Where has the left’s technological audacity gone? | Leigh Phillips
The article argues that the modern left has abandoned its historic embrace of technology, favoring techno‑skepticism despite successful public‑sector innovations during Covid‑19. It calls for a revival of left‑driven industrial policy to harness AI, biotech, and space exploration for public good.
Techno‑optimism—the belief that technology can usher in a new era of human flourishing—has re‑emerged among Silicon Valley elites, yet the contemporary left appears to have abandoned its own tradition of championing technological progress. From the viral "Effective Accelerationism" manifesto in 2022 to Marc Andreessen’s 2023 Techno‑Optimist Manifesto, billionaire founders and investors are loudly proclaiming that technology is the engine of future prosperity, while many progressive voices now warn of AI‑driven doom, genetic‑engineering risks, and the environmental costs of data centers.
The Rise of Right‑Wing Techno‑Optimism
In late 2022 a group of anonymous AI enthusiasts posted a Substack essay titled “Effective Accelerationism” (e/acc), urging the fastest possible development of artificial intelligence and other next‑generation technologies. The 10‑point manifesto went viral, attracting attention from high‑profile tech leaders such as Y Combinator’s Garry Tan, OpenAI chief Sam Altman, billionaire Marc Andreessen, and Elon Musk. Andreessen expanded the conversation in 2023 with his Techno‑Optimist Manifesto, which framed statism, economic planning and socialism as the chief enemies of progress and called for a renewed “technology flag.” The following year, the Roots of Progress Institute and policy analyst Jason Crawford released a Techno‑Humanist Manifesto, arguing that any profitable technology should be pursued for its liberatory potential.
What the Left Could Claim
One might expect the left to point to the pandemic as proof that state‑led science can outpace market‑driven innovation. When COVID‑19 struck, private pharmaceutical firms hesitated to invest in mRNA vaccines because the market seemed uncertain. It was the U.S. government—through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and Operation Warp Speed—that funded, coordinated, and guaranteed purchases, turning a decade‑old mRNA platform into a life‑saving global tool. Similarly, the Defense Production Act was invoked to correct market failures in personal protective equipment and ventilator distribution, demonstrating that public coordination can resolve crises that profit‑seeking firms cannot.
These successes suggest a powerful narrative: major scientific breakthroughs—vaccines, renewable energy, and advanced computing—are most reliably delivered when the state takes the lead. The left could therefore position itself as the true techno‑optimist, advocating for public investment, democratic oversight, and a vision of technology that serves all people rather than shareholders.
Why the Left Has Turned Away
Despite this legacy, recent years have seen growing techno‑skepticism on the progressive side. Left‑leaning tech podcasts call for the degrowth of generative AI and data centers due to carbon intensity. Environmental groups label space exploration as settler‑colonialism, and anti‑GMO activists have vandalised research trials and won court battles against genetically modified crops designed to fight malnutrition. This shift reflects a broader “neo‑Luddite” current that equates technological advancement with ecological ruin and social injustice, often overlooking the historical leftist support for industrial progress—from Karl Marx’s enthusiasm for the Industrial Revolution to Harold Wilson’s 1960s “white heat of the Scientific Revolution.”
The modern left’s caution is not without reason. Climate urgency, concerns over surveillance, and the concentration of AI benefits in a handful of corporations raise legitimate questions about who controls technology and who reaps its rewards. However, the article argues that rejecting technology outright undermines the left’s ability to address existential threats such as climate change, antimicrobial resistance, and planetary defense.
A Third Way: Democratic Tech Policy
To reconcile these tensions, the author proposes a “third way” that revives the left’s historic commitment to planned, public‑sector technology. This approach would involve:
- Industrial policy that directs research toward climate‑friendly AI, renewable energy, and precision agriculture.
- Public ownership or strong regulation of critical sectors like pharmaceuticals, ensuring vaccines and antibiotics are produced without profit pressure.
- International cooperation on space debris mitigation and asteroid monitoring, framing space as a public good rather than a commercial frontier.
- Democratic oversight of AI development to prioritize health, safety, and scientific discovery over profit‑driven content generation.
Such policies could accelerate progress while keeping it aligned with egalitarian goals. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act and Bidenomics’ Green New Deal initiatives illustrate how targeted public spending can shift the energy mix, even if fossil‑fuel share has only modestly declined from 86% to 82% since the Kyoto Protocol. Similarly, de‑commodifying drug production could stave off the looming collapse of the antibiotic pipeline, and robust public funding for pandemic surveillance could prevent future health crises.
What Comes Next?
The left now faces a strategic choice: continue to critique technology from a distance, or re‑embrace a proactive, democratic vision that harnesses tech for collective liberation. As the world approaches the 2050 net‑zero deadline and confronts accelerating biodiversity loss, the stakes are high. A renewed left‑led techno‑optimism could shape policies that make AI work for public health, ensure that space exploration remains a shared human endeavour, and deploy gene‑editing tools to feed a growing population without harming the environment.
If progressive movements can articulate a clear, policy‑driven roadmap for technology—one that blends public investment, regulation, and international solidarity—they may reclaim the audacious spirit of “more audacity” that once defined both Enlightenment liberals and early socialists.
Why it matters
The left’s stance on technology determines whether future breakthroughs serve public welfare or remain confined to profit‑driven elites, affecting climate action, health security, and societal equity.
Key points
- Techno‑optimism is now championed by Silicon Valley elites while many progressives express techno‑skepticism
- COVID‑19 showed that state‑led investment can outpace market‑driven innovation
- Historical leftist thought embraced technology as a tool for liberation, a tradition now waning
- A democratic industrial policy could align AI, biotech, and space exploration with public goals
- Re‑adopting left‑led techno‑optimism is crucial for meeting climate, health, and security challenges
Frequently asked questions
Why do some left‑wing groups oppose genetically modified crops?
They fear corporate control of food systems and potential ecological impacts, despite evidence that GM crops can reduce pesticide use and improve nutrition.
What is Effective Accelerationism?
A 2022 manifesto urging rapid development of AI and other emerging technologies, popular among some tech founders but criticized for overlooking societal risks.
How did the U.S. government accelerate COVID‑19 vaccine development?
Through BARDA funding, advance purchase agreements, and Operation Warp Speed, which de‑risked vaccine production and coordinated distribution.
Can public policy make AI work for the public good?
Yes, by directing research funding toward health, climate, and scientific challenges and regulating commercial uses that prioritize profit over safety.
What role could the left play in space exploration?
Advocating for publicly funded, internationally coordinated missions that treat space as a shared resource rather than a profit‑driven frontier.
