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 the carbon emissions from data centres, the extraction of minerals 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 if controlled by capital. 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, the potential of AI 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. To eliminate AI is also to eliminate the chance of using 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 a central component of 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 the use of AI 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.
