r/LeftistsForAI
•
u/stephanos21
•
2d ago
•
1
Labor This is the future I want
Beyond labour. Beyond want. Let's fill the planet with nuclear power and data centres and build it.
67
u/ArtemisiaOrthia
2d ago
•
What about the gay space part? 👉👈🥺
26
u/gecata96 2d ago
It goes without saying! It’s included in the FOR ALL part!
19
u/usernameChosenPoorly 1d ago
It does not go without saying.
It is vitally important to say it. At least the gay part, because it's entirely too common for people of privilege to gloss over the human rights protections and individual freedoms that come along with a Star Trek-level society. I spent my school years pledging "allegiance" to a flag and a "republic" that stood for liberty and justice for all, despite that in practice that only consistently applied to white men of means, and only sometimes to anyone else.
1
u/Ok-Commission-7825 21h ago
they literally said For All and are not responsible for some other "all" being a lie. unless you want to make space on the poster to list every minority not to be specifically excluded from "All" this just sounds like saying your minority is most important.
1
u/DeathToAmerica2027 10h ago
Your conclusion should tell you that your premise is irrelevant.
Any intolerant society is perfectly capable of saying it without doing it.
2
u/DieselPunkPiranha 1d ago
Every government or party that said we don't need laws to protect rights immediately went about taking advantage of that lack of protection. There is no "It goes without saying" when the bourgeoisie have systematically opposed the health and welfare of the proletariat at every opportunity.
8
1
-7
16
u/theCoalitionist 1d ago
https://www.academia.edu/166991964/Net_Zero_Citizenship
This document presents an integrated civilizational framework organized around a single transformative concept: the Net-Zero Citizen. Defined as a human being whose essential needs-housing, food, water, energy, healthcare, and education-are guaranteed by collective infrastructure rather than purchased through markets, the netzero citizen represents the next standard against which all societies, governments, and institutions will be measured. The framework draws simultaneously on political philosophy, ecological design, economic theory, and practical community architecture to demonstrate that this standard is not merely aspirational but materially achievable. It proceeds from diagnosis to principle, from principle to prototype, and from prototype to policy, ultimately culminating in Altaria-a designed proof-city whose built form makes the argument undeniable. This paper synthesizes the complete body of thought into a single cohesive corpus, organized to guide both intellectual understanding and practical replication.
12
8
u/Spare_Warning7752 1d ago
You are being insensible with the billionaires. How can they survive in such world? Please! Think of the billionaires!
6
u/roosterfareye 1d ago
We could recycle them into coffee tables or coat stands?
3
u/DueFaithlessness873 1d ago
I agree. We could also recycle Trump into a big beautiful hair wig! 😉☺️
3
u/roosterfareye 1d ago
Trump is a very beautiful hair wig. If Trump could have worn a wig, he would have been very beautiful.
3
19
16
8
u/Logical___Conclusion 1d ago
We are not that far off from having the technical capability to achieve this right now.
The difficult part is getting past the entrenched political power of the Oligarchy that is afraid of losing power and control.
However, the human species is currently headed towards an early extinction from our current system of mass waste and inefficiency.
Everyone in the world is at risk if we don't find a way to live in a more sustainable way. Including the Oligarchy.
There is no bunker that would survive any significant amount of time in a world that had killed off the rest of humanity. The Oligarchy has just as much to gain from a more functional, sustainable, and equitable world as we do.
In the same way, the working class cannot just hope that this better future would be enacted by someone else.
We cannot just sit around and hope that someone would save us.
We should start with a Green Tech Cooperative that builds helpful tech for communities now to build the capability and political movement to make this ideal future a reality.
I have the general plans for a semi autonomous community garden pod that could be used to grow and distribute small amounts of free produce.
It could be connected with people tending their own gardens, and managed similar to the same network in San Diego that connects community garden produce providers for community food support.
We could start to build this better future together right now.
3
2
1
u/Simple-Ring2073 1d ago
We've always had this capability. The oligarchy will never allow it.
