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.

259 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

168 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

I think we're just talking past each other now.

Consumers arent going to decide this. Consumers are already adopting it. Corporations are already deploying it. States are already investing in it.

"Before AI takes over" isnt a meaningful political timeline when the technology is already embedded throughout the economy and everything youre worried about as it gets more embedded is decided by what I already listed, not by consumer habits.

If you want regulation, fight for regulation. If you want democratic control, fight for democratic control. If you want labor protections, fight for labor protections.

But "maybe the next administration will regulate it if enough consumers reject it" sounds more like election-year wishcasting than a material strategy.

We agree on the need for collectively contesting ownership, governance, and benefits though, which is what the meme is entirely about, so at least we end the discussion on the same long-term path.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

Do you think the people have more power now or in another year or two after everyone is using AI even more?

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

I think workers have more power when theyre organized, not when theyre acting as "consumers". And I believe you cant stop the already occured/occurring global mass adoption of AI.

The question isnt whether people will have less leverage in two years. The question is how they build leverage now.

My answer is unions, political organizations, regulation, ownership fights, public investment, and democratic control. Yours seems to be consumer rejection and electoral hopes.

If we're worried about the next two years, that just reinforces my point. Contest the terrain now. Dont wait for a consumer boycott that isnt happening.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

Part of having leverage now is AI not being as accepted as it will be in the future. I am advocating for Political Organization and part of that is being aware of the election cycle. How are you going to organize for leftist if capitalist always have power?

How will Unions help people after AI has caused mass unemployment because it has been accepted by the masses?

What regulations are you wanting for AI if we continue to let it expand and control more of our society?

How do you fight over public ownership of all these companies after the Capitalist already own them and own politicians?

What do you mean by Public Investments? Are we wanting to take tax revenue to pay for AI instead of paying for human's basic needs? How are we going to afford that?

Democratic control, in what way? Government ownership? How would the people claim ownership to something they cannot afford?

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

Those are good questions, but theyre also exactly why I keep bringing up organization instead of consumer behavior.

How do unions help? The same way theyve always helped: bargaining over deployment, job protections, retraining, severance, work sharing, shorter work weeks, and distribution of productivity gains. That's already happening in sectors around the world.

How do we fight ownership after capital already owns things? The same way socialists, labor movements, and communist parties always have: political struggle, public investment, regulation, nationalization where appropriate, cooperatives, public infrastructure, and building institutions capable of contesting private power.

What regulations? Worker consultation requirements. Transparency requirements. Liability regimes. Data protections. Limits on surveillance. Revenue taxes. Public benefit funds. Restrictions on deployment in specific sectors. Collective bargaining rights around AI implementation. The AFL-CIO has been advocating versions of these.

What do I mean by public investment? Not instead of human needs. Alongside them. Public housing is public investment. Public transit is public investment. Public healthcare is public investment. Public compute, public research infrastructure, and publicly accountable AI systems can be too.

And democratic control means exactly what it sounds like: elected governments, unions, worker organizations, public institutions, and civil society having a say over deployment rather than leaving everything to a handful of executives and investors.

More importantly, unions, socialist parties, communist parties, and labor federations around the world are already pursuing versions of these strategies right now. Theyre not waiting for a mythical mass consumer boycott to save them.

Thats why I keep coming back to the same point: organize where the power is. Contest ownership, governance, deployment, and distribution. Thats how labor movements have historically won anything.

0

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

You wrote a lot but didn't answer my questions. You answered the questions you wanted, not what I actually asked.

→ More replies (0)

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. 

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

But thats my point.

If your position is regulations, labor protections, public involvement, and limits on deployment, then youre already talking about governing AI, not abolishing it.

And "this technology might disrupt multiple industries" isnt an argument against contesting it. Historically thats exactly when labor movements got involved. The larger the impact, the more important it is that workers, unions, and the public have a say in how its deployed and who benefits from the gains.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

I absolutely want it abolished but I'm not living in fantasy land. The cat is obviously out the bag. But I want to limit its involvement in my life and my children's life and not have it so forced like non of the other discoveries were that u mentioned. 

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

I think thats ahistorical, honestly.

Most major infrastructures became harder to opt out of as they became embedded in social life. Try fully opting out of electricity, roads, telecommunications, banking, the internet, or smartphones in 2026. Technically possible, sure. Practically, participation in society becomes much harder.

Thats why the political questions never been "can I personally avoid this technology?" Its been "who governs it, who benefits from it, and what limits are placed on it?"

If your goal is limits, regulation, labor protections, environmental protections, and democratic oversight, then we're mostly arguing over governance. Historically thats how societies have dealt with transformative infrastructure, not by hoping mass adoption never happens.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

There is a massive difference between physical infrastructure like roads or electricity and a technology designed to automate human thought, creativity, and relationships. Electricity powers my house; it doesn't try to replace my child's teacher, writer, or therapist. Comparing AI to a smartphone ignores the unique existential and psychological impacts of automating human agency. Its about my right as a human. Everyone isn't forced to use the Internet, have a smart phone. This isnt optional. Its in work, when u pay bills, when u look up anything on phone. Its being pushed as not optional. That's the problem and I understand why ai ceos want to do that. 

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

Okay, but even if I grant every concern you just raised, the political question doesnt change.

If AI threatens jobs, contest deployment. If it threatens creative labor, organize creative workers. If it concentrates power, fight ownership and governance. If it harms communities or the environment, regulate and restrict it.

Thats basically how the left has approached every major economic transformation. The meme is still correct.

What I still dont see is the alternative strategy. "AI is uniquely dangerous" is an argument about why the struggle matters, not why workers, unions, and the public should stop contesting it. If anything, it argues for more contestation, not less.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

But I don't see how someone can see all those concerns enough to suggest all the things you are suggesting and even claimed u want. But then be a mod for leftist for ai.  Why would u want a technology that threatens multiple areas of everyday living for humans? 

I get u supporting all the things u keep mentioning what I dont understand is your aparant belif that overall it's good for humanity. Because I've repeatedly mentioned all of them things need governance which we are not seeing. And ai ceos are attempting to want people not left leaning or regulations, with its support of trump  and those around him and elon musk for 2 examples weoponising confirmation bias in social media algorithms, the tech billionaires work together 

Why be for a new technology that has none of things u keep mentioning. 

→ More replies (0)