Perhaps Musk is the necessary evil to point out it is possible to push us to the stars, despite his many flaws.

I think it's a safer bet that Butler would assert that there is a unity between means and ends (which is to say, that the means you employ define the ends it is possible to reach, eg, an evil approach will only yield evil results) then it would be too bet that Butler was an "ends justify the means" type.

What makes you think she would assert that?

I'm fairly sure she was an anarchist, but not positive. This is a principle in anarchist thought.

If not, she would certainly sympathize with anarchism, based on her views I do know, which is why I qualified it as "more likely" rather than being certain.

Having run in anarchist circles when I was younger, it's strange to hear people talk of anarchism as a consistent set of ideas when the reason it holds such a special place in my heart is that there were so many different conceptions of it, many of them incompatible with each other. Which conception are you referring to here? Presumably not anarcho-capitalism.

It's my understanding that means-ends unity is central to the critique of state power and broadly shared by anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists reject basically everything in anarchism except anti-statism, so you can't really compare them to other flavors in a sensible way most of the time, and I regard the name anarcho-capitalists as a misnomer and I call them libertarians or anti-state capitalists or what have you (though I respect their right to label themselves as they please). I don't know that anarcho-capitalists reject means-ends unity as much as they have different ends in mind.

Anarchism may not be a single set of ideas but it's certainly a distinct lineage that descends from certain critiques of capitalism, hierarchy/state power, and Marxism (means-ends unity being essential to the critique of Marxism, eg, that a proletarian state will become oppressive for the same reason any other state becomes oppressive).

For instance, it's broadly held by anarchists that a society should be voluntary and not based on coercion. If someone called themselves an anarchist but was, say, in favor of aggressive policing, I'd wonder what the heck they meant by "anarchist".

The protagonist in Parable of the Sower is more or less anarcho-communist.

Perhaps waiting until we can find better 'leaders' than Musk is a necessary evil that will make it possible to push us to the stars.

From the article: "The Oankali tell Lilith humanity is doomed because of “two incompatible characteristics”: intelligence and a hierarchical nature."

That perspective points more towards perceived problems with anyone owning and controlling any large organization for any reason, doesn't it? It's basically 'power corrupts and the more power any single individual has, the more corrupted they become.'

Now, can you run large organizations with focused goals in what we'd call a democratic manner? Maybe a kind of multi-level (i.e. hierarchical) democracy, because why would you want someone with six months of experience having the same decision-making power as someone with six years of experience? Similarly, why would you want people not directly involved with the work (absentee owners and shareholders) making decisions about what kind of decisions the organization should make (i.e. which spaceship design is the best)?

It's entirely possible that humans have yet to invent the optimal organizational structure for coordinated efforts towards goals like establishing a viable human ecosystem on Mars, etc. Science fiction is of course an arena where such concepts can be speculated about, that's part of its value.