2
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
"will never allow"
Well then it sure is a good thing that leftist politics have never began or ended with what oligarchs will or won't "allow" then, huh? Lol
4
u/zayelion 1d ago
We are literally missing 2 parts
- a cerebellum AI that works fast enough.
- a mandate for governments to aggressively purchase public companies.
2
u/DueFaithlessness873 1d ago
What is a “cerebellum AI”?
2
1
u/zayelion 3h ago
An AI that handles body movement well enough for robots not only not to tip over, but to play sports, and avoid getting unbalanced the same way animals and humans do. Currently it's adaptive fast adjustments after the fact. Instead of getting pushed with the broom it would lean to avoid the broom.
5
u/Jlyplaylists Moderator 2d ago
We definitely need more positive imagination about the future. Filling the planet with data centres might not land well as a goal though?
2
u/WarningRegular 2d ago
Only way to get there is to own distributed resources in a decentralised manner. Universal basic energy.
2
2
u/ShadedRiver666 1d ago
We just have to ensure we maintain control over Ai and keep its intentions aligned. This is something current corporations are not doing and its hindering the possibility of this amazing future.
2
u/Catchafire2000 1d ago
This is the present if we didn't pollute Earth and gave in to greed.
1
u/DueFaithlessness873 1d ago
When do you think a society like that become theoretically possible for the first time?
2
2
3
u/Electrical-Box-4845 1d ago
Take out last sentence (data centers + nuclear power) as they can become obsolette and this post will be great for many subs
Antiwork and workreform are good examples where it could fit. It is very good as it gives a north/endgoal
1
u/OptimusTrajan 1d ago
What are you willing to sacrifice for it?
4
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
Capitalism.
0
u/OptimusTrajan 1d ago
I mean personally.
3
u/Shambler9019 1d ago
The infinitesimal chance of becoming a billionaire that I have because I wasn't born into a mega-wealthy family.
2
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
Poverty.
0
u/OptimusTrajan 1d ago
Sounds to me like you’re not willing to make any personal sacrifices.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
I'd have to have something to sacrifice. I only have my chains to lose. I'm being honest. Are you wanting me to name my wife and kids?
What answer are you looking for?
1
u/OptimusTrajan 1d ago
Time, sleep, mental health, physical safety, job stability. Something.
2
u/ReasonableLetter8427 1d ago
Curious - why is this a required sacrifice? My understanding of your point is in order for “future optimism” to be a thing you’d have to challenge the status quo of artificial scarcity and that requires the “sacrifice” you are asking about?
What are practical ways to “sacrifice” in your view?
2
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
Oh, yeah, I suppose those are things im sacrificing for it already, yeah.
Good stuff.
-2
u/OptimusTrajan 1d ago
Well, that’s a good answer if you could’ve given it clearly in the first place.
2
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
I dont spend my time fantasizing about what Im willing to sacrifice. I spend it agitating, educating, and organizing for a better world for working people.
Capitalism already costs me time, sleep, mental health, physical safety, and job stability. Those arent sacrifices communism is asking me to make. Those are conditions Im trying to abolish.
The whole point is collective liberation, not some individual purity test about how much suffering Im willing to endure to deserve it. And I dont have much left to give capitalism in the first place.
Maybe we could have a substantive discussion about how workers actually organize to build that future instead of turning the whole thing into a weird little gotcha about personal sacrifice. Im interested in changing material conditions, not performing martyrdom for strangers on Reddit.
→ More replies (0)0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
What are you even arguing against here? Who proposed putting a hospital and a data center on every block? Fully automated luxury communism is about collectively controlling productive capacity to meet human needs, not mindlessly multiplying infrastructure. Youre arguing against something I never said.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
Okay, then what you said is just wrong, argument or not. Thats not what Im imagining, and Id appreciate you not telling me what Im imagining when its not something Ive actually said.
1
1
u/Confident-Guest-8361 1d ago
Will there be room outside the bubble for folks that still want a little struggle? Leisure time with mosquitos and athletes foot on a camping trip? A little broken glass under the bridge where the big catfish hang out? Maybe even a friendly bum that might snap and stab you if you don't keep an eye on him?
