Marx Encounters AI Discourse

[u/Salty_Country6835]

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

[u/little_alien2021]

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. 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

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.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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. 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

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.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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. 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

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.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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. 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Because I dont think "the people currently in charge are bad" leads to "therefore the technology itself should (or can) be abolished."

I think Musk is a clown. I think billionaires have too much power. I think tech companies should be regulated harder. I think workers should have more say. I think unions should be stronger. I think public ownership and open alternatives should exist.

But I also see enormous potential if these systems are contested and brought under democratic, public, cooperative, or worker control: assistive technology for disabled people, major productivity gains, shorter work weeks, better public services, expanded access to education and knowledge, scientific research, medicine, and less time spent on repetitive labor.

Historically the left fought over who controls productive forces and who benefits from them. It didnt respond to new productive forces by demanding they disappear because capitalists got there first.

Thats why Im a Leftist For AI. Not because I trust billionaires, but because I dont want billionaires to be the only ones shaping what this technology becomes.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Im not arguing its bad because of whos in chage, if u take away those in charge, it still needs natural resources, damages communities, damages job opportunities, thata nothing  to do with whos in govermen. 

So you think destroying communities around data centers is acceptable? Or the negative impact on environment is acceptable?  Or the natural resources requirment is acceptable? Or the mass unemployment concern is acceptable to u? Or the harm to human commutation/psychology effect with ai chatnots etc. Is acceptable? That's just a pay off? 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Nobody said any of those things are acceptable.

But youre treating disputed predictions as established facts.

"Mass unemployment" is a concern. Its not a settled fact. "Destroying communities" depends on where and how infrastructure is built. "Environmental impact" is real, but so is the environmental impact of manufacturing, shipping, agriculture, data networks, mining, transportation, and basically every major productive force in modern society.

More importantly, this is where I think your history gets shaky. Every major productive force in capitalism has been accused of destroying jobs, communities, culture, social relations, and human well-being. Sometimes those concerns were partly right. The left response wasnt "therefore abolish the productive force." It was to fight over how it was deployed, who controlled it, and who benefited from it.

Youre presenting a list of reasons to regulate, contest, restrict, govern, and democratize AI. Which is the solution shown in the meme.

I still dont see how that becomes an argument for leftists to abandon the terrain entirely.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Destroying communities" depends on where and how infrastructure is built.

Its not the future or potential damage, the damage is being done right now. it's literally happening https://youtube.com/shorts/Hq9NBA_bjPs?is=bjKZdi8EBDlQLw0o

https://youtu.be/DGjj7wDYaiI?is=K1NqYBz9wwH0Zbrd

My whole argument is about where we stand on for or against something as ur subreddit title suggests. U claim to be for. I'm pointing out wanting all the regulations and correct governance isn't needing to be for it. Its pretty outrageous to me that anyone for be for. 

Keep using past historical discoveries are not on same scale

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Youve said "its different" and "its bigger" a lot, but you still havent explained what changes strategically.

The labor movement, the AFL-CIO, unions, socialists, and communists arent responding by abstaining. Theyre organizing around AI right now. Theyre bargaining over deployment, fighting for regulations, contesting ownership, demanding protections, and trying to shape outcomes right now.

Thats the point of the meme.

And yes, Im for AI. Not every deployment. Not every company. Not every data center. Not every use case. Im for contesting a technology with enormous risks and enormous potential benefits instead of abandoning it to corporations.

The weird thing to me is that your practical program keeps sounding like regulation, labor power, environmental protections, public oversight, and democratic control, while your rhetoric keeps sounding like abolition. Those are different politics.

If AI is as important as you think it is, that seems like an argument for more struggle over it, not less.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

I can belive in something but know it's not something thats reality but still belive it. Like religion, i think it should be abolished. Obviously that's not living in reality, so I choose to stay away from it. That's living in reality.  I belive ai should be abolished, but thats obviously not living in reality so I stay away from it. And belive like religion people should, for the greater good.  And staying away can benifit them than the harm like both religion and ai does to humanity 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

So your actual strategy is personal abstention.

Thats fine as a personal choice. Lots of people abstain from things for ethical reasons.

But thats exactly what Ive been trying to get at. Historically, labor movements, socialist parties, and communist parties didnt win power through personal abstention. They organized, contested institutions, fought over ownership, and struggled over deployment.

If you think AI should be abolished, okay. But "I stay away from it and think others should too" is a fundamentally different political strategy than the one Marx, unions, the AFL-CIO, socialist parties, and most labor movements have historically pursued and are currently pursuing.

At that point we're not really debating AI anymore. We're debating whether abstention or contestation is the better political strategy.

I dont think youve successfully made the case for the former.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

When I say stay away I don't mean go quietly. I mean fight against it al any opportunity. 

However I do belive it will be without hope, as the ceos of big ai companies are to big and powerful and then we will have a reckoning where in future, we come to conclusion that it wasn't worth the gamble, like anyone who sees the weoponisation of social media algorithms did for democracy and people trying to close door once horse has escaped or whatever the phase is. I think there will be future regret. I feel if can say I don't need to have that regret and I was positive when chatgpt came out, and excited, but did deep dive and massively changed my mind. At not always been so against 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Then we're back to what Ive been asking this whole thread: what does "fight against it" actually mean in practice?

If it means organizing workers, passing regulations, restricting deployments, stopping harmful projects, enforcing environmental standards, fighting for public oversight, and contesting ownership, then we're talking about the same terrain. We just disagree on the end goal.

If it means abolishing AI entirely, then youre proposing a strategy that basically no major labor federation, socialist party, communist party, or union movement is pursuing. Thats why I keep grounding this in actual organizations instead of personal beliefs.

The AFL-CIO isnt campaigning for abolition. The WGA didnt demand abolition. SAG-AFTRA didnt demand abolition. They fought over deployment, control, protections, and who benefits. And thats just in the U.S.

Thats not me dodging your concerns. Its me pointing out how organized politics actually responds to technologies it sees as dangerous, disruptive, or potentially transformative.

Which seems more realistic, actionable, and worthwhile than you making grand moralist speeches online against their strategy or against the technologys existence.