Photograph Source: Fine Apples – CC0
The challenge of separating creators from their creations is not new. However, this age-old dilemma, stretching from Nazi-favored composers to today’s politically divisive billionaires, demands practical rather than merely philosophical solutions.
Elon Musk and his multiple business ventures now stand at the center of this debate. As the world’s richest man deepens his political entanglements through controversial statements and direct government involvement, consumers worldwide face mounting pressure to align their purchasing decisions with their political values. The growing “Tesla Takedown” movement explicitly rejects the notion that Musk’s products can be divorced from his politics.
The Wagner Precedent
The case of Richard Wagner offers a historical lens through which to examine this dilemma. Wagner, who died in 1883—long before Hitler’s rise—wrote viciously antisemitic essays and was later embraced by the Nazi regime as a cultural icon. His music remains unofficially banned in Israel to this day.
In 2001, Argentine-born Israeli conductor Daniel Barenboim provoked outrage when he defied this unofficial ban by playing Wagner at Israel’s national arts festival. The incident highlighted the persistent association between Wagner’s compositions and his hateful ideology, despite the music itself containing no explicit antisemitic content.
Wagner’s case begs the question: Can artistic works transcend their creator’s repugnant beliefs? Wagner scholars continue to debate whether his antisemitism infiltrated his operas through coded caricatures. Yet Wagner’s music—the notes, harmonies, and dramatic structures—contains no inherent antisemitism.
Tesla and Musk’s Machinations
The Tesla controversy parallels Wagner’s case in important ways. The “Tesla Takedown” movement has gained momentum across both the United States and Europe, with protests at over 50 showrooms featuring slogans like “Elon Musk has got to go” and “Burn a Tesla: Save Democracy.” Some demonstrations have evolved beyond mere protest into active vandalism, with charging stations torched in Boston and suspected arson at a dealership in France.
Does a Tesla automobile embody Musk’s political activities and statements? Physically and functionally, a Tesla is simply an assemblage of metal, rubber, plastic, and software designed to transport passengers efficiently using electricity rather than fossil fuels. The car itself holds no political opinions. A Tesla car’s engineering is value-neutral.
When Separation Becomes Impossible
While Wagner’s music and Tesla’s vehicles can plausibly be distinguished from their creators, Starlink—Musk’s satellite internet service—presents a more complicated case. The service itself is technologically impressive. However, Musk’s direct operational control means customers remain vulnerable to his mercurial decision-making.
Consider Ukraine: Initially hailed as one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies, Musk deployed Starlink terminals when Russian malware crippled satellite communications across the country at the invasion’s outset. Three years later though, Musk has weaponized his social platform against President Zelensky, sharing false claims and calling for his replacement. More ominously, Musk has warned that “Ukraine’s entire front line would collapse” without Stalink’s satellite terminals—a reminder of his power to withdraw critical infrastructure during wartime potentially.
The Starlink case demonstrates that separation becomes functionally impossible when a product remains under the creator’s active control. An owner can drive their Tesla regardless of Musk’s latest post on X, but a Starlink user remains dependent on Musk’s continued goodwill.
The Control Continuum
The Starlink example reveals a crucial distinction in our age: the shift from products to services fundamentally alters the creator-creation relationship. This transformation may be the most significant factor in determining whether separation is possible.
Products like Tesla automobiles or Wagner’s recorded compositions exist independently once released into the world. A Tesla owner retains full functionality regardless of Musk’s latest controversial statement or political alliance. The vehicle, once purchased, operates autonomously from its creator’s ongoing decisions or moods. Similarly, a Wagner recording plays the same notes whether one approves of the composer’s antisemitism or not.
Services like Starlink, however, establish a perpetual dependency relationship. This product-service distinction carries profound implications as our economy increasingly shifts toward subscription-based services. Traditional product ownership allowed for a functional separation between creator and creation. Modern digital services, however, maintain persistent tethers to their creators, making separation impossible by design.
The Wagner-Musk comparison ultimately highlights how technology has fundamentally altered the terms of our ethical dilemma. When Musk controls Starlink’s satellites with the press of a button, or when social media platforms can instantly deplatform millions, creator and creation become inseparable by definition.
Perhaps the key distinction is not merely between “good” or “bad” creators but between consumption that preserves our autonomy and consumption that surrenders it. In a world of tech tycoons with unprecedented power, we must remember that market problems require market solutions. The hyper-dependence on Musk’s Starlink—with all its ethical entanglements—can only be resolved through robust competition in satellite-provided internet. We need vibrant market alternatives that prevent any single visionary—however brilliant—from accumulating too much control over critical infrastructure. The ultimate answer to the Musk dilemma is not boycotts or ethical agonizing but competing satellite networks that ensure no individual, nation, or military remains dependent on one man’s goodwill.
