It can be argued that while politics and power are inherently linked in Western liberal democracies, capital has played a fundamental role, albeit quietly and often behind the curtains, in influencing the shape of the political landscape and the distribution of power. This is particularly noticeable in American politics, where the industries are a part of the fabric of a system that exerts pressure on the formation of political actions through massive lobbying expenditures, substantial campaign donations via Political Action Committees i.e. PACs and Super PACs, and perhaps more importantly through “revolving door” practices, where former government officials are deployed in industrial roles and vice versa.

Today, key sectors like finance, healthcare, agriculture, energy, defence and technology invest billions annually to shape legislation, regulations and tax policies that favor them. The capital’s access to the political sphere and the financial leverage involved, often translate to tax breaks, subsidies, weakened environmental or consumer protection. As such, the very same agencies that are put in place to oversee industries, advance the interests of their industrial, albeit unofficial, partners.

True, the industries can provide certain expertise and perspectives that may be beneficial. However, the design of the system as a whole and the close relationship between profit driven industries and political systems raises concerns about the democratic process, accountability and equitable representation. The question is whether the political outcomes reflect the broad public welfare or serves the interests of the wealthy corporate entities. The answer seems clear: Liberal democracies live in a political landscape where industry/capital priorities dominate legislative agendas and regulatory decisions.

This said, a new phenomenon is on the rise. Despite this privileged access to the corridors of power, and the long intertwined relationships that have shaped these systems, this somewhat slow nature of the process of influencing the policies that shape these systems have always come under fire, and perhaps more so recently. One way to understand this is that the system has produced enough individual actors with astronomic wealth that can influence society through social media and other means, without needing to lobby governments or seeking political approval. Secondly, the new technologies are of a type that are less in need of large scale industrial complexes, hence more accessible to these individuals. Thirdly, the influencing process that was traditionally exerted through lobbying elected officials, can now be done directly and without politicians; individuals can simply be manipulated to think in ways that serve the purposes of these individuals. And to make it even worse, thanks to the fast pace of the development of new technologies, policy makers lag behind leaving the control in the hands of the industrial interests. Today, individuals’ right to digital or physical privacy, if it exists, is not only limited or watered-down but also defined in such ways that serves the interests of the big tech who monetize even such basic rights.

So what is new?

At a Churchill Club Debate in 2014, Peter Thiel argued that technological progress has stagnated in many areas compared to the mid-20th century, and that society has shifted focus from creating new technology to regulating and fighting over existing resources. Furthermore, he argued for technology as an alternative to politics, claiming that while the former is about “making the pie bigger”, the latter is only preoccupied with “how the pie is sliced”. He contracts politics as a phenomenon that involves conflicts, regulation and redistribution of wealth and power (zero-sum), with technology as a phenomenon that creates wealth, opportunities and solutions that improve life for everyone without requiring direct conflict (positive sum).

These statements are not as harmless as they may seem at first glance. Peter Thiel has used his wealth to influence all aspects of the society from business to technology to politics. Notwithstanding the inevitable desire to amass as wealth and power as possible, his ultimate desire is to shape the world as he pleases. This includes everything from funding far right political candidates, if not future presidents, to downplaying racism, sexism and other forms or repression in the society.

In a nutshell, the world, as we know it, is to be transformed through venture capitalism to something to his liking. In his vision, true transformation can only be achieved through monopolization (note his famous emphasis on monopoly as the main goal of any meaningful startup). For instance, PayPal was not created just as a tool to pay for goods digitally but to ultimately remove the global order of currency and erosion of nation-states. (Quote from Eric M. Jackson’s The Paypal Wars, Chapter 8: The Calm Before the Storm). Governments, democracy, the need to convince others are all viewed as obstacles and so to create a society ruled by technology, he went as far as creating a floating city where technology (and not a democratic government) rules.

The development of this ideology is certainly not linear. If governments put the brakes on the development of new technologies, well, a new country has to be built (Seasteading) and if it turns out to be too expensive in terms of infrastructure, then focus on incremental and organic shift towards the vision of a society run by corporate powers’ monopoly: “The initial founding vision was that we were going to use technology to change the whole world and basically overturn the monetary system of the world… We could never win an election on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority, but maybe you could unilaterally change the world without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who are never going to agree with your through technological means, and this is where I think technology is this incredible alternative to politics.” (Quote from PayPal all-hands meeting, 2001. Also attributed to a 2014 interview with Maureen Dowd of The New York Times: “Peter Thiel disrupts himself.”)