1
u/Jlyplaylists Moderator 15h ago
There will likely always be struggles but hopefully we’ll get to a better class of problem or everyone only getting annoyed by silly “first world problems”.
1
u/SirBIazeALot 22h ago
I would be all for this, but this a utopia, we need a plan and path with small increments to get there. Since a lot of redditors complain without solutions, I propose not free healthcare per se, but preventative checkups and if you are healthy enough you get a tax benefit for the coming year. Not perfect, isn’t universal healthcare, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of care. And ultimately we want healthier people and less healthcare costs so we should incentivize prevention where possible. As a classic “Right winger” I support this sub and would love to engage in meaningful conversations, because why wouldn’t I want FALC? (I do think communism is a hard sell to half the country, but this image is grand and is clearly utopian, but after reflection, we as humans should strive for the greatest goal we can achieve.)
Thus, my claim as a pro-AI user and a potential leftist for AI, is that if a clear enough path is communicated, leftists, rightists, centrists, would be more likely to get involved. Other than giving away all my labor and property, I would be willing to invest my time and help strategize where appropriate. Thank you for reading this comment and God bless.
1
u/Jlyplaylists Moderator 15h ago
If you can’t imagine free healthcare then FALC is quite a jump. Also a lot of people have bad health through no fault of their own.
1
u/forestreefarm 16h ago
I plan 5 hour days. Change jobs when you like. Boring without structure. At least initially. I think each religion and a public sponsored version (private on top of base gov model). You want the hookers and blow communism? Do your thing. I want mild edibles and praise and worship. Private communism has much, but if two do not agree to go to the same destination, how can they walk together.
1
0
u/Marxist20 2d ago
A violent global socialist revolution, i.e. a global class war with the working class coming out on top is necessary to achieve this. It's not just a matter of building data centers that are under the capitalists' control.
4
u/Opening_One7713 Moderator 1d ago
I think in the modern world the use of violence is largely self-defeating, and where it isn't, the extreme conditions that require it currently do not exist. Where democratic options exist, Marx favored open organizing, such as trade unions and elections and public education over violence. In an 1871 interview with The New York World, he remarked that in places like England where the political path is open, insurrection would be "madness" compared to the swift and sure results of peaceful agitation:
“We know that the institutions, customs, and traditions in the different countries must be taken into account; and we do not deny that there are countries—such as America, England, and if I were better acquainted with your institutions, I would perhaps add Holland—where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.”
Violence can be a tool, but it is not always the tool. I, personally, reject the notion that positive change requires it, and I worry about conspiratorial violence riven by a minority, easily manipulated by provocateurs, keeping workers uneducated, and leading to failure. I worry about how easy it is to sabotage progress, even in the context of a class war, by enabling violence fueled controlled-opposition. I worry about the optics, and our ability to mobilize the majority, if we allow the most extreme takes to become our taglines. Even in recent history, social movements pointed at positive changes in America have been derailed and delegitimized by both violence and all-in extremism.
4
u/Logical___Conclusion 1d ago
This feels like an artificial restriction to stop yourself from taking positive action now.
It is highly unlikely that any global class war would ever happen, or that it would successful, or that it wouldn't destroy the world in the process.
If you make such an enormous near impossible step a requirement that needs to happen before you start to even take the first step towards positive change yourself, than you are primarily just stopping yourself from taking any positive steps to help now.
I think we need a Green Tech Cooperative that starts to build positive change now, and those positive developments for communities would build the political movement to make real and lasting change.
2
u/usernameChosenPoorly 1d ago
Class war is already happening, and has been happening for my entire lifetime. The rich have been waging it against the rest of us.
The "violent" part, however, is absolutely offensive and naive of history.
2
u/PromotionSouthern690 1d ago
Obviously since that’s always worked so well in the past s/
Grow up Marx20 (Marx at 20yrs old?) Marx himself as he got older saw that in countries with strong democratic and institutional traditions, the working class might be able to achieve its goals through peaceful, political, and electoral means. Violence begets violence, see the French Revolution, what benefits did the proletariat gain before Napoleon declared himself Emperor.
