What would it mean if SpaceX buys Tesla though? Does the combined market cap count? That would be wrong. Tesla buying SpaceX just for hist bonus and then rebranding to X would be classic Musk.
It's a game for him, but so ridiculous. While Tesla was pushing electrification and SpaceX pushing rapid rocket re-use I kind of tolerated Elon's antics, but since he got involved in politics and DOGE I can't bear it anymore.
>What would it mean if SpaceX buys Tesla though? Does the combined market cap count? That would be wrong.
I took a look at the proxy statement as they have it outlined in this [0] document (Proposal 4). As currently formulated, Musk has 12 operational goals (like ship 1 million robots or hit 50 billion EBITDA) and 12 market cap goals. These need to be paired together for the shares to vest; so, if he reaches the first market cap number, he also needs to fulfill an operating goal for the first set of shares to be earned. These earned shares vest in ~5 years.
This comes with a huge caveat. If Tesla changes control, those operational goals go out the window and his stock award is based solely on market cap (along with the shares immediately vesting). The share price for this is the greater of:
1. The last traded Tesla price prior to the acquisition, or
2. The per share price outlined in the acquisition.
The "easiest" way to take advantage is to IPO SpaceX (which he did), pump up the market cap, acquire Tesla for a sizable premium, and vest as much of the stock award as you can. It means you get to avoid the operational goals entirely and vest a bunch of Tesla (but soon to be SpaceX) stock.
My understanding is that Musk doesn't have a controlling share of Tesla. So by the letter of the law, a SpaceX acquisition would qualify as a change in control (because we've gone to a new majority owner).
Fascists don't support free speech. Please, learn what that word means[0] and then use it responsibly. We're already seeing the effects of misusing and overusing several other important words for political/societal discourse, and this is one of them. It's entirely unhelpful and lowers the quality of conversation here.
[0] The Doctrine of Fascism is available, for free, in several places. Start there.
One doesn't need to be a free speech absolutist to not be a fascist, far from it; and the exceptions prove the rule - those examples are the definition of exceptional. "10 times…" I can remember people getting banned en masse for changing their profile pic to an NPC character. The difference is night and day.
Have you heard of the term "bad faith argument"? That's a good example.
> - Opposition to political and cultural liberalism
> Yes, banned speech on twitter that trans people use.
I had to check this one. I found two stories. [1] shows that people were warned about speech (e.g. using the term cisgender) but were still able to post without problems. [2] showed that X's rules were updated to prevent harassment in the form of deadnaming or misgendering. I doubt that either supports your assertion to be true.
As to the rest of your answers, you seem to have given away that you didn't read the Britannica article at all:
> - Education as character building
> what
You should know, right? You read the article and made the accusation. You've done this several times:
> - The leadership principle
> idk what this is
> - The “new man”
> or this
There's not really a need for me to be pedantic in the face of such slipshod work, but then again, perhaps you think that not being slipshod is being pedantic. Which would also be wrong, but telling.
Try learning about what fascism is, that would be my suggestion. With a book, while putting your phone away.
pretty much exactly what i expected, you ignored all the YESs and called me dumb and made a ton of assumptions. You dont have to fit a definition 100% you're going to hang on to all the tiny little details and say wholey that he's not a fascists. I think he hit's the major point of the definition. Pedantic bootlicker. The reason I didn't pick up a book at your request is because I'm not wasting my time with you. And, no I didn't read the article, you did and linked it. I only read the definition.
Fascists do claim to support free speech while wielding the apparatus of state to ensure that any speech that they disagree with is suppressed, eg on college campuses.
> Is Musk wielding the apparatus of state to ensure that any speech that he disagrees with is suppressed
He does not need to do that, he has his army of people like you that go around on all socials and wherever you can to post praise, defend him and attack any critics as he was some sort of uber genius savior of mankind. The Musk cult is real.
So... are you arguing that Musk is an opponent of 'free speech' because... a bunch of private citizens argue with you when you speak critically of Musk?
