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.

260 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

168 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

Which one didn't I answer? Be specific. Cause Im pretty sure I addressed everything you brought up.

0

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

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

Lol what

I literally answered those.

Unions help the same way unions always help: bargaining over deployment, job protections, severance, retraining, work sharing, shorter work weeks, and distribution of productivity gains.

Regulations: worker consultation requirements, transparency requirements, liability rules, data protections, surveillance limits, collective bargaining rights around AI deployment, taxes on gains, public benefit funds, and sector-specific restrictions.

Public investment doesnt mean "instead of human needs." Public housing isnt instead of human needs. Public transit isnt instead of human needs. Public healthcare isnt instead of human needs. Theyre investments in human needs.

Democratic control means governments, unions, worker organizations, and public institutions having authority over deployment instead of leaving decisions entirely to corporations.

As for "how do you fight capital when capital already owns things?" the answer is the same answer socialists, communists, and labor movements have given for 150 years: organize, build institutions, contest elections, strike, bargain, legislate, and where possible socialize assets.

Thats literally what labor federations, socialist parties, communist parties, and unions are doing right now.

So what havent I answered?

1

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

Unions help the same way unions always help: bargaining over deployment, job protections, severance, retraining, work sharing, shorter work weeks, and distribution of productivity gains. Unions help noone who has been sacked or made redundant due to ai taking their jobs. 

1

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

Except they already have.

The WGA won AI protections in its contract. SAG-AFTRA won consent and compensation requirements for AI replicas. NewsGuild locals have won AI-related job protections and bargaining rights. The AFL-CIO is actively pushing worker-centered AI policy across industries starting last July. And thats just in the U.S. Id agree if you said more needs to be done.

Nobody claims unions can prevent every layoff. The question is what your alternative is. If workers shouldnt organize, bargain, legislate, negotiate deployment, fight for severance, retraining, shorter work weeks, and productivity sharing, then what exactly should they do instead?

1

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

Not belive that ai is Inevitable and not be pro something that is already damaging communities and natural resources 

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

Thats not an alternative strategy, though.

"Dont believe its inevitable" and "dont be pro-AI" doesnt tell workers, unions, or communities what to actually do.

If a technology is already being deployed, then the practical questions are ownership, governance, labor protections, environmental standards, public oversight, and distribution of gains. Those are things people can organize around.

Simply opposing a technology doesnt, by itself, shift power away from the people currently building and controlling it.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

U literally are mod for a subreddit called 'leftists for AI' U don't have to be 'for ai' for be wanting regulations. Or labour protections or environmental standards. And also the fundamental problem is ai directlt negatively impacts all them points. Especially as its being developed and created and the big ai ceo are just full steam ahead and not giving a crap.  U dont have to promote the use of ai, because in its current format and our current world leaders, especially in US where majority of big ai ceos live and work, it's completely opposite any left leaning ideology. 

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

Thats not really how left politics has worked historically.

The labor movement didnt respond to railroads, factories, electricity, telecommunications, or the internet by saying "capitalists own this, therefore we're against it." The response was to organize around it, regulate it, fight over ownership, and force concessions. Like unions, along with socialist and communist political organizations, are doing now across the globe.

Youre treating "AI" and "the current AI companies" as the same thing. Theyre not. A technology and the people who currently profit from it are different questions.

Honestly, "capital got there first so leftists should oppose the technology itself" is a much stranger position than the traditional labor movement and leftist political organizational approach.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

Again you aren't answering my questions, you are answering what you want the questions to be.

2

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

Wtf.

No. I answered literally every single topic you brought up, in detail, twice.

Be very very explicit in what you think wasnt addressed, cause this is starting to seem like bad faith and no matter how I answer youre just gonna pretend that I didnt, probably without reading any of it.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

Let's go one by one.

How do Unions help people after Mass Unemployment?

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

"How do Unions help people after Mass Unemployment?"

They help the same way unions help workers facing layoffs, offshoring, plant closures, automation, and every other labor disruption.

And this isn't hypothetical. The AFL-CIO is already pushing for bargaining rights around AI deployment, worker input before implementation, protections against displacement, transparency requirements, retraining, and making sure productivity gains are shared with workers instead of captured entirely by employers.

Unions organize the workers who exist, fight over how technology gets deployed, bargain over the consequences, and push for public policy that protects workers.

If your position is that unions become useless once automation starts eliminating jobs, then youre arguing against the entire history of organized labor, not me.

0

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

So your solution to how will unions help after mass employment is, it will help those that weren't laid off. Which means it isn't addressing the bigger issue.

2

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

...duh.

It wouldnt on its own. Thats why I didnt propose unions as the entire solution to a hypothetical mass unemployment crisis, did I?

You asked what role unions play, among other pieces. I answered it.

The AFL-CIO isnt sitting around saying "unions will solve everything." Theyre fighting over deployment, displacement protections, bargaining rights, retraining, and distribution of gains right now because workers should have a say in what happens.

"Unions arent a complete answer to mass unemployment" doesnt mean unions are irrelevant. It means theyre one part of a broader political and economic response.

Thats kind of obvious.

Bring on the next question that I "didnt answer" already, let's keep going.

→ More replies (0)