The Left and Breaching Capitalisms Digital Fortress

The Left and Breaching Capitalism s Digital Fortress


Introduction: The Crisis of Traditional Approaches in the Age of Algorithms
It is difficult to wage the battle for socialist liberation in the twenty-first century with the tools of the last one. At a time when algorithms hold sway, when the influence of digitization and artificial intelligence extends over media, culture, education, labor, and everyday life, and when economic policies and strategies are drafted through the analysis of big data and the computerization of political and economic decision making, the left finds itself confronted with an existential question: how can movements that still operate and organize themselves according to a traditional logic hold their ground against a digital capitalism that has reached an unprecedented degree of technological advancement?
The continued reliance of left organizations on traditional methods of discourse, organization, and action places them at a serious disadvantage in their confrontation with capitalism. We face an adversary that possesses an advanced arsenal of digital, economic, political, military, and media tools, one that evolves by the minute across every field, adapts to its crises no matter how deep they run, and forges class alliances within itself despite the rivalries among its factions. Meanwhile, a considerable portion of the left continues to rely on outdated methodologies and instruments that no longer keep pace with the demands of this renewed confrontation. This is what we witness today on the ground, and it is precisely what makes the need to develop and renew these methods more pressing than ever before.
In earlier articles, I described this vast digital gap through the metaphor of the elephant and the ant. Yet after the rapid and immense advances achieved by digital capitalism, and given the limited reach of effective leftist and progressive digital alternatives, and based on my own professional work in the fields of algorithms and digital governance, I now see that this gap has widened further, to become one between the ant and the dinosaur. This is a harsh and bitter reality that we must acknowledge frankly, so that from this acknowledgment we can begin thinking seriously about possible alternatives.


Marx and Engels: Science and Technology as a Double-Edged Sword
Science and technology formed a central axis in the thought of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who viewed them as tools that could be harnessed either for liberation or for the reinforcement of class domination. Under capitalism, scientific and technological progress is mobilized to maximize the profits of the bourgeoisie and to intensify the exploitation of working women and men, both manual and intellectual, deepening alienation and class inequality in the process. Yet Marx and Engels recognized that these contradictions also carried revolutionary possibilities capable of contributing to the construction of a more just socialist order. Today their vision appears even more urgent in the age of digital capitalism, where technology has become a new instrument of control, even as it continues to carry within it opportunities for the liberation of humanity.
Their profound grasp of the dialectical nature of history and society led them to regard scientific progress as a material and social force reflecting class relations of power, a double-edged sword carrying enormous liberating potential while simultaneously being used to deepen exploitation and entrench capitalist domination. Their thought stood as testimony to the capacity of materialist analysis to fuse science with class struggle, turning knowledge into a driving force for changing the world rather than merely a means of understanding it. Their intellectual project calls unambiguously for moving beyond the confines of the capitalist system toward a more humane future, drawing on the liberating possibilities that technical progress makes available.
In Marx s analysis of capitalism, technology occupied a central position in exposing the system s fundamental contradictions. He held that machinery, which represented the pinnacle of scientific progress in his era, was not a tool for improving human life or freeing people from the burdens of arduous labor, but instead became an effective instrument for the accumulation of capitalist profit and the intensification of exploitation of working women and men, both manual and intellectual. This deployment of technology produced surplus value by reducing the need for human labor, leaving the proletariat in a state of alienation, in which the worker is severed from the process of production and from the results of that labor. For Marx this contradiction was not incidental, but a fundamental part of the mechanisms of capitalism that turn science and technology into instruments of class domination.
Engels, for his part, viewed science as a tool for understanding social conflict at a deeper level. His engagement with scientific discoveries led him to see that conflict was not confined to human society but extended into nature as well. He nonetheless rejected biological determinism, insisting that the laws governing nature differ from the social laws shaped by conscious human action. Engels added a scientific dimension to dialectical materialism, demonstrating that the laws of dialectics apply to both nature and society, which reinforced an understanding of historical transformations as part of a comprehensive evolutionary movement.
This practice of revisiting theory in light of historical transformation was not foreign to Marx himself. He and Engels openly acknowledged, in their joint preface to the 1872 German edition of the Communist Manifesto, published in London, twenty-four years after the original Manifesto appeared, that its general principles remained valid on the whole, while certain practical details, specifically the revolutionary program set out at the close of the second chapter, had become dated and required an entirely different formulation, in light of the enormous industrial development the world had undergone since 1848, the expansion of the political organization of the working class, and the lessons drawn from the Paris Commune of 1871. Were Marx present today, he would point out, by the very same logic, that digital capitalism represents an advanced stage of the same exploitative dynamics he described in the nineteenth century, though carried out through methods that are more intelligent, more concealed, more controlling, and more far-reaching. Its domination is no longer confined to ownership of factories and raw materials, but has extended into control over the flow of data and into directing and controlling human behavior and consciousness, reaching as far as the exercise of violence, digital repression, and militarization through algorithms, to the point where, in many cases, through its alliance with the far right, it has become digital fascism in the fullest sense. The transformations brought about by the digital age may open the door to new possibilities for socialist struggle and organization, provided we make use of them and engage with them in a rigorous, scientific manner.
This is a direct imperative dictated by realities experienced by working women and men, both manual and intellectual, in every corner of the world. Digital capitalism, beyond its traditional exploitative character, exercises its power through algorithms that today do not merely organize the flow of information, but have come to control most of the joints of daily life, and that also determine which ideas reach public consciousness and which are suppressed or marginalized. This profound shift in the structure of class power compels the left to fundamentally rethink both its analytical tools and its forms of organization on the ground.


