The buildout of the US railroads between 1860 and 1900 drew the largest capital expenditures in US economic history, creating not only an enduring transport infrastructure but also the institutions of modern Wall Street including the stock market.  Only today’s buildout of AI infrastructure – data centers, networks, software and related facilities – is expected to surpass that historic investment.[1] Alongside the tech giants, newly emerged start-ups led by Open AI are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into capital expenditures on AI.  Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta alone have committed to spending $725 billion in 2026, a drastic increase from $410 billion in 2025, racing against each other to secure dominance.[2] OpenAI, which expects to be in the red until 2029,[3] is planning to spend $600 billion for computing infrastructure by 2030.[4] This massive investment has been driving the U.S. stock market and the growth of  U.S. GDP.

To fund their competing AI infrastructures, tech giants, no longer able to self-finance, are going into the domestic and overseas debt market and depleting their enormous cash reserves. As of March 2026, Alphabet has an outstanding debt a $77.501 billion, up from a mere $10.88 billion in 2024;[5] Amazon is carrying $65.6 billion in debt;[6] and Oracle holds debt of over $100 billion, driven by AI infrastructure spending. Tech companies’ layoffs have been due not to AI automation but to funding their AI infrastructure expenses.

If demand actually turns out to justify this massive capital expenditure, the tech companies’ share prices will continue to balloon – the combined value of the seven tech companies is $23.14 trillion, which is roughly 45% of the S&P 500 [7] and accounted for 92% of U.S. GDP growth in the first half of 2025.[8] However, despite the exuberant stock prices and the promise and hope surrounding AI, the immediate benefits for corporations’ bottom lines from the use of AI are remain murky.

U.S. companies spent $37 billion in 2025 on generative AI alone, but they are struggling to see immediate returns (ROI) on their AI investment.[9] Nvidia vice president Bryan Catanzaro said, “AI compute now costs more than the employees using it, making AI more expensive than human labor.”[10] Google, fully aware that corporations are trying to justify the skyrocketing cost of AI, has recently released its new, more “cost effective” Gemini AI model.[11] According to a survey done by the Harris Poll commissioned by Dataiku, “71% of global chief information officers said their AI budgets would be frozen or cut if value from AI couldn’t be demonstrated within two years.”[12] According to a recent Financial Times article, the capital investments by hyperscalers are expected to rise by 20 percent between 2025-2030, but revenues are generously calculated to grow by only 15 percent.[13] In light of all this, tech giants desperately need demand that generates revenue. Otherwise, they may face the same reality that confronted railroad investors during the 1890s: overcapacity, and all that comes with it.

For this moment, Anthropic’s release of Mythos did a spectacular job of generating demand in the cybersecurity realm. Consequently, the company is hurriedly searching for computing power, expanding its alliances with competitors Google, Amazon, and xAI and leasing data center capacity wherever it can. While, at least for the moment, Anthropic’s Claude could be the best AI model, it is forced to rely on its competitors for computing infrastructure that it does not have yet. In turn, paradoxically, almost half of Google and Amazon’s profit this quarter actually came from their investments in Anthropic.[14]

Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Nvidia all invested in OpenAI and Anthropic and are now betting on their upcoming trillion-dollar IPOs to expand their ever-growing data centers.[15] This circular financing holds up the debt-ridden AI industry and has momentarily staved off the problem of overcapacity.  But how long can this last?

No one can predict, but what is clear is that there is a widening gap between demand and the tech giants’ hugely inflating infrastructure expenditures and infrastructural capacity.  The result is likely to be price wars and, ultimately, something harsher.

If tech companies are not able to generate greater demand – soon – then the circulation of capital to the AI sector via the stock market, private equity, and investment banks, could slow or come to a sudden stop.  This in turn would propel a gigantic shockwave through the financial system and, indeed, through global capitalism. Time is ticking.

Shinjoung Yeo & Dan Schiller


[1] See “The AI Capex Boom: Bubble or Infrastructure Supercycle?LongYield, March 5, 2026, .

[2]Alphabet, Amazon tap overseas debt markets to fund AI infrastructure push,Reuters, May 11, 2026.

[3] Jeremy Laird, “OpenAI’s own forecast predicts $14 billion loss in 2026 but Nvidia-style $100 billion revenues by 2029 according to new report,” Yahoo!Finance, January 21, 2026,

[4] Ashley Capoot and Kate Rooney, “OpenAI resets spending expectations, tells investors compute target is around $600 billion by 2030,CNBC, February 20, 2026.

[5]Alphabet Long Term Debt 2012-2026,” Macrotrends.

