Another week, another arrogant statement from Elon Musk, predicting that his company SpaceX will become 'more valuable than the rest of the Earth' if it achieves its long-term goals, as written by Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media technology publishing, in his analysis of SpaceX's dominance in space and its geopolitical impact. Musk, the world's first trillionaire, currently wields enormous influence rivaling nations, and his company controls internet and mobile phone services in sensitive areas that only the Starlink network covers. What does that mean for the world?

During the Russian-Ukrainian war, Reuters reported that Musk cut off internet for Ukrainian soldiers, which some interpreted as Musk's fear of the war escalating into a nuclear conflict, so he decided to cut service in the field to withdraw forces. Musk denied the matter, but widespread fear prevailed at the time about the ability of one person to influence the fate of a major international conflict. Then Polish Foreign Minister stated that Starlink is dangerous, and we must get rid of our dependence on it in anticipation of similar incidents in the future; Musk responded with a tweet: 'Shut up, little man'; causing European concern and a debate about their need for their own satellites in low Earth orbit (Foreign Policy magazine).

According to experts, Musk adopts a model that moves away from 'institutional capitalism' subject to accountability, and replaces it with the pattern of feudal rulers and the power of artificial intelligence; billionaires are no longer just businessmen managing production, but have become 'leaders' using their wealth to directly intervene in politics, influence government decisions, and direct technical systems according to their own vision; the approach Musk follows is based on absolute centralization, benefiting from state support and bypassing barriers of institutional accountability, according to O'Reilly (The Economist magazine).

Quinn Slobodian, a historian at Boston University and author of books on capitalism, and co-author of the recently published book 'Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed,' says in an interview: 'SpaceX consists of three main sectors, the most important of which is the communications sector, Starlink, with about 10,000 satellites orbiting in low Earth orbit, representing about 70% of the satellites in orbit, and providing broadband internet with fast response time...' (Foreign Policy).

In the era of globalization, there was a separation between economy and politics thanks to multilateral trade treaties, a general sense of security among investors, and a degree of consensus between host and investor countries. But things have changed, according to Slobodian, because Musk has nearly monopolized the satellite launch market through cost reduction and a vertical integration production model, and mastering what was previously difficult to achieve.

Does this mean that politicians are obliged to get close to Musk because of his monopoly on the satellite launch market, or is the opposite true? Slobodian believes it will repel them. He says: 'This is what is happening in the European Union now... it has caused enough repulsion among people to accelerate the pace of distancing from him, even as his global importance increases.' Slobodian adds that the BRICS countries are the most serious opponents; South Africa has not allowed Starlink receivers into its territory; and India, despite being one of the largest users of the X platform, has not allowed it either. And let's not forget that Brazil seized Starlink assets after Musk refused to monitor incitement content on the X platform, which was calling for a coup there.

Therefore, we need to think about establishing controls and some form of oversight on a company like SpaceX, as experts suggest. Slobodian concludes: 'Things will not improve until we diversify the foundations of the American political economy... such as biotechnology, higher education, and the green manufacturing sector that received strong support from former President Joe Biden. If we return to these aspects, we can free ourselves from the suffocating grip of Silicon Valley.'