The purpose of this study is to explore the historical and conceptual trajectory of Neue Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity), an artistic and sociopolitical and movement that emerged in 1920s Germany. Originally grounded in rationality, efficiency and democratic reform, Neue Sachlichkeit was appropriated by the Nazi regime to serve authoritarian technocracy and militarization. Drawing on this precedent, this paper identifies contemporary parallels in the USA, where platform capitalism, AI-driven governance and managerial rationality have eroded civil society and democratic oversight. The analysis connects historical and current ideological shifts in management and governance, with a particular focus on the Trump presidency, the influence of digital elites and the evolution of labor-management relations. This paper concludes with recommendations for safeguarding democratic values in the age of techno-authoritarianism.
The author’s goal was to follow the editorial suggestion of JMH by the editors to produce analyzes that are integrative and original. The objective of comparing four time frames (1920–1932/1933–1938 Germany and 1995–2011/2012–2025 the USA), two countries (Germany and the USA) and macro-meso level history (country and sector levels) is novel and required a good mix of methods, namely, adequate historical narration combined with a sufficient knowledge of the development of management theory and practices over time.
The parallels between Weimar’s rationalist hopes and digital present demand vigilant reflection. While the contexts differ – historically, technologically and politically – the underlying risks echo each other. The suppression of dissenting culture, the glorification of national identity through curated aesthetics and the delegation of judgment to systems presented as apolitical all signal a deeper cultural shift away from participatory democracy. Yet this conclusion is not a call to abandon rationality, technology or innovation. Rather, it is a call to reclaim them within an ethical and democratic frame. Rational systems should serve justice, not circumvent it. Technological platforms should empower communities, not atomize them.
To compare two historical periods rich in activities, innovations, conflicts such as Neue Sachlichkeit and contemporary MAGA USA is not easy especially, as the word limit of the journal requires exclusion of many historical details of both periods. AI support was needed to get information on events and development in the 1920–1930 period.
The comparison of the periods of Neue Sachlichkeit (1920–1930s) and today’s MAGA presidency in the USA outlines risks in terms of leadership and governance models that can become authoritarian putting at risk democracy and social peace.
There has not been a comparison of the Neue Sachlichkeit period in Germany (1920–1930) and the USA postmodern period (1990s-2025) so far to the author’s knowledge.
