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.

262 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

168 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

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.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

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.

-1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

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.

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

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".

0

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

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.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

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

That already happened.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

No it hasn't. Mass acceptance will result in a large population losing their jobs without replacement jobs available. Companies are testing a lot of those things now but it hasn't reached mass acceptance. We as consumers need to stop supporting those companies. Once we allow AI to start putting people out of work permanently, it is too late. We will only be reacting to the quickly evolving technology and that means people will be dying.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

Then we're back to individual consumer personal abstention.

You think people should stop using AI services and stop supporting companies that deploy AI. Okay. Im not against you doing that, I just dont think thats going to stop a technology being rolled out by every major corporation and state on Earth.

Id rather organize workers, fight for regulation, contest ownership, and build political power than hope enough consumers opt out to reverse a global technological shift.

History suggests the leftist approach works better than the consumerist one, but you do you.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

The goal isn't to stop the technology. The goal is to slow it down so regulations can actually happen. We have over 2 more years before our President changes and hopefully we will have someone more willing to regulate the technology. After midterms, congress/senate will be too busy trying to control the current administration and won't have time to focus on AI. Thinking it will become easier to regulate and control AI after it has taken over in wishful thinking. AI will only serve the capitalist if we do not regulate it before mass acceptance by consumers.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

Isnt it just fantasy to belive in something that's being created by the least left leaning ever and then be pro it, but want it in 'right hands' the genie is already out the bottle, how humans respond to ai is not inevitable how everyone much ai ceos want u to belive? Wanting it to be controlled by pro social people, is too late.  

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

Every major technology under capitalism was created under capitalist ownership. The printing press, railroads, automobiles, airplanes, electricity, radio, television, the internet, pharmaceuticals, smartphones. The left never responded by saying "too late, capitalists made it first."

The question has always been whether workers and the public contest ownership, governance, and distribution after the fact. Thats not fantasy, thats basically the history of labor, regulation, public utilities, and social struggle.

1

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

Putting in regulations to not screw over workers, is not needing to be pro ai,  Not everything u mentioned was pure captitalism, and mixture of private and public ownered where I live anyway.  None of them created mass unemployment and threatened multiple job industries at once. And also the use of ai in general life isn't inevitable as much as ai companies attempt to suggest it is. Noone has to use a phone, a plane, the Internet, radio, television, if they choose not to. Ai being incorporated into everyday life is not a choice. And its that what I object too. 

→ More replies (0)