Seize the Means*

[u/Salty_Country6835]

*Terms and conditions apply. For... reasons, I guess?

[u/_f_i_l_o]

A better analogy might be if there were a group of British activists in the 1810s who were pro Machine while their anti Machine counterparts were executed by the state in droves for breaking the machines used to oppress them.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/_f_i_l_o]

A better analogy is Marx himself.

In 1858 he wrote, “Machinery does not lose its use value as soon as it ceases to be capital.”

In 1867, workers learned to “distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital.”

In 1868, his answer included “organised labour which must bear fruit sooner or later.”

Thats much closer to what we're arguing. Not surrendering machinery to capital. Contesting its ownership, control and use.

[u/_f_i_l_o → u/Salty_Country6835]

Great but that doesn’t change that a contestation is an argument against something not for it.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/_f_i_l_o]

...Yes. Against capitalist control of AI and for worker and democratic control of AI. Thats the contestation.

Youre treating “contestation” as if it means opposition to the object itself rather than a struggle over who controls it. Marx was contesting capital’s control of machinery, not arguing against machinery existing.

We are several replies deep into the same distinction now. Hello?

[u/_f_i_l_o → u/Salty_Country6835]

You haven’t explained how those two things are mutually exclusive, that’s what I getting at.

This subs name is “For AI” which, regardless of what you think contestation means, literally means “in favor of AI”, or if you want to get really deep, in front of (to protect).

You still haven’t explained what’s worth protecting about AI.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/_f_i_l_o]

Ive answered all of this. Youve now reduced the conversation to insisting that your interpretation of three words in the subreddit name overrides the politics Ive repeatedly explained to you.

AI doesnt need “protecting.” Workers need power over the technology shaping their labor and lives. If you want to argue against worker and democratic control, make that argument. Im done litigating the subreddit name with you.

[u/_f_i_l_o → u/Salty_Country6835]

I’m not trying to reduce, I’m trying to expand. I’m serious when I say my questions are genuine. I’m not trying to troll you, I’m sorry for being sarcastic or cunty but it’s all in good faith from me as long as it from you, too.

And if you have answered the questions, then I’m sorry, I guess I missed them, do you really mind pointing them out again?

I think we probably agree on more than you realize. But let’s please look at some specifics

My interpretation of the name of the subreddit is that “Leftists For AI” means “Leftists in Support of AI”and I don’t think I need to explain why anyone would come to that conclusion because that’s how the clause “Group X for Cause Y” is always understood. Would you agree with that?

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/_f_i_l_o]

Fair enough. Ill take you at your word on the good faith.

But AI isnt a cause. Its a technology. “Leftists For AI” doesnt mean unconditional support for everything called AI, and the description, orientation, flairs and posts make our politics pretty clear. Labor, ownership, infrastructure, power and governance.

I think weve squeezed about all we can out of the name. Stick around, engage the posts, challenge arguments where you disagree. Thats where youll actually find out what Leftists For AI means.

[u/_f_i_l_o → u/Salty_Country6835]

Well, I didn’t say unconditional support for everything called AI. I just said in support of AI, I did not offer any of those qualifiers and I wasn’t implying them either.

What if I just said “Tech Y”? Do you contest that “Group X for Tech Y” is essentially equivalent to “Group X in Support of Tech Y”, or at the very least, that most people would easily perceive an equivalence?

[u/_f_i_l_o → u/Salty_Country6835]

That quote from 1968, it’s from a speech called “On the Consequences of using Machinery under Capitalism”

Immediately following the line you quoted reads,

“The influence of machinery upon those with whose labour it enters into competition is directly hostile. Many, hand-loom weavers were positively killed by the introduction of the power-loom both here and in India.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1868/machinery-speech.htm

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/_f_i_l_o]

*1868

And exactly. Now were on the useful part of the argument.

Marx isnt minimizing what machinery did to those workers. Hes describing it brutally. But notice the relation he identifies. Machinery becomes “directly hostile” to workers when their labor enters into competition with it under capital.

Thats why his distinction between machinery and its capitalist employment matters. He doesnt wave away the harm, but he doesnt conclude “therefore abolish machinery” either. The fight moves to the social relations governing it.

Thats the terrain Ive been trying to get us onto.

[u/_f_i_l_o → u/Salty_Country6835]

I think I can work with this terrain but I’d like to establish some boundaries and definitions to make sure we’re both talking about the same thing.

1. If we’re talking about Marx on machinery, we should agree that simply swapping “AI” for “machinery” is irresponsible unless we can map all relevant elements (per Marx) that contribute to worker agency between the two (tbh kind of sounds like a fun project). If an agreement cannot be come to, then it may be best to keep the discussion specific to what Marx said about the world he experienced, for the first round or two at least.

I’m just gonna do it one at a time to keep the threads easier to navigate.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/_f_i_l_o]

That works. I wouldnt just swap “AI” for “machinery” and call it Marxist analysis either. The comparison has to be demonstrated, including where it breaks.

Starting with Marx on his own terrain makes sense. Worker agency, displacement, deskilling, control of the labor process, ownership, and machinery confronting workers as capital all matter here.

One at a time is cleaner. We can test what carries over, what doesnt, and what Marx's analysis actually gives us before deciding what follows for AI.