By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Henry Ford and Elon Musk, while separated by time, share disturbing parallels. Both revolutionized industries—Ford with mass production, Musk with electric vehicles—but both fiercely opposed unions, employing strong-arm tactics to suppress worker organization. Further, both maintained significant manufacturing operations in nations posing threats to liberal democracies while simultaneously supporting far-right political movements: Ford in Nazi Germany, and Musk in support of Germany’s AfD party. These actions, coupled with Ford’s notorious antisemitism and Musk’s promotion of antisemitic rhetoric, reveal a concerning pattern of prioritizing personal gain over democratic values and social responsibility.
Read the original article here
Ford and Musk: They Made Cars, They Backed Fascists. This isn’t a simple comparison, but a look at troubling parallels in the histories of two influential figures in the automotive world. Both men achieved immense success in building and shaping the car industry, yet their legacies are undeniably tarnished by their association with and support of fascist ideologies. It’s a complex issue, not easily reduced to simplistic claims.
Ford’s antisemitism was well-documented, extending beyond mere prejudice into active promotion of hateful propaganda through his own newspaper. This wasn’t just a reflection of societal norms; it was a deliberate and persistent campaign of bigotry. His admiration for Hitler and the Nazi regime, culminating in the award of the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, speaks volumes about his personal beliefs. The scale of his actions demands recognition, not minimization.
Musk’s case is different, yet equally disturbing. While he hasn’t received a Nazi award, his recent actions and affiliations raise serious concerns. His support for certain political figures and his embrace of rhetoric aligned with far-right ideologies suggest a troubling pattern. While the direct comparison to Ford’s overt embrace of Nazism might seem a stretch to some, the underlying themes of authoritarianism and disregard for democratic principles remain strikingly similar.
The argument that the comparison is “a stretch” because Ford built his company from the ground up, while Musk acquired existing ones, misses the point. Both men wielded immense power and influence within their respective eras, using their positions to promote their preferred worldviews, regardless of the ethical implications. The difference lies in the methods employed, not the underlying intent.
Focusing solely on the technological achievements of Ford and Musk obscures a critical aspect of their legacy: their active participation in shaping a political and social landscape increasingly dominated by extremist ideas. Ford’s overt embrace of fascism during its most horrific period is undeniable. Musk’s alleged actions, while operating in a different context, demonstrate a disturbing pattern of supporting and enabling figures who share similar goals. The impact of these actions on society is not merely a matter of historical record but a warning sign for the present and future.
Furthermore, the claim that Musk’s actions are less significant because his support for fascism is “disguised” is profoundly misleading. The insidious nature of modern fascism lies precisely in its ability to operate beneath the surface, using coded language and strategic alliances to maintain power. To dismiss Musk’s actions simply because they are not as overtly Nazi as Ford’s is to ignore the evolving tactics of authoritarianism.
The idea that Musk deserves credit for Tesla and SpaceX’s successes independently of his personal views is a common but problematic argument. Success in business does not absolve individuals of responsibility for their ethical failings. The actions of powerful individuals have far-reaching consequences, and simply acknowledging business success while ignoring ethical shortcomings is a dangerous form of moral relativism.
The narrative surrounding Henry Ford has long been sanitized, glossing over his rampant antisemitism and admiration for fascism in favor of highlighting his industrial achievements. Similarly, attempts to diminish the significance of Musk’s actions by downplaying his connections to fascism are equally misleading. This sanitization serves to perpetuate a dangerous myth: that success in business somehow excuses or transcends moral failings. This is not only inaccurate, it’s harmful.
It’s crucial to remember that the rise of fascism is not a singular historical event but a recurring phenomenon. Both Ford and Musk, in their own ways, contributed to the spread of such ideologies, demonstrating how easily extreme beliefs can permeate society, especially when embraced by powerful figures. It’s a stark reminder that success in business does not guarantee moral integrity, and the failure to hold powerful individuals accountable for their actions enables the continuation of harmful trends. The complacency that allowed the rise of Nazism remains a potent threat, and the lessons learned—or perhaps more accurately, unlearned—from that dark period should not be easily forgotten. Both Ford and Musk represent a cautionary tale, a reminder that progress in one sphere does not negate the damage caused in others.