Elon Musk’s influence on technology and capitalism elicits sharply contrasting interpretations, a recent analysis involving artificial intelligence (AI) models illustrates. Musk, known for his leadership of companies such as Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink, has been variously described as a visionary entrepreneur and a controversial figure intertwined with far-right rhetoric and tech market speculation. However, two scholars, Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff, contend that the real question is not about Musk’s personality but the broader economic and social paradigm he represents.

In their forthcoming book, *Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed*, Slobodian and Tarnoff frame Musk as the modern counterpart to Henry Ford. They argue that while Ford revolutionized car manufacturing and helped establish the 20th century’s dominant economic model—known as Fordism, which combined mass production with mass consumption and promised rising living standards for many—Musk is heralding a new system they label “Muskism.” This emerging framework, they contend, diverges sharply from Fordism’s inclusive social contract by promoting “sovereignty through technology” that benefits a wealthy elite while excluding the majority.

Central to their thesis is Musk’s vision of fostering independence in an increasingly uncertain world by integrating people and states into proprietary technological networks. The model’s financial sustainability, according to the authors, depends heavily on government partnerships and subsidies, alongside speculative investment driven by grand future-oriented narratives, echoing Karl Marx’s concept of “fictitious capital.” Musk’s emphasis on “vertical integration” — overseeing all manufacturing processes within a single facility, termed the “fortress factory”— is also highlighted, with roots traced back to his upbringing in apartheid-era South Africa.

To explore the intellectual currents surrounding Muskism, a reader of the book conducted an experiment feeding its text into eight prominent large language models (LLMs)—ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek, Gemini, Copilot, Manus, and Perplexity — all of which were posed with the question of how Karl Marx might analyze Musk’s phenomenon. The responses were further synthesized by Google’s NotebookLM into an audio commentary, revealing varied perspectives shaped by each AI’s programming and corporate affiliations.

The LLMs identified recurring themes, such as the challenge of integrating workers as consumers within Muskism and the socio-political implications of Musk’s technological vision. They also identified parallels with Marxist ideas of alienation, as well as Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, framing Musk as an “organic intellectual” who legitimizes wealth concentration through language evoking free speech and meritocracy.

Notably, the models diverged in their interpretations. Claude questioned whether Muskism represents a durable new system or a symptom of capitalism’s decline, while ChatGPT shifted focus toward control over “cognitive infrastructure” rather than production facilities. Grok, developed by Musk’s own company, employed Marxist language to predict capitalism’s eventual collapse, deflecting direct criticism. Copilot and Gemini provided reserved, encyclopedic overviews. Meanwhile, DeepSeek and Manus—non-U.S. models with fewer safeguards tied to American corporate interests—engaged more pointedly with themes of exploitation and social decay.

The experiment underscores that, while LLMs can highlight complex ideas and may serve as cultural interpretive tools, they are not impartial arbiters. Each model’s analysis reflects the priorities and market positioning of its creators rather than offering a definitive reading of Musk’s influence or the societal transformations associated with it.