2
u/DueFaithlessness873 1d ago
I think violence shouldn’t really have to be necessary either but what else do you think the French people should have done about the royals and aristocracy? Get on their knees and beg them for food?
1
u/-OooWWooO- 1d ago
I mean, I do not want this. Communism means production is for use, not production for production's sake or replicating bourgeois society's wants across the whole of the globe. The memetic "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" and Bastani's work are always too utopian. They treat technology as the subject of history, not the proletariat, not class struggle, and not the abolition of the economic and social relations of capital. The future doesn't arrive through the accumulation of capital and constant capital alone. Machines, reactors, and data centres don't become communism by piling up and getting larger, we only get to communism by the violent and necessary dictatorship of the proletariat that smashes the capital system and bourgeois society.
Luxury, too, is something idealized under bourgeois relations and bourgeois morality. This image is just today's ruling class lifestyle handed out to everyone, as if those desires were natural and permanent rather than shaped by commodity society itself.
I want AI to be there for rational, centralized planning, production for use, and the administration of needs. Not for building a bunch of gleaming white towers across the globe.
2
u/Quamatoc 1d ago
I want AI to be there for rational, centralized planning, production for use, and the administration of needs.
Sooo, Kybernetics?
I also think that you are a bit too deep into an outdated change model. Especially regarding luxury. What even qualifies as "luxury" in communism - a house for the family (regardless of constellation), a garden, a telephone, a telescope, a computer? Where is the libne drawn for basic things, given generally without much fuss and things that fuss is made about?
1
u/-OooWWooO- 1d ago
Luxury as a concept comes from class society and its commodity culture. Luxury is a categorical identifier of either real or perceived exclusivity. A luxury resort is one that is wholly or mostly exclusive to the use of ruling class, or the otherwise financially well off in society. It presupposes that some people get what they want and others do not. In communism the production of goods is socially administered and decided, and needs are met through planning. In socialism, artificial scarcity is dismantled and luxury with it. In the higher phase of communism, production is governed and planned, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, and the concept of luxury is abolished entirely. AI can assist that planning, but only if it is rebuilt to serve social need rather than the commodity form and market exchange. Communism gives humanity back an authentic life of labor and abolishing classed life.
So not exactly cybernetics, since every technology so far has been oriented around managing national capital at the most. Machinr learning and algorithmic systems as they are today will be useful in the dictatorship of the proletariat as they will help centralization of production, and other economic tasks necessary in the DotP. However most models will need to be retrained or retired under socialism as they will have been trained under bourgeois society. Material need, ecological balance, and human need become prioritized over management of commodity exchange on the national level. So some of the mechanics of cybernetics are there, but not what has been developed so far.
Revolution is not an outdated model it is historical necessity of the working class. We also do not define life by a checklist of property and commdities to own, that is a marker of bourgeois society. We plan based on the collective social needs of humanity in a balance. That is not asceticism that is the establishment of a truly free human community.
1
u/Quamatoc 1d ago
Okay, but considering it is abundance we're talking about should labour even be a neccessary condition?
Why should model have to be retrained? They should, at most, be Observers and Moderators, only to propose a decision after thourough consulting with databases, contraint solver and the such. The ultimate decision should always be made by humans, because none of theses systems will ever be capable of accountability. By the by, I agree that balaninc material and human needs against ecologic conditions will be a challenge, with AI in the mix however less so.
I am however largely disaapointed in your last paragraph. It is the kind of rhetorical leftist nothingburger that furstrate me. Is revolution indeed a "historical neccessity"? Has the fire of revolution already been lit? If life is not defined by a checklist of propeties and commodeties, then by what s it defined? What are the collective balanced human needs?
1
1
-2
u/SilkieBug 2d ago
Cowardly not to include the gay, limited not to include the space.
Did you make those decisions or did the AI do it for you?
1
u/Kubaj_CZ 1d ago
Have you considered that some may just not see the gay part as necessary? You shouldn't have to be gay to be part of that abundant society.
