Anarchism and its Relationship With Technoscience

Rafael Grossi Calleja, via machine || Anarchism emerged in Europe during the 19th century, within a context of profound economic, social, and technological transformations. The Industrial Revolution not only radically altered modes of production but also consolidated new forms of labor organization, characterized by long hours, precarious wages, and degrading working conditions. In response to this scenario, various currents of critical thought arose that questioned the hierarchical structures of political and economic power, proposing alternative models of social organization based on freedom, equality, and cooperation.

Unlike other contemporary ideologies, anarchism did not merely react against industrial capitalism. It also constituted a profound reflection on the relationship between technology, labor, and freedom. While anarchists denounced the use of machines as instruments of domination and exploitation, they did not reject technology itself. On the contrary, thinkers such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin argued that technological development could serve as a means of emancipation, provided that its control was not in the hands of elites, but rather managed collectively.

For Proudhon, the key to a liberating technology lay in cooperativism. If workers controlled the factories and the means of production, technology could reduce human effort and improve living conditions. This notion of collective ownership of the means of production remains highly relevant in contemporary debates about artificial intelligence (AI): who owns the algorithms and data that power AI systems? Should they be owned by private corporations or managed as common goods?

Bakunin, for his part, maintained an ambivalent stance regarding science and technology. He recognized science as a tool for emancipation, since it allowed for understanding the laws of nature and liberation from superstitions. However, he warned that science could be transformed into a new form of power if it became monopolized by an elite of experts or by the state apparatus.

Kropotkin, on the other hand, envisioned a decentralized industrial organization composed of local, autonomous, and collaborative production units. His model anticipates contemporary forms of technical organization such as distributed digital manufacturing, free software, and open-source AI platforms. For Kropotkin, technology should serve to reduce alienating labor and be managed by those who use it.

Trade unionism and technical self-management

Nineteenth-century anarchism was not confined to the theoretical realm but rather articulated itself as a mass social movement. Through trade unions and workers’ associations, anarchists fought for the radical transformation of the production process. Within this framework, technology became a strategic battleground: should machines serve human emancipation or perpetuate the logic of exploitation?

Anarchist unions argued that workers should not only demand wage increases but also assume direct control of the means of production. The National Confederation of Labor (CNT), heir to this tradition, promoted self-management initiatives during the Spanish Revolution (1936–1939), in which factories, workshops, and services were collectively managed. In many cases, production was reorganized according to principles of efficiency, solidarity, and the absence of hierarchies, demonstrating that technology could operate outside of capitalist and state-controlled systems.

Technology and freedom: an anarchist perspective

In contrast to romantic currents that rejected wholesale industrialization, anarchism developed a critical yet constructive vision. For its theorists, technology was not an enemy per se, but a tool that could be reappropriated and politically redefined. Instead of rejecting it, the aim was to intervene in its development and management, guiding it toward emancipatory ends.

This anarchist perspective is particularly useful for analyzing the current situation surrounding artificial intelligence. Just as 19th-century factories concentrated power in the hands of a few industrialists, today large technology corporations monopolize algorithms, data, and AI systems.

The questions posed by Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin remain relevant: how to democratize access to technology? How to turn it into an instrument of freedom instead of a mechanism of control?

Anarchism and technology: lessons for the present

Classical anarchist thought offers at least three key lessons for the current debate on AI:

1. Collective ownership of technology: Just as factories should be in the hands of the workers, AI systems should be transparent, auditable, and democratically managed. Collective ownership of algorithms also implies community control over data.
2. Open knowledge: Technical expertise should not be the monopoly of a technocratic elite. Open-source AI initiatives, such as Hugging Face or LAION, embody the principle of sharing knowledge as a common good.
3. Decentralization: In contrast to centralized and hierarchical models, anarchism promotes distributed, resilient, and participatory networks. This philosophy is reflected in practices such as free software and peer-to-peer systems, which emphasize horizontal collaboration.

Conceiving of an anarchist AI requires rethinking the relationship between human beings and automated systems. AI should not replace human thought, but rather act as a cooperative extension of our cognitive and organizational capacities.

Is an anarchist artificial intelligence possible?

Raising the possibility of an “anarchist AI” might seem, at first glance, a contradiction or a conceptual provocation. How could a sophisticated technology, based on formal systems and automation, embody values ​​such as self-management, equality, or freedom? This question, however, compels us to rethink both the meaning of anarchism in the 21st century and the technical and social conditions under which emerging technologies develop.

Most current AI systems are designed in deeply hierarchical environments: large corporations, state-funded laboratories, or private conglomerates. These environments respond to economic, military, or surveillance interests, which distances them from any libertarian ideal. However, there are technical and philosophical principles that could guide the creation of AI conceived from a different logic: open, decentralized, cooperative, and ethical.

Characteristics of an anarchist AI

An anarchist artificial intelligence would not imply the existence of a technology with its own ideology, but rather a design and governance approach that aligns with anarchist principles. This would entail:

• Decentralization: AI should not be under the exclusive control of companies, states, or institutions, but distributed across open networks with collective decision-making mechanisms.
• Transparency and openness: Algorithms, data, and models must be public, understandable, and modifiable by any interested person or community.
• Self-management: Technology must respond to the specific needs of local communities and not to the logic of profit or state control.
• Ethics of mutual support: AI should be geared towards enhancing collaboration, collective learning and joint problem-solving, rather than replacing or subjugating human subjects.

Conceiving of AI based on these principles requires rethinking the relationship between humans and automated systems. AI should not replace human thought, but rather act as a cooperative extension of our cognitive and organizational capabilities. Key decisions—from defining the problem to evaluating the results—must be made deliberately, with horizontal and inclusive participation.

Furthermore, the development of interpretable and explainable algorithms is fundamental, allowing us to understand how a decision is made. Only in this way can AI become a tool at the service of the community, and not a new technological oracle to which moral or political responsibility is delegated.

Obstacles to an anarchist AI

Despite its transformative potential, the idea of ​​an anarchist AI faces multiple obstacles:

• Economic: Training advanced models requires expensive infrastructure, such as supercomputers and large volumes of data, which limits access to non-corporate actors.
• Politicians: States and large corporations have strategic interests in maintaining control over AI, as it represents a source of economic, social, and military power.
• Philosophical and ethical considerations: Some critics argue that all technology tends to reproduce the hierarchies of the system that produces it. From this perspective, a truly anarchist AI would seem unfeasible. However, this objection can be extended to any technical tool: the crucial issue is not whether AI has an ideology, but who designs it, under what values, and for what purposes.