[6] Rich Duprey, “AI’s Coming Trillion-Dollar Hangover: Amazon Leads Hyperscalers Back to the Debt Well,’ Yahoo!Finance, March 10, 2026.

[7] Sinchita Mitra, “AI Stocks near 45% of S&P 500 weight, Goldman Sachs says,” Seeking Alpha, April 22, 2026.

[8] Nick Lichtenberg, “Without data centers, GDP growth was 0.1% in the first half of 2025, Harvard economist saysFortune, October 7, 2025.

[9] Tim Keary, “AI Pilots Still Don’t See Returns. Here’s Why,” Forbes, April 30, 2026; Thomas H. Davenport and Laks Srinivasan, “7 Factors That Drive Returns on AI Investments, According to a New Survey,” Harvard Business Review, March 17, 2026.

[10] Sherin Shibu, “Nvidia VP Says AI Costs ‘Far’ More Than Human Employees,’ Yahoo!Finance, April 29, 2026.

[11] Yifan Yu, “Google says new AI model could save companies billions in token costs,” Nikkei Asia, March 20, 2026.

[12] Makenzie Holland, “Most CIOs regret AI vendor, platform decisions: report,Yahoo!finance,February 12, 2026,

[13] Joachim Klement, “The impossible maths of the AI boom,” Financial Times, May 20, 2026.

[14] Eva Royburg, “Google and Amazon’s biggest profit driver last quarter was their Anthropic stakes—which they haven’t sold,” Fortune, April 30, 2026.

[15] Joachim Klement, “The impossible maths of the AI boom,” Financial Times, May 20, 2026.

A few weeks ago, we posted about the clash between Anthropic and the Department of War (DoW). Our assessment was premature; developments have been racing ahead.

We asserted that Anthropic’s rejection of the DoW contract over the issues of domestic mass surveillance and the deployment of autonomous weapons, and its consequent replacement by OpenAI, occurred within the context of fierce competition between AI companies. Since then, Anthropic has sued the DoW and won in a San Francisco federal court, momentarily blocking the Pentagon from labeling the company a supply-chain risk. However, the company then lost on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Anthropic’s oral argument is scheduled for May 19 in Washington, D.C., at the appeals court.

It’s puzzling to see Anthropic taking on the DoW, but even more extraordinary is that when Anthropic sued the Pentagon, its rivals – Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Palantir – banded together to support it. Microsoft even filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief, as did employees from Google and OpenAI; and neither company’s management objected.[1] These corporations are locked in competition with each other in global markets, all the while trying to cozy up to the Trump administration. What’s happening? Is Anthropic acting as a bellwether, setting new ethical standards for the tech industry? Why are these rivals suddenly uniting against the DoW? This exceptional clash within the core of today’s military-industrial complex requires some additional exploration.

Until its widely publicized dispute with the Pentagon, Anthropic was relatively unknown to the general public. This was because Anthropic’s strategy has been to target the rapidly growing AI enterprise market: nearly one in three US businesses paid for Anthropic’s tools in March 2026,[2]  under a widely publicizedguarantee of security and trust – essential to winning their business (only recently has it springboarded into the consumer market as well). Thus, Anthropic generally flew under the public radar. In contrast, OpenAI’s strategy has focused overwhelmingly on the consumer market, in which it claims 900 million users[3] (however, as its competition with Anthropic intensified, OpenAI also began to cultivate the enterprise market).

A major plank in Anthropic’s “B2B” enterprise approach has been to leverage ties with the major tech companies, trying to get them to integrate Anthropic’s Claude AI model into their other applications.

Microsoft – which initially invested and exclusively used OpenAI – has more recently incorporated Claude into its enterprise suite. This was a boon to both companies. Microsoft is one of the largest government contractors, and its technologies are deployed across all levels of government, including the DoW and other federal agencies. If Anthropic is designated a supply chain risk and government agencies are forbidden to use it, then, Microsoft will need to find a Claude replacement and will be negatively impacted financially and strategically. Microsoft isn’t the only tech company that has incorporated Anthropic’s AI models. Others too are acting as both financial backers and users of Claude.

(more…)

As Israel and the U.S. wage an illegal war against Iran, the U.S. government’s deployment of AI on the battlefield has become a question of how quickly and extensively the U.S. military will use it to bomb the Iranian people. On one hand, a recent standoff between Anthropic and the Pentagon over guardrails on military uses of Anthropic’s Claude model has been cited to suggest that Anthropic is holding the moral high ground.[1] Because of Anthropic’s refusals to allow Claude to be used for domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapon systems, indeed, the U.S. Department of War (DoW) in retribution designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security.[2] On the other, OpenAI has swiftly stepped in and secured a coveted U.S. military AI contract, allowing its tool to be used for classified military work.[3] But it would be a mistake to see Anthropic as a moral standard-bearer for the “ethnical” use of AI.