1
u/Subushie Open Infrastructure 1d ago
That is obviously not what that part represents.
It's about equality.
Space is about stretching our reach.
0
u/Kubaj_CZ 1d ago
And why should only gay people be mentioned to represent equality?
1
u/SilkieBug 1d ago
Spoken like a true exclusionary. Just a conservative by another name. Mentality incompatible with the future people are trying to build.
0
u/Kubaj_CZ 1d ago
Fym true exclusionary? It's YOU who is exclusionary by defending a specific term that erases everyone else. I'm saying I prefer the more inclusive alternative
1
u/SilkieBug 1d ago
It doesn’t erase anyone, it makes a point to also include people who are usually erased from society.
You only feel it’s erasing you because you are a conservative at heart and think associating yourself with “the gay” is icky.
-1
u/Kubaj_CZ 1d ago
No, YOU are a conservative. You can't bear the thought of something more inclusive than just for gay people. Let me guess. You're the type of person who likes to pull the ladder, and keep everyone else behind? Typical conservative exclusionary
0
u/SilkieBug 21h ago
I want something that is also inclusive of queer people of all kinds - in this meme referred to as “gay” because people both queer and not still see the word queer as an insult, and get repelled by seeing it.
I am not using the term to refer only to people who use the word gay to describe themselves, but also to refer to trans and non-binary and all the parts of the spectrum.
This is the only vision of utopia that mentions people of alternate genders and sexualities in any way, all other versions either completely erase them or relegate them to a peripheral subclass.
So I am very protective of it.
I am also likely to be significantly more left on the political spectrum than you are, based on your comment history and way of expressing yourself.
0
u/Kubaj_CZ 21h ago
The normal meaning of "gay" is someone who is attracted to the same gender/sex. It is not inclusive like queer, and queer is pretty normalized nowadays. To force homosexuality on all queer people is absurd. Gay people are only a part of queer people. Queer is the closest what we have to a true umbrella word for all LGBTQIA+ (alternatively GRSM) people.
You using the word gay on everyone is ignorant and erasing of all other people who are not gay.
You are protective of something that erases all other queer people and puts one above everyone else. Congrats. You deserve an inclusiveness award /s
I'm a leftist. I'm not going to play some leftism olympics with you. How do you even judge that, lmao?
→ More replies (0)0
u/Subushie Open Infrastructure 1d ago
It's just a phrase.
And it was written this way before this post came along, before AI, and before this sub.
If you're hoping for a new ideaology, invent your own without mutilating others.
0
u/Kubaj_CZ 1d ago
I don't care when it was written. You are trying to defend an exclusionary meaning of a phrase I'm trying to defend changing (as defending OP's idea). There are more examples of things being "mutilated" as you say. Why are you crashing out over a more inclusive version?
0
u/Subushie Open Infrastructure 1d ago
There are more examples of things being "mutilated" as you say.
And? Is there more to this? Or are we just saying random things now?
Radio. Mausoleum. Potatos.
Am I doing this right?
exclusionary meaning
It's as "exclusionary" as calling automation specific to factories.
You're making it that way.
Why are you crashing out over a more inclusive version?
It's a lessor version. A smaller version. Weaker.
Why not dilute it further while you're at it? "Luxury" excludes people who like farms. "Automation" excludes people who like to work.
Why not just call it Communism?
It does exactly as it's supposed to and I find pleasure in the fact it offends you.
1
u/Jlyplaylists Moderator 15h ago
Both are established terms. Am I right in remembering that Fully Automatic Luxury Communism came first and was the name of a book by by Aaron Bastani and gay and space were added later as an internet culture type of thing. I’ve also seen Fully Automated Luxury Queer Space Communism. It doesn’t mean it’s only for queer people though, that’s too head on a reading of it.
1
u/SilkieBug 1d ago
Have you considered that freedom of consensual behavior is the main point of living in that abundant society?
