Of Gadgetry, Capitalism, and the Rope They Sold Us:
A Materialist Perspective
A persistent argument in some leftist circles insists that using modern technology is an inherent endorsement of capitalism. This perspective is not only simplistic but strategically limiting. It disregards the reality that tools are not inherently capitalist—they are created by labor, exploited by capital. Before any brand name is stamped onto a device, before capitalists lay claim to it as their property, it is the worker—both in mind and sinew—who develops it. The capitalist merely extracts surplus value, slaps a logo onto the final product, and proclaims ownership.
The irony of such an argument is best captured by Vladimir Lenin’s famous remark: “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Capitalism, in its relentless pursuit of profit, often provides the very means by which it can be challenged. The idea that anti-capitalists should abstain from using modern tools because they were produced under capitalism fails to recognize this contradiction. It conflates the tool itself with the brand that profits from it, reinforcing the illusion that technology inherently belongs to capital rather than to the workers who created it.
Technology as a Product of Labor, Not Capital
Karl Marx, in Capital, emphasized that technological development is shaped by the mode of production, not by the ownership class. He famously remarked:
“The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist.”
This observation highlights that technology does not exist in a vacuum—it serves the prevailing economic structure but is not inherently bound to it. The same technological advancements that powered capitalism can be repurposed to overthrow it.
Before an iPhone bears the Apple logo, before a Samsung device enters the market, it is assembled by workers—often under grueling conditions in factories where wages are kept low and hours are extended to maximize profit. It is not the capitalist who toils over the engineering, the design, or the assembly; it is labor. Yet, capitalist ideology distorts this reality, making it seem as though brands, rather than workers, are the true source of technological progress.
Innovation? Creativity? These belong to labor, not the profiteer who merely “puts a mark” on the product and claims it as “theirs.” If capitalists were truly the innovators they claim to be, their role would not be limited to ownership and market manipulation. They do not write the code, mold the circuits, or design the processors. It is the collective labor of engineers, factory workers, and programmers that creates these tools. The capitalist merely puts a price tag on them.
Lenin’s Rope and the Contradictions of Capitalist Technology
Lenin’s aphorism about capitalists selling their own rope is a reminder that capitalism, in its endless drive for profit, often undermines itself. Digital technology—initially developed for military and corporate control—has become one of the most effective tools for organizing against capitalism. Workers use social media to organize strikes, whistleblowers expose corporate misconduct through digital leaks, and decentralized networks challenge traditional financial structures.
To argue that anti-capitalists should not use tools developed under capitalism ignores the historical reality that revolutions have always repurposed the tools of their time. The Bolsheviks seized the factories and railways; the Paris Commune utilized existing governance structures; decolonization movements repurposed colonial infrastructure. It was never a question of rejecting these tools but of wresting them from the hands of capitalists and using them for revolutionary ends.
The capitalist system is filled with such contradictions. It produces the conditions for its own undoing because it must continually innovate and expand to survive. In doing so, it creates new tools, new forms of communication, and new means of production that can be turned against it. Had Lenin lived to see the digital age, he might have noted that capitalists have not only sold the rope but have also given their opponents a platform to spread revolutionary ideas on a scale never before possible.
The Fallacy of Brand Loyalty and Abstentionism
One of the more peculiar forms of criticism against anti-capitalists is the suggestion that they should refrain from using modern tools because they were produced under capitalism. Such an argument reduces technology to the corporations that currently profit from it, rather than recognizing its true origins in labor.
To suggest that an anti-capitalist should not use a smartphone or a computer simply because it is branded by Apple or Samsung is as absurd as suggesting that socialists in the 19th century should not have used the printing press because it was owned by bourgeois publishers. The material reality is that workers create these tools, and their utility is not diminished by the fact that capitalists profit from them.
A wrench made in a factory does not become an instrument of capitalism simply because the factory owner claims it as their property. Likewise, a smartphone does not become a capitalist tool simply because it bears a corporate logo. The essence of its creation remains the same—it is the product of labor, exploited and commodified by capital. The task of anti-capitalists is not to reject these tools but to reclaim and repurpose them.
Max Stirner, the radical egoist, would have dismissed the notion that one must abstain from using tools simply because of their capitalist origins. He rejected all moralistic constraints on the individual’s ability to appropriate and utilize what was available. As he wrote in The Ego and Its Own:
“The state rests on the—slavery of labor. If labor becomes free, the state is lost.”
Stirner’s perspective challenges the idea that tools are inherently oppressive simply because they emerged from a particular system. If labor, which has historically been controlled and exploited, can be liberated, then so too can the tools of production. Just as labor can be freed from the constraints of capital, so too can technological advancements be repurposed for emancipatory goals.
Synthesis: Technology as Contested Terrain
A purely abstentionist approach to technology assumes that its mere existence validates capitalism. This view ignores the dynamic nature of history. Technology is not inherently capitalist, socialist, or anarchist—it is a battleground. The same tool can be wielded by different forces, and its function is determined by power relations, not by its origin.
The internet, artificial intelligence, automation, and digital communication are products of capitalism, but they are not its exclusive property. Workers have used social media to organize strikes; anti-capitalist movements have leveraged digital platforms to spread ideas; alternative economies have flourished in spaces originally created for profit-seeking corporations. The key is not to reject these tools but to seize them, adapt them, and turn them against the system that produced them.
Historically, revolutions have often repurposed the infrastructure built by the regimes they overthrew. The Bolsheviks took control of factories and railways; the Paris Commune used existing administrative structures to govern democratically; decolonization movements adapted colonial infrastructure to serve newly independent states. In the same way, digital technology can be repurposed for anti-capitalist ends.