Technology as Capitalism s Means of Overcoming Its Crises, and Scientific Flexibility as a Modern Form of Class Struggle

The struggle over technology is not directed against science itself, but against its monopolization by the dominant powers. Artificial intelligence and technology in general should not be regarded as a threat in themselves, but rather as a terrain whose features are shaped by the balance of social, political, and economic forces. Recent years have witnessed an unprecedented acceleration in the concentration of digital power within a limited number of major capitalist states and giant monopolistic corporations that control the infrastructure of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and global data, granting them enormous economic, political, and cultural influence over the determination of humanity s future.
In times of crisis, capitalism invariably resorts to reproducing itself through advanced scientific tools that allow it to overcome challenges without touching its exploitative core. This is evident across several turning points: in the 2008 crisis, technology and scientific methods were used to rescue the financial system while the cost of the losses was placed on the shoulders of the working classes; during the coronavirus pandemic, capitalism overcame the crisis by expanding automation, artificial intelligence, and remote work, ensuring the continuation of production through new mechanisms that reduced reliance on human labor and increased corporate profits at the expense of unstable working conditions for millions; then came the broad artificial intelligence boom beginning in 2023, opening a new phase of restructuring the labor market, as reliance on automation and intelligent systems expanded across numerous sectors, and concerns escalated over the future of millions of jobs, even as technology companies reaped enormous profits from their monopoly over the new digital and cognitive infrastructure.
Taken together, these episodes show how capitalism draws on science as a tool for restructuring the system and ensuring its continuity, and how it sometimes borrows certain socialist ideas, such as state intervention, as temporary measures to secure stability, only to abandon them once the crisis has passed and reproduce exploitation through more advanced mechanisms.
In light of these challenges, the left must draw on scientific progress by reformulating its discourse and its tools in a rigorous and methodical manner. This requires using modern means to analyze social issues, developing a realistic scientific discourse grounded in what is possible rather than merely what is desired, and building flexible organizational and leadership mechanisms capable of attracting young people who have grown up in a world dominated by technology. Investing in scientific tools does not mean identifying with the values of capitalism, but rather represents a strategy for harnessing them in the service of social justice and the reduction of class inequality, as a step toward the socialist alternative.
If earlier industrial revolutions transformed the equations of production through the machine, then steam power, then electricity, then computing, the current phase, built on artificial intelligence, big data, and digital platforms, is reshaping production, labor, knowledge, and human communication in a manner that is deeper and more far-reaching. In this era, data, algorithms, and artificial intelligence systems have become central instruments for reproducing domination in relatively invisible ways, through shaping public opinion, directing individual and collective behavior, and controlling access to knowledge and information.

Breaching the Fortress and Liberating the Tools: Toward Digital Left Alternatives

