By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
That wealthy people are influential is no secret. Nor is the fact that they can also impact political events. Certain theoretical paradigms, with Marxism in its various forms being the most influential among them, argue that true power lies with those who control capital (that is, money). These individuals are believed to guide political decision-makers. Political power, therefore, is said to depend on economic power.
Recently, the world’s wealthiest man, Elon Musk, has become a source of significant controversy. The businessman, who owns the automotive corporation Tesla, the space company SpaceX, and the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), played a pivotal role in the most recent presidential election in the United States by strongly supporting Donald Trump. Through his platform’s favourable stance, he reportedly contributed to the former president’s re-election victory. It appears Musk will also have a considerable influence on the policies of the new U.S. federal administration. Alongside another Republican-affiliated businessman, Vivek Ramaswamy, Musk is set to oversee the efficiency of the federal government. Given the current direction, a drastic reduction in its size – both in terms of the number of institutions and employees – can be expected, resembling the approach of Argentina’s neoliberal president, Javier Milei.
This has earned Musk significant resentment from progressive circles worldwide. Additionally, he has begun publicly commenting on political developments in other Western countries. The current British leftist government, particularly its leader Keir Starmer, has become a frequent target of Musk’s sharp criticism. He also openly endorsed the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, typically labelled as far-right, in the upcoming German parliamentary elections. Many have criticised this as interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations and their democratic political processes.
Of course, opinions on Musk’s political positions will vary. Like any public figure, he is a legitimate target of criticism. Even the author of these lines finds some of his views misguided, particularly his endorsement of a German party that is strongly pro-Putin and opposed to military aid for Ukraine.
However, accusations of “interfering in internal affairs” reveal a significant level of hypocrisy. Musk is far from the only wealthy individual attempting to influence public affairs. Some have even established their own foundations to address various societal issues. Nor is he the only one with a clear political agenda. For decades, financier George Soros has been doing this through his Open Society Institute (now led by his son Alexander). This institute funds NGOs worldwide, but only those that promote progressive ideology. These organisations are often closely connected to political decision-makers.
In this way, Soros’s involvement in the internal affairs of sovereign nations has been far more systematic and intensive than Musk’s current actions. Musk influences merely through his statements, writings, and interviews. In contrast, Soros has access to an extensive network of activists, which he can mobilise to push a leftist agenda. For example, the so-called “Colourful Revolution” in North Macedonia in 2015 was a series of mass protests aimed at toppling the then-conservative government of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski. Organisations funded by Soros’s foundation played a crucial role in these protests.
Yet, left-leaning politicians and mainstream media, now attacking Musk, were not troubled by Soros’s political interventions. On the contrary, they hailed him as a democrat and philanthropist. Now, when someone uses their wealth to advance an agenda opposing theirs, it suddenly becomes unacceptable. But if it is permissible for some, it must also be permissible for others.