Lenin’s observation remains as relevant today as ever. Capitalists, in their relentless pursuit of profit, will continue to sell the tools that can be used against them. The challenge for those who seek radical change is not to reject these tools but to wield them strategically. To do otherwise is to ignore history, to reject opportunity, and to misunderstand the very contradictions that make capitalism vulnerable.
The rope has been sold. The only question is who will use it first.
The irony of such an argument is best captured by Vladimir Lenin’s famous remark: “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Capitalism, in its relentless pursuit of profit, often provides the very means by which it can be challenged. The idea that anti-capitalists should abstain from using modern tools because they were produced under capitalism fails to recognize this contradiction. It conflates the tool itself with the brand that profits from it, reinforcing the illusion that technology inherently belongs to capital rather than to the workers who created it.
Technology as a Product of Labor, Not Capital
Karl Marx, in Capital, emphasized that technological development is shaped by the mode of production, not by the ownership class. He famously remarked:
“The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist.”
This observation highlights that technology does not exist in a vacuum—it serves the prevailing economic structure but is not inherently bound to it. The same technological advancements that powered capitalism can be repurposed to overthrow it.
Before an iPhone bears the Apple logo, before a Samsung device enters the market, it is assembled by workers—often under grueling conditions in factories where wages are kept low and hours are extended to maximize profit. It is not the capitalist who toils over the engineering, the design, or the assembly; it is labor. Yet, capitalist ideology distorts this reality, making it seem as though brands, rather than workers, are the true source of technological progress.
Innovation? Creativity? These belong to labor, not the profiteer who merely “puts a mark” on the product and claims it as “theirs.” If capitalists were truly the innovators they claim to be, their role would not be limited to ownership and market manipulation. They do not write the code, mold the circuits, or design the processors. It is the collective labor of engineers, factory workers, and programmers that creates these tools. The capitalist merely puts a price tag on them.
Lenin’s Rope and the Contradictions of Capitalist Technology
Lenin’s aphorism about capitalists selling their own rope is a reminder that capitalism, in its endless drive for profit, often undermines itself. Digital technology—initially developed for military and corporate control—has become one of the most effective tools for organizing against capitalism. Workers use social media to organize strikes, whistleblowers expose corporate misconduct through digital leaks, and decentralized networks challenge traditional financial structures.
To argue that anti-capitalists should not use tools developed under capitalism ignores the historical reality that revolutions have always repurposed the tools of their time. The Bolsheviks seized the factories and railways; the Paris Commune utilized existing governance structures; decolonization movements repurposed colonial infrastructure. It was never a question of rejecting these tools but of wresting them from the hands of capitalists and using them for revolutionary ends.
The capitalist system is filled with such contradictions. It produces the conditions for its own undoing because it must continually innovate and expand to survive. In doing so, it creates new tools, new forms of communication, and new means of production that can be turned against it. Had Lenin lived to see the digital age, he might have noted that capitalists have not only sold the rope but have also given their opponents a platform to spread revolutionary ideas on a scale never before possible.
The Fallacy of Brand Loyalty and Abstentionism
One of the more peculiar forms of criticism against anti-capitalists is the suggestion that they should refrain from using modern tools because they were produced under capitalism. Such an argument reduces technology to the corporations that currently profit from it, rather than recognizing its true origins in labor.
To suggest that an anti-capitalist should not use a smartphone or a computer simply because it is branded by Apple or Samsung is as absurd as suggesting that socialists in the 19th century should not have used the printing press because it was owned by bourgeois publishers. The material reality is that workers create these tools, and their utility is not diminished by the fact that capitalists profit from them.
A wrench made in a factory does not become an instrument of capitalism simply because the factory owner claims it as their property. Likewise, a smartphone does not become a capitalist tool simply because it bears a corporate logo. The essence of its creation remains the same—it is the product of labor, exploited and commodified by capital. The task of anti-capitalists is not to reject these tools but to reclaim and repurpose them.
Max Stirner, the radical egoist, would have dismissed the notion that one must abstain from using tools simply because of their capitalist origins. He rejected all moralistic constraints on the individual’s ability to appropriate and utilize what was available. As he wrote in The Ego and Its Own:
“The state rests on the—slavery of labor. If labor becomes free, the state is lost.”
Stirner’s perspective challenges the idea that tools are inherently oppressive simply because they emerged from a particular system. If labor, which has historically been controlled and exploited, can be liberated, then so too can the tools of production. Just as labor can be freed from the constraints of capital, so too can technological advancements be repurposed for emancipatory goals.
Synthesis: Technology as Contested Terrain
A purely abstentionist approach to technology assumes that its mere existence validates capitalism. This view ignores the dynamic nature of history. Technology is not inherently capitalist, socialist, or anarchist—it is a battleground. The same tool can be wielded by different forces, and its function is determined by power relations, not by its origin.
The internet, artificial intelligence, automation, and digital communication are products of capitalism, but they are not its exclusive property. Workers have used social media to organize strikes; anti-capitalist movements have leveraged digital platforms to spread ideas; alternative economies have flourished in spaces originally created for profit-seeking corporations. The key is not to reject these tools but to seize them, adapt them, and turn them against the system that produced them.
Historically, revolutions have often repurposed the infrastructure built by the regimes they overthrew. The Bolsheviks took control of factories and railways; the Paris Commune used existing administrative structures to govern democratically; decolonization movements adapted colonial infrastructure to serve newly independent states. In the same way, digital technology can be repurposed for anti-capitalist ends.
Lenin’s observation remains as relevant today as ever. Capitalists, in their relentless pursuit of profit, will continue to sell the tools that can be used against them. The challenge for those who seek radical change is not to reject these tools but to wield them strategically. To do otherwise is to ignore history, to reject opportunity, and to misunderstand the very contradictions that make capitalism vulnerable.
The rope has been sold. The only question is who will use it first.