Debating which companies are more ethical obscures the fact that they all operate subject to the underlying imperatives of a capitalist political economy. Anwar Shaikh’s theory of real competition is instructive here, as competition functions as “the central regulating mechanism” of capitalism.[4] On the battlefield of real competition, firms must deploy every tactic, strategy, and new technology to survive and grow. Firms are inherently antagonistic, driven by the relentless pursuit of profit and expansion. To lag behind for too long is to perish.

Of course, government regulation may qualify or even arrest competition for more or less extended periods in specific industries. This does not alter its role of as “the central regulating mechanism” across the political economy.

Anthropic and OpenAI are locked in fierce real competition as they race to secure massive amounts of capital to fuel their respective businesses. The two companies have adopted different strategies: Anthropic has largely focused on B2B enterprises, while OpenAI has prioritized the mass consumer market. OpenAI, which has raised $110 billion,[5] is struggling to generate revenue and is projected to burn through $115 billion in cash by 2029 due to massive spending on computer power and infrastructure. [6] Meanwhile, Anthropic – which has raised a total of $64 billion – continues to lead in the enterprise Large Language Model (LLM) market share and is aggressively pushing to integrate agentic AI in the workplace.[7]

Anthropic and OpenAI aren’t just competing against each other. The “magnificent seven” – Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Nvidia, Apple, and Tesla – are also in this fight and are investing vast quantities of capital and building out massive infrastructures to make headway in the AI market.[8] In 2025, AI-related tech spending across the S&P 500 exceeded $1.25 trillion and the “magnificent seven” – which made up 37% of the S&P 500 valuation at their peak[9] – accounted for roughly 28% of that total expenditure.[10] Moreover, they’re all competing globally, particularly against Chinese AI companies (a topic that warrants its own discussion).

Under such intense competitive pressure, none of these companies can afford to pass up the most lucrative AI market of all: U.S. defense contracts, which alone are projected to reach $29.48 billion by 2035. Military spending has long served as a financial backbone for tech companies[11] and it becomes even more critical as tech firms continue to scramble to find sustainable AI business models.

It is no surprise that Anthropic soon came back to the negotiating table with the Pentagon.[12] Anthropic, like any other tech company – Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, OpenAI, Palantir – is far from innocent. The company’s AI model Claude has already been applied to intelligence work. In 2025, Anthropic, along with Google, OpenAI and Elon Musk’s axis, was awarded a $200 million dollar contract with DoW to advance AI use in national security. In January of this year, in partnership with Palantir Technologies, Claude was used in the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.[13] Though Anthropic currently resists surveilling the American people, it appears willing to serve naked U.S. imperialism.

While we should hold these companies accountable and pressure them to resist the militarization of technology, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that any of them will sacrifice profit or business interests for some vague “moral commitment.” It is an imperative of capitalism that tech companies will ultimately do whatever it takes to compete, survive, and stay in the market – even if it means getting blood on their hands.

Shinjoung Yeo & Dan Schiller


[1] Shira Ovide , Anthropic lost the Pentagon but won over America, Washington Post, March 6, 2026.

[2] Amrith Ramkumar, Trump Administration Shuns Anthropic, Embraces OpenAI in Clash Over Guardrails, Wall Street Journal, February 27, 2026.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Anwar Shaikh, Capitalism: Competition, Conflict and Crisis (Oxford University Press, 2016), 259-283.

[5] Cade Metz and Adam Satariano , OpenAI Raises $110 Billion to Fuel Growth, Extending A.I. Boom, New York Times, February 27, 2026.

[6]OpenAI expects business to burn $115 billion through 2029, The Information reports,” Reuters, September 6, 2026.

[7] Jon Markman ,Anthropic: The $380 Billion Powerhouse Hiding In Plain Sight, Forbes. February 13, 2026.

[8] Tara Copp Elizabeth Dwoskin and Ian Duncan , Anthropic’s AI tool Claude central to U.S. campaign in Iran, amid a bitter feud , Washington Post, March 4, 2026.

[9] Lyle Daly, The Magnificent Seven makes up one-third of the S&P 500 – should investors be concerned? Yahoo Finance. October 29, 2025.

[10] Jurica Dujmovic, Investors are making a big bet on Big Tech’s AI spending. They’re about to learn if it paid off, Morning Star, January 28, 2026.