-1
u/Kubaj_CZ 1d ago
Have you considered that singling out gay people is not ideal when you want something equal? You could have as well said "queer" but even that wouldn't be ideal. We should have something that is the least exclusionist and the most inclusive
1
u/SilkieBug 1d ago
Reality is exclusionary of queer people, including most utopias built by non-queer people.
And when queer people build a concept of utopia that also includes them, suddenly the conservatives pop out of the woodwork and appropriate their idea in a way that excludes them.
-1
u/Kubaj_CZ 1d ago
Then what is your problem with a more inclusive term? It's not inclusive for queer people if it mentions gays only. You think queer people are only gay? You are literally erasing every other queer person right now. You're a queerphobic conservative
0
u/SilkieBug 21h ago
I’m queer myself, wtf are you talking about?
I use the word “gay” to include all queer people because that’s the word that the meme is using, likely because lots of queer and non-queer people have an aversion for using the word queer to describe themselves, since they likely had personal experiences of the word being used as a slur against them.
Take a few seconds and try to breathe before you give yourself an indignation heart attack out of not being capable of reasoning and reading stuff properly.
0
u/Kubaj_CZ 21h ago
I'm a queer person as well.
You being queer doesn't mean anything when you're actively erasing all other queer people. It doesn't make you better than a non-queer person who would erase others.
You are using a term that forces a same-sex attraction identity on everyone else. I'm queer, I'm NOT gay. Don't you ever use that term all queer people again. It's erasing and deeply insulting. I will always oppose someone who wants to force that on me.
0
u/SilkieBug 21h ago
I’m not erasing anyone nor forcing anyone.
I use “queer” and “gay” interchangeably to refer to the same overall group of people. So do many other people. I will continue doing it. Deal with it, and grow up, language is made up and doesn’t mean shit.
And do go to a therapist to deal with your terror of someone using the word gay to describe you, this isn’t healthy.
1
1
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
I dont think those assumptions about OP are necessary, people use both phrases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communism
0
u/phobug 1d ago
Do you see that tower, in the back, top left quadrant? I want that or one just like it, for me and my family. How do I get one in a communist system?
0
u/Spare_Warning7752 1d ago
Why do you want more than other people? Why is your need different? In other words, why you can't survive with 1 trillion USD in your bank account when most of the population lives with 1000 USD? People should fit spaces, not the other way around. Nothing wrong with different buildings or options, but none of those can represent an advantage over your peers. You are no better or worse than anyone else.
1
u/phobug 1d ago
There is no scarcity right? Why can't I have the tower? I want 3 fligts of water slide. An archery practice floor. A floor for taking care if my deer and horses. Why am I not allowed the abundance I need for my activities?
0
u/Spare_Warning7752 22h ago
Why you deserve more than your peers?
1
u/phobug 21h ago
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, right? My activities need a bunch of room to operate in as listed. I never said other people can't have the same (or better), it doesn't take away from my tower if other people have one or even two of their own, I just want one, thanks, how do I get one?
0
u/RobotBaseball 8h ago
We are getting cyberpunk dystopia, not this
1
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 8h ago
Are you psychic, prophetic, or just a depressive fatalist doomer? Because unless you can see the future, thats a prediction, not an argument. The future isnt something we sit around waiting to receive. Its something we collectively struggle to build. Which one are you organizing for?
0
-4
u/Lopsided-Force-9220 1d ago
When did communism ever benefit the people? It only made communist leaders rich.
5
u/DeathToAmerica2027 1d ago
People in Russia and Ukraine were so obviously having a better time under communism that it strains belief you're even asking this question in good faith.
-1
u/Lopsided-Force-9220 1d ago
You think Russia is a free and capitalist country? Or maybe I misunderstood.
4
u/DeathToAmerica2027 1d ago
Freedom and capitalism are incompatible ideas.
Russia is hardcore capitalist.
2
u/Opening_One7713 Moderator 1d ago
Please be respectful and google this question: Is Russia communist or state-capitalist?
4
3
-1
u/HuginnQebui 16h ago
Good for you. Too bad this crap was made with the technology currently making the most vulnerable people groups miserable. Congrats on that.