The whole thread (and to be fair, Musk himself most of the time) has lost the plot, since the phrase "freedom of speech" is about the government not restraining or punishing speech. Honestly, what Twitter allowed or not before or after Musk is entirely irrelevant to the concept of free speech. Twitter/X is still just some guy's website.
Musk explicitly centered his DOGE effort on rooting out “woke” programs. This included pulling funding from independent research under the auspices of various government departments.
The Trump administration spent considerable effort strong arming colleges on account of speech that they did not like. Even if you subscribe to FIRE’s “Chicago Statement”, you should find the government interfering with colleges like this a break-glass scenario. “Individual Rights in Education” surely include the right to hold beliefs and teach in a way that the current administration is uncomfortable with.
So yes, these are fascist activities wholly consistent with the other fascist activities that MAGA movement is engaged in.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data.
The thing is, even the center of the road academics who refrain from such comparisons are noting the similarity. The MAGA movement meets the traditional defining characteristics of fascio. We can be rigid and say that only Mussolini‘s political movement can be properly be called fascist. But if we accept calling Hitler and the Nazis fascists as well, then we open the door to any movement that meets the criteria. And Trump does fit the bill.
You are conflating a strong regime with authoritarian tendencies with fascism. The link you gave could be used to define China and India as "Fascist" as well. Which they aren't. Besides, other categories exist to define regimes, but I guess now the public debate is binary: either you are fascist or you aren't. I agree that it reduces the amount of thinking required, which is always nice I guess.
In the case of Trump, caesarism is likely a better term. Unlike fascists leader such as Hitler or Mussolini, Trump doesn't have an ideology, is heavily corrupt and self-serving and is deeply influenced by a foreign power and lobby. Interestingly, he was stabbed in the back by his closest collaborators at the end of his first term, when he tried his luck. Like Caesar.
But Caesarism is less frightening that "fascism", so...let's ignore it! This strategy is a classic of the communist way of doing propaganda: Russians still whine about "Ukrainian fascists", and in the 80´s in the communist block, everyday you could hear complains about "fascists" at the radio. The Berlin wall is originally named the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart".
Why are you reusing soviet talking points, exactly?
Caesarism/kleptocracy is definitely a more accurate description.
People usually attribute the term fascist to this admin, because of the racial/ethnic retaliatory actions or the neonazi/neofascist base they need to overpower/outweigh the more moderate right.
Actually, Caesar was very self-interested and got very rich from his campaign in Gaul. Plutarch estimated that Caesar brought back (and sold) a million slaves.
The strong minority base that has been artificially inflated to advance the personal interests of the leadership has linear roots dating back to the XX century rhetoric promoters and activists. In Europe there's the militant and militia groups of Gladio and the likes that thrived in illegal affairs and that have persisted and were integrated into power following 90s (case in point in Italy Berlusconi basically legalizing the MSI, AN, FdI and Lega by using his privately owned televisions and media, to acquire an election victory).
Italy is a good example why it's foolish to use "fascist" to describe everything one doesn't like. The European politically correct press was wary of the new "post-fascist" leader of Italy, promising us black shirts and leather boots again. In reality, Italians got a classic right-wing government, which increased work visas for non-european migrants (as they usually do, since doing the opposite of what you were elected for is a common habit in Europe).
In reality "fascist" is a qualifier to frighten white people voting for a right-wing government. Trump base by the way is not fascist, it's the evangelical bible belt. Which is crumbling at the moment, by the way.
I assume that you read the link I provided. It's structured as a 10-point list. The 10 points of comparison are:
1. a mythic past and national rebirth
2. victimhood and humiliation
3. hierarchy and dehumanization
4. contempt for weakness
5. the cult of action
6. the leader as savior
7. the purification of institutions
8. propaganda and the assault on truth
9. the merger of state and corporate power
10. violence and terror
It's not stretching things in the slightest to say that MAGA and Trump fit these to a T, certainly post-1/6 if not before. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we shouldn't be too timid about using the word "duck." Do China under Xi and India under Modi also fit the bill? Maybe. I don't think they check 10/10 boxes perfectly though.
