This is great. If AI is capital which is stored up stolen labor, we can also expand this to and with the destruction of the environment and our communities. And then this necessitates that the left analysis must be feminist and anti-racist— against environmental racism and for radical feminist community.
AI is part of the collective product of labour. The social relation Marx called Capital is reproduced within the capitalist class ruled wages system of slavery. I should think the point is to get wage slaves to realise that the capitalist class owns the collective product of labour. Certain members of the capitalist class own AI, which is a part of the means of production. AI is useful to its owners, both to increase the wealth they own and to multiply their political power over the useful producers, the working class. AI is also useful as a commodity, for sale with a view to profit. Some workers buy AI tools and rent their use for their own purposes. Your point about AI not being neutral is well taken. The owners of the means of production are not using them to help anyone but themselves gain control and ownership of more wealth. The point is to change the owners of the means of production, to put them under the common ownership and control of the producers, the working class and then take it from their to reproduce a classless society where wealth is distributed on the basis of need, not commodified for sale.
Common ownership and control by the producers is important. It's another way of designating the abolition of private property. It also opens up the question of planning: which technologies and practices are important for common life? What are the best ways to allocate common resources? With 80% of US Americans opposed to AI, it appears that many do not think that its development -- the hundreds of billions and likely trillions of dollars poured into it -- is where social wealth should be concentrated. As a matter of left politics, it should not be the case that "our socialist future" operates as fetish preventing political contestation of AI. When it does, there is no different between the left and the billionaire tech lords we oppose.
Right. Control by a free association of producers would include, grassroots, democratic planning about what to produce and how to distribute it. As reality stands now, most Americans vote for one of the two political factions of the ruling bourgeoisie. I would guess that most of those citizens are not only dependent on the continuation of selling their labour power to employers, but cognisant of AI being used and making them, redundant. What they mostly don’t take into consideration is that AI under common ownership and democratic control would lead to their having more disposable time for themselves, as opposed to the destitution and misery of unemployment, which is the case within the wages system of slavery.
Agreed. The development of AI is in the hands of the owners of the means of production. The point is to change the owners of the means of production from them to us. That's a class act, but the class can't act unless they know that the wage system empowers the capitalist class, not themselves and for themselves they might better work on organising as a class to emancipate themselves.
This is great. If AI is capital which is stored up stolen labor, we can also expand this to and with the destruction of the environment and our communities. And then this necessitates that the left analysis must be feminist and anti-racist— against environmental racism and for radical feminist community.
AI is part of the collective product of labour. The social relation Marx called Capital is reproduced within the capitalist class ruled wages system of slavery. I should think the point is to get wage slaves to realise that the capitalist class owns the collective product of labour. Certain members of the capitalist class own AI, which is a part of the means of production. AI is useful to its owners, both to increase the wealth they own and to multiply their political power over the useful producers, the working class. AI is also useful as a commodity, for sale with a view to profit. Some workers buy AI tools and rent their use for their own purposes. Your point about AI not being neutral is well taken. The owners of the means of production are not using them to help anyone but themselves gain control and ownership of more wealth. The point is to change the owners of the means of production, to put them under the common ownership and control of the producers, the working class and then take it from their to reproduce a classless society where wealth is distributed on the basis of need, not commodified for sale.
Common ownership and control by the producers is important. It's another way of designating the abolition of private property. It also opens up the question of planning: which technologies and practices are important for common life? What are the best ways to allocate common resources? With 80% of US Americans opposed to AI, it appears that many do not think that its development -- the hundreds of billions and likely trillions of dollars poured into it -- is where social wealth should be concentrated. As a matter of left politics, it should not be the case that "our socialist future" operates as fetish preventing political contestation of AI. When it does, there is no different between the left and the billionaire tech lords we oppose.
Right. Control by a free association of producers would include, grassroots, democratic planning about what to produce and how to distribute it. As reality stands now, most Americans vote for one of the two political factions of the ruling bourgeoisie. I would guess that most of those citizens are not only dependent on the continuation of selling their labour power to employers, but cognisant of AI being used and making them, redundant. What they mostly don’t take into consideration is that AI under common ownership and democratic control would lead to their having more disposable time for themselves, as opposed to the destitution and misery of unemployment, which is the case within the wages system of slavery.
But the development of AI precludes this. Pretending that it doesn’t is complicit in the very erasure of the possibility.
Agreed. The development of AI is in the hands of the owners of the means of production. The point is to change the owners of the means of production from them to us. That's a class act, but the class can't act unless they know that the wage system empowers the capitalist class, not themselves and for themselves they might better work on organising as a class to emancipate themselves.