so-called “New Right,” and Curtis Yarvin, who—though not a libertarian—advocates for replacing nation-states with a form of corporate monarchy.
Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism – once fringe currents within neoliberal thought – are becoming increasingly influential, especially on the US far right. What other ideological forces are shaping it today?
To understand the evolution of the far right in the United States, we need to recognize it as a dynamic convergence of political ideologies that, until recently, lacked proximity to power. This is evident in Elon Musk’s takeover of major institutions, which combines aspects of managerialism—the belief that the state should be run like a corporation for efficiency—with the Christian conservative think-tank narrative represented by Heritage Foundation above all that views the administrative state as a parasitic force pushing out policies to institute an imaginary dictatorship of the “Marxist radical left” complete with gender fluidity, reproductive rights, and the antiracist attack on American exceptionalism.
This movement also incorporates an “accelerationist” wing, influenced by anarcho-capitalism and other online ideologies, which envisions dismantling the state altogether. You can see all these politics working in something like DOGE alone. To expand it to the entire Trump cabinet there are also strains there of nativist national conservatism primarily focused on blood-and-soil ethnic community and hatred of non-white immigrants. There are also a fair share of mainstream Wall Street operators and more newcomer crypto hustlers trying to figure out how to get their share from the Trump pie. Add into this the more techno-developmentalist wing of Sam Altman and others focused on Artificial Intelligence and it’s a toxic stew indeed. Whether it is possible to assimilate this all into a single “ism” or ideology is unlikely.
Around the world, the far right seems to encompass a wide range of currents and perspectives. How can we make sense of it as a political phenomenon?
Far-right movements worldwide reflect different combinations of ideas. Some lean toward embracing the state as the guarantor of order, while others emphasize a vision of stateless and ruthless social Darwinist competition. For now, they appear to be acting tactically rather than adhering rigidly to ideology, adapting their strategies as conditions change. In Europe, for instance, the far right has shifted from advocating secession and EU withdrawal to co-opting institutions for their own ends. Rather than searching for a singular ideological blueprint in the writings of specific thinkers, it is more useful to examine the evolving relationship between far-right parties, the state, and extra-parliamentary forces that mobilize support, intimidate opponents, and operate outside the bounds of legality.
Big Tech’s support for the far right – especially in the United States – is becoming increasingly visible. Some argue that tech elites are the true rulers of the country, if not the world. Are we entering a “techno-feudal” age?
There are valid interpretations of neo- or techno-feudalism circulating on both the left and the right. It is true that the most profitable sectors of the U.S. economy rely on rent-seeking rather than productive enterprise. It is also true that the structure of campaign financing has made the influence of a small group of wealthy individuals disproportionately powerful compared to the votes of the general public. These dynamics resemble aspects of early modern or pre-modern political orders.
However, it is notable that figures like Steve Bannon have adopted techno-feudal interpretation to attack Silicon Valley elites competing for Trump’s favor. For that reason alone, it is worth asking how much these interpretations describe reality and how much they obscure it.
Yet this was the dream of some anarcho-capitalists: a form of “neo-medievalism.” In some ways, haven’t they succeeded?
While some anarcho-capitalists envision a fragmented patchwork of microstates competing for resources, the reality is that layers of civil society and legal structures still exist in the United States and beyond, preventing such a scenario from fully materializing. Instead, we are more likely to experience intermediate forms of political disorganization, decentralization, and bare-knuckle geoeconomic jockeying that fall short of outright neo-medievalism. Take the US play for Greenland and Panama. Is this a move toward a futuristic privatized rule by enclave or a return to 19th century gunboat diplomacy and territorial annexation? Likely it will borrow from both.
At the same time, a major obstacle to confronting the far right is the failure of mainstream political discourse to recognize the fusion of old and new ideologies at play. We need new conceptual frameworks that acknowledge both the growing influence of private power and the radical uncertainty surrounding the future of governance.
Cover photo: Protestors gather during a “Hands Off!” protest against the policies of US President Donald Trump and his advisor, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, in Huntington Beach, California, on April 5, 2025. Thousands of people descended on Washington’s National Mall and rallied in other cities across the United States and abroad in opposition to the policies of Donald Trump, in the largest protests since he returned to the presidency. (Photo by Frederic J. Brown / AFP)
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn to see and interact with our latest contents.
If you like our stories, events, publications and dossiers, sign up for our newsletter (twice a month).