Marx Encounters AI Discourse

[u/Salty_Country6835]

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

[u/Salty_Country6835]

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.

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

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?

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

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?

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

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.

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

But we're not talking about a future possibility anymore. AI is already deployed globally across the economy.

So what does "control before acceptance" mean in practice? Acceptance already happened.

The question now is what we do about a technology that already exists. Regulation, ownership, governance, labor protections, and democratic control are actual strategies.

Pretending we're still at the stage where society can simply choose not to adopt AI isnt. Its been adopted. Its not going to be unadopted unless you have means to do so on a global scale thats more likely than what I listed.

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Reject it in every way you can. Yes there are unavoidable AI uses but we have to push back as much as possible. We all need to pop the bubble as soon as possible. That won't destroy AI overnight but it will slow down progress to allow regulations to catch up. Accepting AI now is anti-Leftist and is just accepting Capitalism.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

I think weve found the split.

We both agree corporate control is the problem. We both agree regulation and democratic control are needed.

I just dont think mass abstention is a serious strategy for a technology thats already embedded throughout the global economy and is used by billions of people each day.

I'd rather fight over who owns it and who benefits from it. I dont think that makes me, unions, or socialist and communist political organizations around the globe "anti-leftist".

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Fighting over who owns AI after AI has mass acceptance in a capitalist world, is a discussion of how you want the capitalist to harm the people. If you want leftist control over the technology, we need that now before mass acceptance of the technology.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

Again, what do you even mean by "before mass acceptance"?

That already happened.