Tribune’s recent call to “destroy” artificial intelligence reveals a concerning trend. It reflects growing pessimism among parts of the modern left, which views technological progress not as a tool for human emancipation but as a threat to be feared, opposed, and ultimately eliminated. Although Matthew Cole’s article employs radical language, it ultimately channels valid concerns into a reactionary dead end. It highlights genuine social and environmental issues like carbon emissions from data centres, mineral extraction in the Global South, the concentration of computation in American monopolies, and the British government’s tendency to give land and water to tech oligarchs. It blames not the capitalist elite responsible, but the productive forces themselves.[1]
This is not socialism; it is despair- a despair that Marx
examined over 150 years ago. In Capital, Marx scrutinised the Luddite movement
and emphasised a key point: workers should distinguish between machinery itself
and how capital uses it. Machines are not inherently neutral or oppressive;
they become tools of exploitation only when capital controls them. Cole reverses
this, viewing AI as inherently destructive, as if the technology alone causes
social problems rather than the capitalist system governing its development and
application. This mistake leads him to connect struggles from the Luddites to
the Writers Guild of America, implying machine-breaking and modern trade
unionism share the same strategy. They do not. The Luddites were defeated, but the
machines remained. What improved workers’ conditions was not smashing the looms,
but the rise of organised labour capable of negotiating over the wealth these
machines created. To revive Luddism is to reject the very history that gave
birth to the socialist movement.
Cole’s claim that AI differs from railways, electrification,
or industrialisation because it offers no tangible benefit is simply
inaccurate. Historically, major infrastructure projects under capitalism have
involved bloodshed: railways were built through colonial conquest, with
slave-grown cotton, and during famines in India. Electrification benefited
monopolies and increased factory exploitation. Industrialisation destroyed
artisanal trades and displaced communities. However, the socialist movement
never called for dismantling railways or banning electricity; instead, it aimed
to socialise these systems. The true enemy is capitalism, not the productive
forces.
Cole’s dismissal of AI’s usefulness overlooks the facts.
Even within capitalism, machine learning is already employed in protein
structure prediction, medical diagnostics, weather forecasts, climate models,
materials science, and drug development- significant applications that
represent technological progress with substantial benefits for humanity.
However, these are often used for profit, surveillance, or military purposes.
In a socialist system, such technologies could reduce working hours, eliminate
monotonous labour, and enable more rational production planning. The real
contradiction isn’t the technology itself but private ownership of the means of
production and the existence of competing nation-states.
Cole’s evidentiary claims fall apart under close
examination. He references a small MIT preprint to argue that AI is “retarding
our brains," but this study, with only 54 participants, cannot support
broad civilizational claims. He also blames AI for falling OECD PISA scores, even
though the tests were conducted before ChatGPT was available. The OECD links
the score decline to pandemic-related school closures, a consequence of the
ruling class’s negligent response to COVID-19, which kept workers employed while
children lost years of education. His claims about carbon emissions are
inconsistent: he states that the “global data cloud” emits more carbon than
aviation but cites figures far below aviation’s actual footprint. While data centres
do contribute to environmental harm, addressing this issue requires careful
analysis rather than rhetorical exaggeration.
When Cole discusses strategy, his political class character
becomes evident. He endorses anarchist sabotage, such as arson attacks on Tesla
facilities and tactics like data poisoning and misinformation traps.
Historically, the Marxist movement opposes such reckless actions, as they
replace mass struggle with individual acts, risk provoking state repression,
and leave ownership structures unchallenged. These acts also demonstrate
disdain for the working class. Cole then suggests a state-led approach to dismantle
data infrastructure, but given that the Labour government is influenced by
finance capital and U.S. tech giants, expecting it to dismantle its own
infrastructure is unrealistic. His notion of “digital sovereignty” overlooks
the global nature of technology resources, from Brazil and Colombia to
Kazakhstan and Taiwan's manufacturing. No single nation can “decompute” a
worldwide system; only the international working class can seize control of
these productive forces.
Workers involved in building data centres, mining cobalt, labelling
training data, assembling GPUs, and dismantling e-waste are not foes of
technology; they are its creators. The socialist vision is not about
destroying, but about expropriating: bringing tech giants like OpenAI,
Anthropic, Amazon, Microsoft, and Palantir under public ownership and
democratic workers’ control. Only through this can decisions about energy,
water, land, and automation serve social needs instead of private profits. Like
previous technological leaps, AI's potential must be freed from capitalist
ownership, not destroyed.