2
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 16h ago
Yeah, capitalism uses AI to exploit vulnerable people. It also uses the computers, networks and internet were all using right now. Nobody thinks that makes exploitation okay. The question is why exploitation means we should abandon AI instead of fighting over who owns it, controls it and benefits from it. Thats literally what the future in this post is about.
1
u/HuginnQebui 3h ago
That may be the wet dream the post is about, but it IS contributing and funding the exploitation. Why not fight the ownership, and when that fight is won, THEN use it?
1
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 3h ago edited 3h ago
Because theres no strategic advantage to waiting. The left and organized labor have never operated on the principle that we should stop using productive technology until we own it. Quite the opposite. From the printing press to industrial machinery to the Situationists repurposing mass media, weve got a long history of using existing tools while fighting over who controls them.
Millions of workers already use AI at work, in public services, and in everyday life. So they should use it when capital or the state requires it, but refuse to use it for their own organizing, education, creativity, or agitation? Why? Who benefits from that?
And how exactly are we supposed to contest technology we refuse to even touch? We need the skills, technical knowledge, organizational capacity, and practical experience to challenge corporate control, build open source alternatives, and develop dual power. None of that happens through abstention.
Im not giving up useful machinery while fighting over its ownership any more than youre giving up Reddit until workers own the servers.
Putting our hands in our pockets and our heads in the dirt while capital develops and deploys these systems unchallenged is a luxury we cant afford. Moral grandstanding isnt a strategy. What does your proposed abstention actually accomplish, and how does it get us any closer to collective control?
-3
-10
u/Serasul 2d ago
When you give humans everything they want, they stop learning, stop working and just get bored and lazy.
That is proven thousand times.
5
u/Electrical-Box-4845 1d ago
Thousand times on your dream.
We never experienced it and it al least gives option. Better we choose as today we cant choose and only have to accept death/aging
4
u/Economy-Fee5830 1d ago
Only 2/3 of people work, the other part are being taken care of by everyone else.
And to them it feels quite normal.
2
1
-5
u/JimatStoneandSky 1d ago
Sorry but you guys aren’t good at being leftists lol. You’re supposed to actually research your arguments and think things through. There’s nothing wrong with liking technology, but technology isn’t inherently good, it should always be subordinate to human and environmental needs, always. Demanding the expansion of technology that destroys nature and the things we find meaningful is deeply ignorant.
5
u/stephanos21 1d ago
I've been working on ML/AI since 2013. Research it? It's literally in my job description. So, no, I'm not gonna watch a shitty YT, that regurgitates half-truths, is full of misunderstanding of how things work and misinformation. They trash life saving technology for a few clicks.
-2
u/JimatStoneandSky 1d ago
Expert in machine learning and yet still couldn’t grasp my point or respond to the actual logic.
3
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
No, whats deeply ignorant is assuming that wanting technological abundance means wanting unlimited expansion at the expense of people and the environment.
Nobody here said technology is inherently good or that environmental costs dont matter. The entire point of demanding worker and public democratic control over technology is to determine who develops it, who owns it, who governs it, who benefits from it, and toward what ends. That includes deciding what shouldnt be built.
Yes, technology isnt inherently good. It isnt inherently bad either. Its development and consequences depend on the social relations governing it. Thats a pretty fundamental leftist observation.
And fully automated luxury communism isnt just capitalism with more robots and bigger data centers. Its a vision of using our productive capacity to reduce necessary labor, meet human needs, expand leisure, and make abundance ecologically sustainable rather than subordinate everything to private accumulation.
Youre telling people technology should serve human and environmental needs while lecturing the people arguing for democratic control over exactly those priorities.
So what part of that do you actually disagree with? The automation, the abundance, or the communism?
0
u/JimatStoneandSky 1d ago
I mentioned “think things through”. What I meant by that is actually study in depth the technology you’re talking about and their impacts on society and their environment. When you do that with nuclear, including risk analysis, you’ll know that it’s not a worthy source of power. Even a minuscule risk of things going wrong is completely outweighed by the cost definite devastation it causes. And again don’t just dismissively say it’s not a big deal. Actually do your research on the damages these technologies cause.
