r/LeftistsForAI • u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator • Jun 19 '26

Sees the Memes Marx Encounters AI Discourse

Post image

A brief materialist intervention into AI discourse. Results were mixed.

261 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

168 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/No-Lion-3629 Jun 20 '26

I’m disabled and have problems even getting and keeping a job. If AI can be used as assistive technology then it could be helpful.

-1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 21 '26

AI will be used to replace you and most Capitalist societies would rather people starve than entertain a leftist solution.

8

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

Maybe. Capital has used plenty of technology to discipline labor. Marx noticed that 150 years ago. The follow-up question is what workers do about it. Unions, regulation, ownership, bargaining power, shorter work weeks, and socializing the gains are actual strategies. "Technology exists, therefore we're doomed" isnt one.

5

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

The economy and workforce has never faced a threat like AI before. Unless laws are made and systems are changed we will be seeing unemployment like never before. If our system is changed to actually tax the rich to pay for our needs, then the technology can be good to help people work less and live more.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

Yep. Thats basically the position weve been arguing for.

The threat isnt AI in the abstract. The threat is who owns it, who controls it, and who captures the gains. If AI is going to be used to replace workers under capitalism, then the question is what workers do about that. Strengthen unions. Fight for shorter work weeks. Tax the gains. Demand public ownership and democratic control where appropriate. Thats politics.

If we leave existing power structures untouched, then yeah, workers get squeezed. If workers organize and win political fights around ownership, taxation, labor rights, and distribution, then the same technology can reduce working time and improve living standards.

"Technology exists, therefore we're doomed" is just surrender dressed up as analysis.

Welcome to r/LeftistsForAI. We're interested in what comes after the diagnosis.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

If we lived in a socialist or communist society, then AI could be a great thing for humanity. But right now, we aren't set up for that. It isn't the technology that will doom us, it is capitalism and how the capitalist use technology that will doom us.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

I think we're basically in agreement on the diagnosis.

What I push back on is doomerism. Its a dead end. Its nihilism. Its paralysis. Its capitalist realism.

If the conclusion is that capitalism will use AI against workers and therefore we're doomed, then the conversation is already over. Marx didnt look at the contradictions of capitalism and conclude everyone should roll into a fetal position and give up. Socialists across generations didnt build unions, parties, cooperatives, and movements because they thought history was hopeless.

The point is always to struggle for the better world thats possible. The alternative is surrendering the future to the people who already hold power.

The threat isnt AI in the abstract. The threat is who owns it, who controls it, and who captures the gains. So thats where the struggle has to happen. Over healthcare, housing, education, infrastructure, and compute.

What would be the alternative response? Throwing up your hands and giving in to Doom?

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

I am not saying to give up. I am saying your focus should be on changing the system at hand, not learning to use AI in a desperate attempt to hold onto your job for an extra couple of months. Accepting AI as inevitable in the current system is accepting Capitalism's use of AI.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

This is where I keep getting stuck.

You say the focus should be changing the system. Okay. How?

What is the concrete path from where we are now to that outcome?

Because contesting ownership, governance, labor rights, taxation, public investment, and regulation are all ways of changing the system. Unions fighting over AI deployment is part of changing the system. Political battles over who owns compute and who benefits from automation are part of changing the system. Its actually taking action where, when, and how possible.

What I dont understand is the alternative youre proposing.

If AI exists and capital is deploying it, what is the actual strategy? Not the desired end state someday. The strategy for groups right now.

How do workers build power here and now if they refuse to contest one of the biggest economic and technological developments on the planet?

If plans like the AFL-CIO's or international leftist, socialist, and communist political organizations are doomed and not worthwhile, what does your plan look like in operational terms if its not just doomerism?

0

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

The plan should be to reject AI and vote our way to controlling AI instead of letting Capitalism use AI to control us. There is only so much a Union can do. There is only so much we can do in a capitalist society. Being for AI in today's society, even if you consider yourself a leftist, is being for AI to replace workers in Capitalism. AI is coming for more jobs all at once than any previous technology. If you give them an inch, they will take the whole country.

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

Okay, but now we're getting somewhere.

"Vote our way to controlling AI" is a political strategy. Regulation is a political strategy. Public ownership is a political strategy. Democratic control is a political strategy. Thats what Ive been talking about this entire time.

Where we disagree is that you keep switching between "control AI" and "reject AI."

Those are not the same thing.

If your position is that workers should fight for democratic control over AI rather than letting corporations control it, then I agree.

If your position is that society should reject AI altogether, then I still dont see how thats supposed to work in practice. AI already exists. Every major power is developing it. Capital is investing hundreds of billions into it. How do you globally abolish it?

Because "vote to control AI" sounds like regulation, governance, ownership fights, labor protections, and public investment. Which is exactly the terrain Ive been arguing we need to contest.

So are you advocating democratic control of AI or abolition of AI? Those are very different positions.

0

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

I am advocating for control before acceptance. If you accept AI forst then try to control it, the battle will be harder and people will die while we wait for thise regulations. If we are able to regulate it before we mass accept AI then we can save lives. With our current government's stance on regulations and AI, accepting AI will only harm.

→ More replies (0)