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.
[0]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000110465925...
[0] The Doctrine of Fascism is available, for free, in several places. Start there.
- Opposition to Marxism and socialism
I'd agree.
- Opposition to parliamentary democracy
No.
- Opposition to political and cultural liberalism
No.
- Totalitarian ambitions
No.
- Conservative economic programs
Strange heading. It seems to mean "free market capitalism", so that's a yes?
- Corporatism
No.
- Alleged equality of social status
No idea if this applies or not.
- Imperialism
No.
- Military values
No.
- Volksgemeinschaft
No.
- Mass mobilization
No.
- The leadership principle
No.
- The “new man”
No.
- Glorification of youth
No.
- Education as character building
No idea.
- Decadence and spirituality
No.
- Violence
No.
- Extreme nationalism
No.
- Scapegoating
Arguable, simply because I'm sure you'd argue it given the amount of no's so far.
- Populism
Possibly?
That's pretty much the full page. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion above. You must know Musk far better that I do, which is very possible, to come to such a different conclusion. Or you didn't actually read the same article[0]
[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Common-characterist...
I'd agree.
- Opposition to parliamentary democracy
Yes. buying elections
- Opposition to political and cultural liberalism
Yes, banned speech on twitter that trans people use.
- Totalitarian ambitions
Yes, buying elections
- Corporatism
trillionare
- Imperialism
Literally wants to colonize a planet
- Military values
Building a military satelite constellation
- Volksgemeinschaft
White supremacist
- Mass mobilization
election lottery, trump rallys
- The leadership principle
idk what this is
- The “new man”
or this
- Glorification of youth
i guess not
- Education as character building
what
- Decadence and spirituality
No.
- Violence
No.
- Extreme nationalism
xenophobe
- Scapegoating
those darn regulations are always in the way
- Populism
Possibly?
i'm sure your reply will be pedantic
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.
[1] https://www.them.us/story/elon-musk-x-ban-users-cisgender-sl...
[2] https://www.advocate.com/news/x-bans-deadnaming-misgendering
Please, try harder to raise the level of debate.
Is Musk wielding the apparatus of state to ensure that any speech that he disagrees with is suppressed, e.g. on college campuses?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments
I'm not sure HN is for you.
* He suspended multiple journalists from Twitter/X in December 2022 after they had reported on or criticized him [0]
* He has been accused of retaliating against critics and employees through threats, lawsuits, or firings, rather than tolerating dissent. [1]
* He selective enforcing Twitter/X platform rules. Here's 10 examples: [2]
He tolerates speech he likes and often punishing speech he dislikes. That's not being a "free speech" absolutist.
[0] https://truthout.org/articles/free-speech-watchdogs-condemn-...
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-absolutist-elon-...
[2] https://gizmodo.com/10-times-elon-musk-censored-twitter-user...
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.
It has run its course. It’s just noise now. Fascism is anything to the right of anarcho-communism. It’s defined as whatever the user wants to define it as.
It reflects more poorly on the people still saying it than it does on the people they’re aiming it towards. It’s time to move on.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rachel Maddow’s ULTRA and PREQUEL podcast series may change your mind on that last claim.
Let’s not talk about fascism until we’re already fucked? Is that your strategy?
> If Tesla changes control
Does selling Tesla to SpaceX actually satisfy "changing control" if he remains the largest shareholder?
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.
For Tesla ops milestones they would be waived, this is fine because accusition is a chance for Tesla shareholders to cash out at that price.
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".
And that doesn't get any more by 50% increase with the same dilution.
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.