[11] Yasha Levine, Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet (Icon Books, 2018); John Bellamy , and Robert W. McChesney, Surveillance Capitalism : Monopoly – Finance Capital , the Military – Industrial Complex , and the Digital Age, Monthly Review 66, no. 3, July-August 2014.

[12] George Hammond and Cristina Criddle, Anthropic chief back in talks with Pentagon about AI deal, Financial Times, March 4, 2026.

[13] Nick Robins-Early, What does the US military’s feud with Anthropic mean for AI used in war? Guardian, March 7, 2026 ; Ian Duncan and Tara Copp, After a deadly raid, an AI power struggle erupts at the Pentagon, Washington Post, February 22, 2026 ; Nick Robins-Early. Anthropic says it ‘cannot in good conscience’ allow Pentagon to remove AI checks, Guardian, February 26, 2026.

History tells us that no new media system has been built to challenge an established social order without a more general social movement. This may be seen in many national histories, including that of the United States – and it is also true for post-colonial Ghana, which will be the primary focus of this post.

There has been increasing interest in Ghana among scholars focusing on President Kwame Nkrumah, who fought against British colonialism, and who was part of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), sought internationalism, and experimented with building a nation with socialist ideals. Historians like Jeffrey Ahlman, P.A.V. Ansah, Ama Biney, Jennifer Blaylock, Frank Gerits, Matteo Grilli, Matteo Landricina and others have examined Ghana’s liberation movement and its post-colonial struggles.[1] This brief post draws deeply from these studies, particularly those concerning media and communications, to underline Ghana’s importance for Non-Aligned countries’ attempts to reconstruct their communications systems.

Ghana, which in 1957 was the first African country south of the Sahara to win independence, was a leading force in the anti-colonial and anti-capitalist struggle. Under Kwame Nkrumah (1957-1966), a new media system was built as part of Ghana’s nation-building project and a Pan-African unity deeply rooted in internationalism.

However, before talking about Ghana’s case, it is important to emphasize that attempts to experiment with new media and communication systems were Herculean tasks for colonized and newly decolonized peoples – ones that emerged from many years of continued suffocation by the tentacles of old and new colonial powers and that faced aggressive Western propaganda machines and repeated CIA interventions.[2] Thus, the experiments were not perfect and involved mistakes and internal and external conflicts along the way; however, the visions that guided their struggles to build new systems continued to inspire additional efforts.

Under extremely hostile political and anemic economic conditions, Ghana pursued self-determination, economic transformation, and Pan-Africanism.[3] To achieve these political goals, Nkrumah positioned himself as part of the non-aligned nations. However, Ghana’s non-alignment didn’t mean political neutrality or not taking any position; rather, as Frank Gertris argues, it was a way to maintain political and diplomatic independence.[4] Nkrumah asserted, “Ghana does not intend to follow a neutralist policy in its foreign relations, but does intend to preserve its independence to act as it sees best at any time.”[5] His foreign policy principle, commonly known as “Positive Non-Alignment” or “positive neutrality,” embraced not only anti-colonialism, socialism, and Pan-Africanism, but also peace and disarmament. This framework provided a way for newly independent nations to survive and rebuild their countries.[6] For this exact reason, it was imperative for Ghana to control the production and flow of its own information: to permit the international news agencies to set the nation’s agenda was to ravage its own framework.

In 1949, Nkrumah urged immediate political independence and formed the Convention People’s Party (CPP) – breaking away from the conservative United Gold Coast Convention party.  The CPP wasn’t just a political party, but a movement backed by peasants, farmers, trade unionists, urban workers, civil servants, teachers, students, market women, and the unemployed.  C. L. R. James, the Trinidadian-born historian, reflected on the CPP and noted that, “in the struggle for independence, one market woman in Accra — and there were fifteen thousand of them — was worth any dozen Achimota graduates. The graduates, the highly educated ones, were either hostile to Nkrumah and his party or stood aside.”[7] The CPP movement spearheaded Ghana’s independence.

As the CPP mobilized Ghanaians to build a radical political party and unify against the British Empire, the party launched a newspaper, the Accra Evening News followed by Morning Telegraph and Daily Mail.[8] For Nkrumah – a journalist himself – newspapers were not merely tools to disseminate information and ideas; like Lenin, he saw them as both a “collective organizer” and “a weapon, first to overthrow colonialism and then to assist in achieving total African independence and unity.”[9]

Rejecting the pluralist marketplace media model, the newspaper was a political instrument and revolutionary tool to fight colonial propaganda and to build and sustain the movement.[10] Ghanaians recognized that the anti-imperial and anti-capitalist struggle had to be waged not only on political and economic fronts but also in the realm of information and communications. The Nkrumah government invested significant resources and personnel throughout his regime to build an independent media system to break from colonial political and economic media structures.

