About 60 years ago, American historian/sociologist Lewis Mumford wrote a groundbreaking work on the implications of technological transformation. In his book, "The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power," Mumford spoke of a "megamachine." According to him, every technological development process creates a form of organization, and the centralization and control of large technical systems over time is inevitable. He argued that what was called the technological revolution in the US was constructing a giant, mechanical system—a "megamachine"—in which the state, military, technology, bureaucracy, and industry were intertwined, instrumentalizing people. Mumford believed that this machine, the main product of rapidly developing technology, coordinated not just a mechanism of gears and motors, but a social system built around it, interdependent and demanding absolute obedience. Someone foresaw what is happening today.
Mark Zuckerberg also proved to be one of those who foresaw the coming when he changed the name of his Facebook company to "Meta." Meta, a concept derived from ancient Greek, meant "above and beyond everything." While it's thought that its purpose was to refer to the "metaverse," seen as the next stage of the internet, today it seems more likely that it embraced Mumford's idea of a "super-system" that he pointed out years ago. This is because, although the worldviews of the new techno-oligarchs born from Silicon Valley differ on certain points, they all agree on the need to change the existing system. These new medieval lords, whom Varoufakis described as "techno-lords," propose that technology cease to be merely a tool and transform into a superstructure that encompasses, governs, and directs all aspects of life—in essence, the construction of a "Metamachine."
So, who will control this Metamachine; who will manage the system? We see that the Silicon Valley lords are divided into three groups on this issue. The first group favors a development path independent of the state and seeks autonomy. These operate with a global platform mentality, rejecting state regulations and limitations. They are the ones who want to transform the world from a state-governed international system into an interconnected global village, linked by the services they provide. While they may initially claim to work for humanity, there's no guarantee they won't build an autonomous digital fascism under corporation leadership once they possess stateless and unlimited data sovereignty. In fact, it's no secret that their most well-known symbols, such as META, Apple, NVIDIA, and OpenAI, secretly desire to be entrusted with building their own ecosystems independently of state authorities.
The second group consists of those who openly declare their commitment to serving state centers. Palantir, one of the most talked-about companies in recent days, is one of them. Palantir's views, compiled from a book by its co-founder Alex Karp and published in 22 points on social media, demonstrate that they represent a different vein of Silicon Valley. Like other companies funded by the CIA and rejecting the myth of state-independent innovation, they declare themselves not neutral producers. Palantir argues that technological competition has now become central to geopolitics, and that everyone must define their position in this interstate competition and prioritize serving national interests. Karp's line is quite clear: the West is losing in the technology race, and if technology companies that call themselves independent do not stand alongside their governments, they are doomed to extinction. According to him, technology should now be used to ensure defense, intelligence, and data integration, and all companies should align themselves with the state, setting aside demagogic rhetoric such as "ethics, globalization, service to humanity."
The third group is the hybrid group, those who want to develop within a structure that, while collaborating with the state, maintains its autonomy, like Google, Amazon, SpaceX, and Microsoft. According to them, companies should not only be suppliers but also partners in the system, participating in governance. While they don't completely reject the regulations and restrictions imposed by states, they want to have a say in shaping them. Those who advocate this approach aim not to use the metamachine alone, but to make it indispensable. In short, while they don't set the menu, they all want to be at the head of the table.
The technological transformation we are experiencing points not to a storm, but to climate change. That is, we need to see not that life will restart after the storm, but that a new life must be built. The rising voice of Palantir is the strongest indicator of how the climate is changing. Technological capacity is no longer just commercial, but a direct political and military capability. The state's dependence on technosystems in many areas, from security to health, education to law, industry to markets, as an apparatus and organization, has placed technology at the center of power competition not only between states, but also within states.
The divergence that Mumford defined decades ago is now coming to the forefront again: will "democratic technology" or "authoritarian technology" win this battle? In other words, will what we call the technological revolution promote a participatory approach to power, distributed among centers and placing the human being at the center, or will it promote large, centralized, and control-oriented systems? On what principle will the new order of sovereignty be built? Where will humanity fit within this order? Who will be the engineer of the metamachine?
