In recent years there has been a rapid development in the field of technology and information. Often, technology as a force that permeates every aspect of modern life is presented by the dominant narrative as a neutral means of progress and prosperity. However, when we study in more depth the phenomenon of technological development and its consequences for society, the economy and politics, we find that in the context of capitalism, the operation of technology is embedded in a wider context of social and economic inequalities: the domination of capital, the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few and the intensification of the exploitation of the many. At the same time, the oligarchy of the technological giants now has, through technology, more means to intervene and influence politics and democracy itself.
FROM INNOVATION TO PROFIT
In the system of modern capitalism, technology is not developed on the basis of social needs, but on the basis of the logic of the market and profitability, like any other commodity. Large multinational companies invest billions in research and innovation, but the direction of this development is always designed to increase the companies’ profits.
Moreover, equal access to basic goods such as health and education often depends on technological means, which are available according to purchasing power rather than social needs. Technological means, fully following the laws of capitalist production and the free market, are treated as commodities and the citizens who use and need them are treated as mere customers.
Moreover, technological means are now being used to intensify labour exploitation. For example, various software are being developed which are used to control the ‘productivity’ of workers, following the Taylorist approach to production, omitting the role of the wage supervisor.
In addition, technological inventions and automation, instead of helping to reduce the time of the work required, are used exclusively with a view to increasing the profitability of the capitalist, often leading to mass redundancies of workers.
THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE FUTURE ARE SACRIFICED FOR IMMEDIATE AND RAPID PROFIT
Industrial and digital technology produces a huge environmental footprint: construction industries, data centres, mining of rare metals, use of huge amounts of energy. The need for a quick return on investment and immediate profitability therefore overrides long-term sustainability and environmental protection. Rarely, with the exception of pilot public image environmental programmes, are limits set on pollutant emissions, energy consumption and material recycling. National policies, however, are not driven by real ecological needs per se, but by the pressure of private interests.
A fundamental contradiction emerges here: technology under the control of capital prioritises profit, competitiveness and economic growth, but does so at the sacrifice of the environment and our own future. The ecological crisis, however, threatens all sectors – from the most disaster-prone areas to the international economy itself. The answer to this contradiction cannot simply be ‘green entrepreneurship’, but a radical redesign of the priorities and purposes of technological development.
DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND THE MANIPULATION OF PUBLIC OPINION
Ostensibly, digital platforms are presented as tools for ‘pluralism’, but in reality they are tools for promoting specific ideas that serve the interests and profits of the monopolies and the system itself.
Content ranking algorithms take care to promote what increases engagement – i.e. advertising opportunities and user retention, leaving voices that do not ‘sell’ or go against the dominant ideology on the ‘outside’. At the same time, the very intrusive design of the platforms and the A/B testing that is done, directs users to content that increases the profitability of the platform.
As a result, echo chambers are created, i.e. users are mainly exposed to views that confirm their existing beliefs, which reinforces social divisions and radicalisation.
Also, the financially powerful are able to promote their own ideologies and policy proposals through paid advertisements and posts on digital platforms.
Moreover, shadowbanning and filtering have resulted in certain voices being ‘downgraded’ or disappearing without any transparency and without any recourse. This phenomenon was particularly observed on the “X” platform (formerly Twitter) after it was acquired by Elon Musk, who promised “more freedom of speech” but ended up silencing any voice that was critical of him and his ideology. Freedom of speech is thus limited to the limits of commercial exploitation.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal reveals the extent to which these practices can be used for strategic purposes and to the detriment of the people themselves. Data from 87 million Facebook users was used to create psychological profiles with targeted campaigns that influenced the Brexit referendum and the 2016 US elections. This proved that through “likes” and social interactions can not only predict but also manipulate people’s political beliefs.
THE DIGITAL OLIGARCHY
In 21st century digital capitalism, information is not just knowledge – it is a commodity, a source of power and profit. Our every click, search, like, purchase behaviour is recorded in “data lakes”, analysed by machine learning algorithms and put up for sale to advertisers or third parties. The user, instead of being a citizen, turns himself into a “product” – a bundle of features sold at the highest price, without direct wage consideration to the producer (user).
At the same time, the technological multinationals are creating monopolistic digital territories in which everything operates on their terms. Users and retailers are subservient to these monopolies. Moreover, many of these companies, such as Google, Microsoft and SpaceX, control critical infrastructure such as data centres, submarine cables, satellites, etc. and as a result they determine the terms of access and use of critical digital resources. Even entire states end up depending on these private companies, creating ‘digital protectorates’. Decisions on planning and access to these resources are made in corporate boards rather than in democratically elected bodies. This monopolistic regime can lead to both disruptions of critical services and policies of extortion.
REINVENTING PRECARIOUS WORK (GIG ECONOMY)
Sharing platforms (Uber, Wolt, e-food) advertise the flexibility and independence of the driver or deliverer. In reality, however, they are promoting a new model of precariousness.
Workers are not recognised as employees but as self-employed, with the result that companies are spared employer contributions and rights (holidays, social benefits, etc.). Also, employee remuneration is based solely on variable algorithms that take into account demand, customer reviews and internal platform policies, leaving employees financially unprotected. In addition, employee monitoring and evaluation systems are used, creating a climate of fear and coercion towards employees.
As a result, a digital ‘feudalism’ is revived, where the user-worker is under the umbrella of the ‘digital feudal lord’ who fully determines the terms of employment, rights and prices.
ANOTHER MARCH – TECHNOLOGY FROM AND FOR ALL
Against the flimsiness of the capitalist system, we envision a different way of organising technology and development, based on the principles of democracy, social justice and sustainability. In socialism, which opposes private ownership of the means of production, technology changes its character.
Firstly, technological goods and infrastructure (networking, equipment, digital services) become public goods, available to all without any question of economic exclusion. Telemedicine, distance learning and digital tools in general will be designed to serve real needs and will not be used by citizens on the basis of their ability to pay.
At the same time, the development of technological tools will be based on social needs and not on profit. Priorities in research and development will be set by collective processes. Funding programmes will focus on projects that improve health, education, energy self-sufficiency and environmental protection.
In addition, automation and intelligent systems will be harnessed to free people from heavy repetitive tasks (such as those imposed by the Fordist model) and to reduce the overall time of work required. As a result, work is now being redefined as a means of self-actualisation and social contribution rather than as a necessary evil for survival.
Also, decisions about technological development are made in democratic assemblies, with full public control of programmes, results and finances. Open source software and open platforms will ensure that there are no black boxes imposing unseen political priorities.
CONCLUSIONS
Technology and technological development is not neutral, but like any social phenomenon is in a dialectical relationship with the economic base, i.e. it reflects social relations of production and can to some extent influence them. In the context of capitalism, technological innovations adapt to the growth of capital, the concentration of wealth and the intensification of exploitation, forming a new regime of ‘digital feudalism’. Freedom of speech and democratic participation are undermined by opaque algorithms, while the environment is sacrificed on the altar of short-term profit.
In the face of this challenge, a radical redefinition is needed: to turn technology into a public good, to design it with social purposes and ecological awareness, to enhance collective liberation instead of exacerbating manipulation. Only then can we talk about real progress: a society where technology serves the many, not the few, where innovation opens up avenues for self-determination and solidarity, not new forms of exploitation and exclusion.