There is something about Silicon Valley tycoons that inspires the word "futurism." Whether that fits them or not.
As Elon Musk embarked on his crusade to purchase Twitter, millions of conservatives rejoiced and coalesced behind his political vision, while (perhaps in response to the notion that Musk is a visionary) media outlets like Politico described Musk's agenda as "futurist." In a similar vein, Wired described technology investor Peter Thiel as a futurist when detailing the PayPal co-founder's libertarian ideology. It seems that, generically speaking, "futurist" has been applied to any ideology that is based around technology and its potential to alter humanity's future as a species.
Yet "futurist" also refers to a specific movement from 20th century history, one that in crucial ways is both similar to and different from the supposed "futurism" propounded by the likes of Musk and Thiel.
Futurism was an intellectual, artistic and social movement in the early 20th century that mostly centered around Italy and Russia. Founded in 1909 by the Italian poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, futurists glorified technology and abhorred political and artistic movements that were rooted in historical tradition. They used an aesthetic that a denizen of the early 21st century might associate with the science fiction genre: Heavy on machinery, industry and faith in the promises of technology.
Futurists encouraged youth, physical vitality, violence and speed. In addition to embracing life through their own unique worldview, futurists also rejected what they perceived as the irrelevance and decline of politics and art by Italians who championed ideas based on ancient Roman, Renaissance era or other historical antecedents.
"On some level they do not need politicians or the government to enact their visions. That is a vast contrast with those early 20th century futurists and they are in my view way more dangerous."
"The Futurists certainly favored modern innovations, but modern technology was wished for in opposition to the presumed traditionalism and backwardness of Italian society," explained Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi, a cultural sociologist at the University of California — Santa Barbara, in an email to Salon.
After expressing skepticism that Musk could be compared to Italian Futurists, Falasca-Zamponi elaborated that "moving away from the country's current 'stasis' motivated the Futurists' vision, and technology was only one aspect of their forward-looking drive." They advocated for anti-Catholic social policies like divorce laws and, when fascist leader Benito Mussolini took over Italy, many Futurists rallied behind him.
"The most disturbing element of their position was, however, their disregard about the effects of technology on human life," Falasca-Zamponi added, referencing a criticism of futurists from philosopher Walter Benjamin's 1936 essay. She described the common association of futurism with fascism as "a bit misleading," noting that futurists "certainly officially subscribed to Mussolini's movement and were involved in the regime" but that Mussolini himself "never really gave them any major role in the regime" and that "futurism was never the official art of fascism."
It is also notable that the futurist glorification of violence was motivated by specific incentives that would seem anachronistic today. This can be seen in Marinetti's 1909 manifesto outlining the movement's essential beliefs — although Marinetti himself viewed that manifesto as being as much about art as being about politics.
"Marinetti was more in today's terms a multi-genre artist — he believe in performance (readings); wrote poetry, [and] even had a futurist cookbook [which] said Italians ate too much pasta to be a glorious country," Mabel M. Berezin, a sociologist at Cornell University, told Salon by email.
She also noted that in the manifesto Marinetti praised war and violence "but not as an internationalist activity." Rather he viewed violence "as a way to cleanse Italy of its reliance on the past (cemeteries, museums, Renaissance Art, etc)."
"The most disturbing element of their position was, however, their disregard about the effects of technology on human life."
It is difficult to determine when and where people began comparing Musk, Thiel and those who admire their views to futurists. The analogy may exist for no other reason than there are superficial similarities, in particular the admiration for technological advancement and a belief in a grand future for the human species.
I have even previously argued that Donald Trump (whom Musk and Thiel clearly respect in varying degrees) is, in a bizarre way, a bit of an artist, and that his artistic sensibilities have fueled his political movement. In addition, Musk has promoted the philosophy known as longtermism, which one could describe as extremely future-oriented because it is defined as (to quote philosopher Émile P. Torres), "a quasi-religious worldview, influenced by transhumanism and utilitarian ethics, which asserts that there could be so many digital people living in vast computer simulations millions or billions of years in the future that one of our most important moral obligations today is to take actions that ensure as many of these digital people come into existence as possible."
Yet these are all surface-layer similarities. As Berezin notes, if anything people like Musk and Thiel are more ominous than futurists because "they have the money to push their agendas forward. On some level they do not need politicians or the government to enact their visions. That is a vast contrast with those early 20th century futurists and they are in my view way more dangerous."