Cole’s article highlights a common pattern among the
academic middle class: blaming social problems on productive forces instead of
capitalist relations. It offers workers nostalgia instead of actionable
strategies, advocates sabotage over organisation, and induces moral panic
rather than critical analysis. This approach is not socialism; it is a retreat.
It adopts a politics that attributes alienation to the machine rather than to
the capitalist owner. Moreover, it fears the future instead of trying to
control it.
The reality is that artificial intelligence, much like
previous major technological advances, embodies a contradictory force. In a
capitalist system, it often amplifies exploitation, reduces jobs, and supports
warfare. Conversely, in a socialist framework, it can shorten working hours,
remove monotonous tasks, and enhance human freedom. The core contradiction does
not lie in the technology itself but in the social relationships that regulate
its use. Eliminating AI also eliminates the chance to use it as a tool
for human emancipation.
The socialist movement has consistently believed that the
productive forces developed under capitalism, such as railways, electricity,
industrial machinery, and computing, should be seized rather than destroyed.
The goal is to advance modernity, not retreat from it. The working class must
take control of these technologies to build a society centred on human needs
rather than private profit. Cole’s call to “destroy AI” is therefore not a
radical departure from capitalism but a surrender to it. It adopts the
capitalist view that technology is inherently oppressive and that workers are
powerless against it. It provides no plan for workers, no strategy for
expropriation, and no vision of a socialist future. It only spreads fear.
WSWS Articles on Artificial Intelligence (AI)
A curated list with summaries
1. “The class issues in artificial intelligence”
A foundational WSWS analysis arguing that AI is not an
autonomous threat but a product of capitalist social relations. It emphasises
that the danger lies in private ownership, militarisation, and exploitation —
not in the technology itself.
2. “Artificial intelligence and the future of work”
Examines how corporations use automation and machine
learning to intensify exploitation, cut jobs, and suppress wages. Argues that
AI could shorten the working day under socialism but is weaponised under
capitalism.
3. “The militarisation of AI: US imperialism’s new
frontier”
Discusses Pentagon and NATO investment in autonomous
weapons, battlefield analytics, and surveillance systems. Frames AI as central to the drive toward world war.
4. “Tech layoffs and the restructuring of the global
workforce”
Analyses mass layoffs at Google, Amazon, Meta, and
Microsoft, linking them to automation, shareholder pressure, and the broader
crisis of capitalism.
5. “The environmental cost of data centres: capitalism’s
irrationality”
Explores water usage, energy consumption, and land grabs
associated with hyperscale data centres. Argues that these problems stem from
anarchic capitalist competition, not from computing itself.
6. “AI, surveillance, and the police state”
Covers the use of machine learning in predictive policing,
biometric surveillance, and border control. Shows how governments deploy AI to
suppress dissent and monitor populations.
7. “The Writers Guild strike and the question of AI”
Analyses Hollywood’s labour struggle, arguing that the WGA’s
concerns about AI reflect broader contradictions between creative labour and
corporate control of technology.
8. “ChatGPT and the crisis of bourgeois ideology”
A theoretical piece exploring how large language models
expose the intellectual bankruptcy of academia and the media, while also
revealing the enormous potential of automated knowledge systems.
9. “The global semiconductor supply chain and the drive
to war”
Examines TSMC, Nvidia, ASML, and US–China rivalry. Shows how
AI hardware is inseparable from imperialist conflict.
10. “Artificial intelligence and education: A capitalist
catastrophe”
Discusses AI use in schools, testing regimes, and ed‑tech
platforms. Argues that the crisis in education stems from austerity and
privatisation, not from AI tools.
11. “The myth of ‘ethical AI’: Capitalism cannot be
regulated”
Critiques liberal calls for AI regulation, arguing that no
ethical framework can restrain profit-driven corporations or imperialist
states.
12. “Automation, productivity, and the socialist
reorganisation of society”
A programmatic article explaining how AI and robotics could
eliminate drudgery, shorten the working day, and enable planned production —
but only under workers’ control.