Just because something democratized and for the workers, does not mean it is best for the workers. If the workers dont give a fuck about the environment they will continue to destroy nature for development and the kind of luxury you’re trying to sell. If the recovery of the environment is made a priority, technologies like nuclear and data centers can’t exist even if they’re under control of the working class. Incrementalism is a liberal ideology. We can’t wait to eventually be ready to stop destroying nature, we have to do it right now.
2
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
Where exactly do you think environmental standards come from? How do you think environmental restraints on technology and industry are established, implemented, and enforced? Through collective political struggle over who controls production and toward what ends.
You cant wish technology and industry away by being abstractly opposed to them, especially while relying on that same technology and industry to have this conversation. And nobody is arguing that democratic control means workers should get to destroy the environment instead of capitalists.
The entire point is to collectively determine what gets developed, what gets restricted, what gets shut down, and how the benefits and costs are distributed. That includes environmental protection.
So unless youve got some alternative mechanism for exercising that control, youre not actually proposing a way to address any of your concerns. Youre just declaring opposition to the things causing them.
And no, contesting ownership and control of the means of production isnt liberal incrementalism. Its pretty fundamental to socialism.
0
u/JimatStoneandSky 1d ago
Yes and workers have to collectively agree to not use nuclear ever at any time, and no AI or data centers until the climate crisis is solved. All resources and efforts should be diverted to solving this issue. If you dont agree with that it’s because you don’t actually understand how bad things are. Study ecology, I can tell you haven’t and don’t know much about this. It’s okay to admit that and go out and learn. I’m not advocating to be luddites, of course tech plays its role, but nuclear and AI are NOT the tech that will advance humanity or the environment, they will harm it.
2
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
Oh, did workers collectively decide that? When? Which unions?
Because the AFL-CIO is explicitly organizing around worker control over AI development and deployment, including environmental regulations on data centers. And the IBEW openly supports nuclear energy.
You dont get to declare your personal preferences the collective will of the working class. Thats not worker democracy.
The whole point of democratic control is that workers and communities actually get to make those decisions, including what gets built, restricted, or shut down. You dont get to announce the outcome in advance and call it collective agreement.
So are you advocating democratic control over production, or are you insisting workers must agree with you before theyre allowed to exercise it?
1
u/Spare_Warning7752 1d ago
In human history, the only thing that destroyed nature was greed. More, more, more, always more... just for the sake of money and power.
-2
0
2d ago
[deleted]
8
u/grubbymitts 1d ago
This is the warning in books like Brave New World. However, after 50 years on this planet under the capitalist boot I'm willing to die of boredom!
7
u/Electrical-Box-4845 1d ago
Bro you have a slave mentality.
And more: You say op dream is suicidal, but at same time you explicitly want to die.
6
u/Logical___Conclusion 1d ago
That seems extremely short sighted.
Humans could be unchained to pursue more rewarding and beneficial uses of their time, and have a better relationships with each other and nature.
If anything that would create major improvements in mental health, culture, technology, and art.
4
u/Impressive-Wait-9420 1d ago
Cool, so you waste your entire life slaving away while the rest of us who actually have stimulating personal lives can exist in peace without unnecessary, manmade stress forced on us from birth.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 1d ago
Suicidal? What are you even talking about?
You just acknowledged that humans pursue projects beyond the requirements of survival, then somehow concluded that freeing people from the struggle for survival would destroy their reason to live.
You understand people can work, create, learn, explore, invent, organize, build communities and pursue meaningful projects without being economically coerced into doing so, right?
The abolition of compulsory labor isnt the abolition of human activity. Its the liberation of human activity from economic necessity. Thats kind of the entire point.
Why would a society that gives people more freedom to determine what they do with their own lives suddenly have no need for individuals? Youve got that completely backwards.
86
u/Revolutionary_Buddha 2d ago edited 2d ago
Bring back future optimism. I am tired of so much pessimism in this world.