In 1957, on the cusp of independence, Ghana established the Ghana News Agency (GNA) under the Ministry of Information, which later became the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It was the first news agency in Sub-Saharan Africa at a time when imperial news agencies –Reuters, Agence France-Presse (AFP), United Press International (UPI), and the Associated Press (AP) – dominated the global news market. The GNA, by establishing 10 foreign bureaus, gathering and centralizing Ghana’s own domestic and international news, countered the news from the imperial core.[11] And by 1966, Ansah points out that Ghana was able to lay down 5000 miles of teleprinter lines inside Ghana[12] – a major contributor to nation-building.

However, when Ghana established the GNA, the country lacked sufficient equipment, trained personnel, and infrastructure.

This was a consequence of being intentionally underdeveloped and exploited by European colonial regimes – articulated by Walter Rodney – not due to an innate inability on the part of Ghanaians.[13] Thus, for practical reasons, Ghana requested and received help from Reuters.

Nkrumah was fully aware of the danger of working with Reuters, which operated in the interest of the former colonial government. Doing so could have re-subjugated the GNA under the former colonial media system. In his speech at the opening of the GNA, Nkrumah reflected on this sentiment; he appreciated Reuters’ assistance but called for a “vault door policy”:  

Why should Ghana not have what I have chosen to call a vault door policy? A vault door does not remain shut all the time. It simply protects the treasure in it. A vault door can be swung open for legitimate transactions of benefit of both parties concerned, and it can be swung shut when predatory forces are in the neighborhood. The people of Ghana always expect the government to open and close the vault door in their best interest.[14]

Nkrumah’s Vault Door policy was not reckless courage; rather it was grounded in Ghana’s defiance and guided by its positive neutrality which advocated for Ghanaian and African interests.

Under Nkrumah, the Ghana Institution of Journalism was established in 1957 to train Ghanaians and other African journalists.[15] The government published several newspapers, including the Ghanaian Times, The Spark (inspired by Lenin’s revolutionary newspaper Iskra, meaning “spark” in Russian), Voice of Africa (VOA) magazine, and later took over the British-owned Daily Graphic. At the same time, they also lifted the ban on the import of publications from communist countries, which had been imposed by the British colonial state.

The purpose of the VOA magazine, published by the Bureau of African Affairs, was to unify the African liberation front. The magazine was distributed free of charge across Africa, and freedom fighters from various countries – who came to Accra as a revolutionary hub for training and to share strategies – became part of its distribution networks, which couldn’t be broken by the colonial authorities.[16]

However, the circulation of newspapers alone had limitations in reaching ordinary people when the literacy rate in Ghana was pitifully low after 100 years of rule by Britain – which had claimed to be “civilizing Africans.” As a result, Nkrumah’s Ghana adapted radio as an important tool for informing, educating, and raising political consciousness.

By the 1950s, radio had become a popular mass medium, but it was built for colonial regimes – political elites and European settlers. However, one week after its independence, the Ghanaian government announced that the Ghana Broadcasting System (GBS) would drop all BBC content and replace it with its own. This was a direct attack on Britain, which was also competing for influence in Africa against its new rivals – the US and the Soviet Union.[17]

In 1961, Ghana launched the Radio Ghana External Service to broadcast African news and share information from other liberation movements on their common struggles. Radio Ghana began broadcasting to West Africa and Central Africa in Arabic, English, French, Hausa, Portuguese, and Swahili.[18] In 1961, Nkrumah proclaimed that “The voice of this service will not necessarily be the Voice of Ghana; indeed, it will be the Voice of Africa.”[19] In fact, as liberation fighters were encouraged to contribute to the Voice of Africa magazine, they were also given airtime and asked to produce their own radio shows about their struggles and political situations. [20]

Besides newspapers and radio, Ghana developed its own television station, which was included in its second Five-Year Development Plan (1959–1964) and was part of the country’s broader modernization project.[21]

In 1959, the government sought advice from Canada, which was not a former colonial power, and set up a commission to conduct studies and make a recommendation on establishing a television service in Ghana. Blaylock’s research shows that Ghana accepted most of these recommendations but rejected commercial content to generate revenue.[22] The government understood that the commercial media model was not compatible with a socialist nation-building and the confrontation with neo-colonialism.

(more…)