While the left s presence has receded in one of today s key battles as a result of treating technology as a secondary tool, this battle has not yet been decided. Victory requires translating vision into concrete programs of action grounded in the conscious use of technology. The left cannot remain confined to a defensive posture, it must become an active party in reshaping the future of technology and integrating it into its liberatory project.
Yet technology is no substitute for conscious human organization. Real power lies in the organized human being capable of harnessing these tools in the service of their goals. Artificial intelligence and technology as a whole are effective instruments for mobilization, organization, and analysis, but they can never replace solidarity and grassroots work, which remain the fundamental engine of change.
As a left, we have historically succeeded in offering alternatives in the fields of economics, justice, politics, rights, and beyond, and we have consistently insisted on intellectual, political, organizational, and media independence. Today, however, we face a decisive challenge that touches this very principle: we still lack a comprehensive, independent, and alternative digital vision capable of breaking the constraints of capitalist technology, since we remain dependent on its own applications, which leaves the left and its constituencies exposed to restriction, marginalization, repression, and infiltration. As noted earlier, the most important dialectical lesson we must absorb is that technology is not neutral, but rather a terrain of class struggle in the fullest sense, and that the essential problem does not lie in the nature of artificial intelligence or automation as such, but in the relations of ownership that govern them, that is, in their monopolization by a small number of giant corporations and major capitalist states, which deepens the class divide and expands the surveillance of the public and the standardization of human consciousness in the service of profit accumulation and intellectual and political domination.
On this basis, it is no longer enough for the left to remain in the position of critic or spectator, standing outside the walls of this technology and confining itself to criticizing its exploitation from without, for that alone will not bring about the desired change, and may instead keep the left confined to narrow intellectual and popular circles far removed from the actual course of the struggle. What is required is to enter into the very heart of the technical process and understand the logic of algorithms in order to dismantle and rebuild them in a liberatory form, by proposing new and bold mechanisms for using technology within participatory and transparent democratic frameworks.
We need “popular artificial intelligence and algorithms” that operate under social oversight and under global and local laws and legislation, that develop through digital cooperatives with a socialist orientation, that are transparent and open to auditing by everyone, and that aim at distributing wealth, organizing production, treating disease and poverty, and achieving social justice, in the service of genuine human needs rather than the whims of the market or the reinforcement of domination and militarism. We also need open-source models, open-source progressive digital platforms, whether social media platforms, search engines, or others, and cooperative technological initiatives that are not subject to the logic of commercial monopoly, and that allow communities and the public to participate in managing knowledge and data and in developing new technologies.
We are called upon to take possession of the tools of our era. Just as Marx and Engels transformed the economic and philosophical sciences, and the scientific and intellectual advances of their time, from instruments justifying the existing order into a theoretical and practical weapon in the hands of working women and men, both manual and intellectual, the left today is called to become an active force in this arena, moving from the position of the “passive user” subject to the terms of capitalist platforms, to the position of the “alternative producer” that offers open, liberated, and communal technological alternatives.
The struggle over algorithmic power is no longer only about the future of technology, it is also about the future of labor, democracy, culture, and social justice.


Conclusion
These critical observations are not meant to diminish the left or its notable history in our countries, but rather to strengthen a discussion that remains muted within our ranks concerning the digital alternative we seek. It is true that this is no easy task, that the gap is wide, and that digital capitalism holds overwhelming dominance, yet history teaches us that nothing remains impossible in the face of sustained struggle. Just as working hours once exceeded seventy per week in the past, they have today, in some countries, come down to thirty-seven hours or fewer, the result of accumulated struggles that once seemed like distant dreams. And just as women a century ago had no right to vote, to be educated, or to work outside the home, today in many countries they lead governments, parliaments, and universities, thanks to sustained feminist and left struggle that never once compromised, despite the imbalance and harshness of the power relations it faced at the outset.
Given these enormous changes and the highly advanced stage that capitalism has reached, we must confront it with its own deadliest weapons, by drawing on modern science, the digital revolution, and continuous renewal across every field, until we surpass it. In this context comes the orientation toward the Electronic-Digital Left as an intellectual and organizational current that reflects a direct response to these major transformations and to the growing rights-based and cognitive awareness, seeking to channel this awareness toward a radical and comprehensive socialist transformation of social, political, and economic structures, while preserving the core values that have formed the essence of Marxist and left thought throughout history.
Reality has shown that left organizations which continuously renew and develop their discourse, tools, work, and organization, which unify their ranks and keep pace with renewed challenges and with scientific and intellectual progress, are the ones most capable of preserving their role and influence. Currents that cling to their old methodologies, as discussed at the outset of this article, gradually lose their members and popular support, and their roles decline noticeably. This is a difficult reality observed across most countries of the world, though it does not negate the existence of left and progressive experiences that inspire hope and offer models that can be built upon.
Without an effective left presence and joint action coordinated internationally in this field, digital capitalism will continue to determine the direction of technological development in the service of its own interests, and will continue to control the future of humanity. In the final analysis, the real strength of the left lies in its ability to fuse grassroots human organization with digital superiority, so that the digital space becomes a supportive and effective arena, not a substitute for struggle, but a wing that carries it toward a more humane and more just socialist future.
This international dimension of the confrontation will be the subject of a forthcoming article on Digital Left Internationalism. The present article is only the beginning of an open dialogue, in which I invite comrades, women and men alike, locally and globally, to form joint digital working groups that examine the possibilities for building left and progressive technological alternatives, and that lay the practical foundations for the digital internationalism that our coming battle requires.
Note: A shorter first version of this article was originally published in English, then translated into several languages and published on dozens of websites, the most notable of which include: Globetrotter (English, Spanish, and Portuguese, international), Znetwork (dozens of languages, international), CounterPunch (English, international), MROnline (English, international), Countercurrents (English, India), NewsClick (English, India), Aliran (English, Malaysia), The Left Chapter (English, Canada), Sinistra in Rete (Italian, Italy), Contropiano (Italian, Italy), Jornal GGN (Portuguese, Brazil), Diário Carioca (Portuguese, Brazil), Revue Supernova (French, France), elviejotopo (Spanish, Spain), El Maipo (Spanish, Chile), Insurgencia Magisterial (Spanish, Mexico), Amiidonk (Hungarian, Hungary), Perjamuan Buku (Indonesian, Indonesia), Slguardian (English, Sri Lanka).

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1