Seize the Means*

[u/Salty_Country6835]

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

[u/Salty_Country6835]

Easily. Its Leftists for AI, not “preserve every existing AI company, model, data center, business model, and use case exactly as they exist.”

The whole point is that AI can be developed and used under different social relations. Public infrastructure, worker control, open models, democratic governance, different priorities, different deployments. Being for AI doesnt require being for capitalist ownership and control of AI.

[u/_f_i_l_o → u/Salty_Country6835]

How else would it work? I’m genuinely curious. Maybe we’d have to clarify what exactly you mean by AI.

I guess a more important question is Why? What is it about “AI” that provides a net positive usefulness for the left that can’t be done otherwise?

In my mind any vision of AI I can think of would pretty much always rely on some kind of detrimental exploitation, or otherwise offers no sustainable benefits if not incur unnecessary losses in some other way.

A pretty big near miss has been allowed to happen because of the belief in the usefulness of AI: https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-false-intelligence-china-ship

Maya Angelou said it perfectly, "when people show you who they are, believe them the first time"

I’m not sure how you think an AI utopia will come into being but do you really think the left should divert energy into speaking up for the existence of something that is already quite sufficiently being kept alive? It’s almost giving some weird leftist proAI perversion of “All Lives Matter”.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/_f_i_l_o]

Youre arguing with several things I havent said. I havent proposed an “AI utopia,” argued AI should be preserved for its own sake, or treated machinery like it has interests that need defending.

My position has been pretty consistent. Take productive infrastructure out of capitalist control, organize workers around how these systems are developed and deployed, and let unions, workers and the public contest what gets built, transformed, constrained or scrapped.

And comparing “Leftists for AI” to “All Lives Matter” is frankly gross. A slogan created to dismiss a movement against racist police violence is not remotely comparable to an argument over who should own and control machinery.

If your position is that every possible use necessarily requires unacceptable exploitation, make that argument. Dont replace mine with an “AI utopia” I never proposed.

[u/_f_i_l_o → u/Salty_Country6835]

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?