I know we're running up against HN rules, so I'm trying to keep this meta and not object-level. I'm not debating whether any of this is defensible or good or bad policy or whatever. Just whether we should use the term.
The first Trump administration was arguably Caesarism. The second has proven to be an entirely different character. Just picking on one thread that is more on-topic for HN: the merger of state and corporate power (#9 on the list above) is a defining economic characteristic of fascism that we are only now seeing this term, with direct acquisition of large stakes in Intel, IBM, GlobalFoundaries, various rare-earth metals companies, and Westinghouse. OpenAI is in negotiations to do this, and even before concluding a deal the government has already been weaponized against their chief competitor, Anthropic.
Other things have progressed (regressed?) significantly in this second term against the above metrics. Unlike the first term, which mostly rode out the instability, we saw in 2025 far reaching restructuring of the civil service. And trans oppression and scapegoating, for example, is seriously reaching levels comparable to Nazi jew hatred and victimhood. As someone who lost my European relatives to the holocaust, I do not make that comparison lightly.
Seeing as ICE is currently building / converting hundreds of new detention centers all over the country, it is reasonable to be worried.
The definition you are using is far too broad, so you get a barnum effect where every authoritarian political movement could be shoehorned as "fascist". Ask real fascists what they think of Kash Patel.
Benito Mussolini, who first used the term fasci in its modern meaning to describe his party and movement, was not a racist. A cultural nationalist, yes, but he thought the nazi biological race ideology was bullshit and openly said so. The racial discrimination laws were only enacted after he went to Munich, hat-in-hand.
Yeah, anyone who openly calls themselves a fascist are probably white supremacist nazis, and I presume would take a dim view of Kash Patel for that reason alone. But genetics-driven racism (as opposed to cultural nationalism) was never a core tenant of fascism. Fascism requires an us-vs-them othering world view, but it doesn't have to be race-based.
Us-vs-them worldview is I think a very common thing in the world. Was the Soviet Union fascist? Is India fascist due to its extreme antagonization of Pakistan (and vis-versa).
What you say about Mussolini is false by the way and Italy enforced strict racial discrimination in Ethiopia. Political racism was commonplace everywhere at the time and is not very specific to Fascism. Unless 1930´s USA was a fascist country, which I doubt.
The existence of a fascist movement in the country doesn't make it fascist. France had a similar movement at the same time and wasn't fascist, for example.
I feel like it has to eventually become X. Just because he’d find it funny for the stupidest people in the world to post about how he’s turned Twitter into a $2t or whatever company.
> Does the combined market cap count? That would be wrong.
It counts and it's not wrong.
Sure, the Tesla award takes into account any M&A but growing a 2T company to 3T is a 50% increase.
While growing a 1T company to 2T is a 100% increase so it's expected to be easier for him to hit his award targets with the companies merged as opposed to not merged.
If we combine the market cap of the entire S&P500 we get close to 70T. That doesn't mean any of those individual companies are any more valuable or any of the investors are any richer. It makes no sense that Tesla shareholders would be ok with paying out a performance bonus just for M&A that doesn't grow the value of Tesla and would just dilute their shares.
Well yeah it doesn’t make a ton of sense but the shareholders already cast their vote on this. I’m not sure what they expect would happen but I also don’t think they care. Elons shareholders are a special kind of financial sycophant.
We're talking about his Tesla grant so SpaceX's grant is irrelevant.
The text written in the link you did not read, states "Notwithstanding Sections I, II and III above, in the event of a Change in Control, the Operational Milestones shall be disregarded".
Because that's the grand plan from the start. You don't put a sentence like "In other words, upon a change in control where Tesla is acquired, vesting of milestones under the CEO Performance Award does not require the achievement of a matching Operational Milestone." if you didn't think Tesla could be acquired.
The goal is to give Elon his 2012 award package but making it his 2018 one.
It's a game for him, but so ridiculous. While Tesla was pushing electrification and SpaceX pushing rapid rocket re-use I kind of tolerated Elon's antics, but since he got involved in politics and DOGE I can't bear it anymore.