Such a clear community is important, because the practitioners can quickly see each other and offer experience or support or strategies for relevant solutions in practice.
I have searched but seems no there.
Hey Comrades, I think the importanc doesn't need to be elaborated further, so let's get straight to the point.
Seeking comrades to jointly plan this work, the following are the key points that I think need to be clarified before practice.
The classification of the United Nations and the classification standards of various countries serve as reference points.
Horizontal (Spatial & Legal Boundary)
Vertical (Tiers of Social Reproduction)
I think this should be an open-source project. Maybe establishing one Repository on Github is a good approach, but there might be a better solution.
Leverage:
Risks:
Details:
If this work is indispensable, just start.
You can contact me on reddit.
Maybe we can start from setting up a discussion group.
In Reform or Revolution from Rosa Luxemburg, There are some criticisms of cooperatives mentioned inside. First of all, I summarized the key points of the criticism. Secondly, I think it is necessary for us to review it again from today's perspective.
Premise： the possibilities of existence of producers’ co-operatives within capitalism are bound up with the possibilities of existence of consumers’ co-operatives.
>Producers’ co-operatives can survive within capitalist economy only if they manage to suppress, by means of some detour, the capitalist controlled contradictions between the mode of production and the mode of exchange.
And they can accomplish this only by removing themselves artificially from the influence of the laws of free competition. And they can succeed in doing the last only when they assure themselves beforehand of a constant circle of consumers, that is, when they assure themselves of a constant market.
Argue 1: the scope is limited.
>in the most favourable of cases, to the small local market and to the manufacture of articles serving immediate needs, especially food products. Consumers’ and therefore producers’ co-operatives, are excluded from the most important branches of capital production – the textile, mining, metallurgical and petroleum industries, machine construction, locomotive and ship-building.
Argue2：fall back to the merchant economy of the Middle Ages.
>For this reason alone (forgetting for the moment their hybrid character), co-operatives in the field of production cannot be seriously considered as the instrument of a general social transformation. The establishment of producers’ co-operatives on a wide scale would suppose, first of all, the suppression of the world market, the breaking up of the present world economy into small local spheres of production and exchange. The highly developed, wide-spread capitalism of our time is expected to fall back to the merchant economy of the Middle Ages.
Result ：Completely deny the possibility of cooperatives as a "tool for overall change"
>Within the framework of present society, producers’ co-operatives are limited to the role of simple annexes to consumers’ co-operatives. It appears, therefore, that the latter must be the beginning of the proposed social change. But this way the expected reform of society by means of co-operatives ceases to be an offensive against capitalist production. That is, it ceases to be an attack against the principal bases of capitalist economy. It becomes, instead, a struggle against commercial capital, especially small and middle-sized commercial capital. It becomes an attack made on the twigs of the capitalist tree.
-------
Reflection 0: Consumers -- Opportunities
Today's Internet enables the connection of the majority of consumers， which offers opportunities and a greater foundation that can be created;
Reflection 1: Scope -- Hope in China
The infrastructure capacity of China's national system is not about mending the minor branches of capitalist commerce, but rather, under the legal protection of the state's public ownership, it directly takes over and reshapes the entire industrial framework. So, the best approach is to use cooperatives to cooperate with China.
Reflection 2: local spheres of production -- Why Not !
If workers are directly exposed to their own goods,If workers can freely choose in various production fields，if school education is to be integrated with labor practice, and if the production field is to be reshaped into a place for free learning, then localization is precisely the necessary path ！And this direction demands the emergence of new cooperatives - experiential, open, and future-oriented.
Hey, I am reading Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy from Rosa Luxemburg. Here mentioned "two dangers", but as I understand , they are the same one.
”loss of its mass character “ can be corresponding to “sinking back to the condition of a sect”
“abandonment of its goal” can be corresponding to “becoming a movement of bourgeois social reform.”
Is my understanding correct？
By the way, "Such dangers can be overcome only by the movement itself"——I can't agree more with it. I just want to share it.and maybe someone can criticism or we can reach a consensus on action on this basis later.
>
It follows that this movement can best advance by tacking betwixt and between the two dangers by which it is constantly being threatened. One is the loss of its mass character; the other, the abandonment of its goal. One is the danger of sinking back to the condition of a sect; the other, the danger of becoming a movement of bourgeois social reform.
>That is why it is illusory, and contrary to historic experience, to hope to fix, once and for always, the direction of the revolutionary socialist struggle with the aid of formal means, which are expected to secure the labor movement against all possibilities of opportunist digression.
>Marxist theory offers us a reliable instrument enabling us to recognize and combat typical manifestations of opportunism. But the socialist movement is a mass movement. Its perils are not the product of the insidious machinations of individuals and groups. They arise out of unavoidable social conditions. We cannot secure ourselves in advance against all possibilities of opportunist deviation. Such dangers can be overcome only by the movement itself – certainly with the aid of Marxist theory, but only after the dangers in question have taken tangible form in practice.
Hello everyone,
I am building a visual framework, trying to understand and explain to others why “productive forces and production relations” are the sources of all contradictions.
>The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. --Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
My flowchart is as follows : PLEASE help me correct!
PS：Finished by keynote myself, and No intellectual property rights. Please use it freely without indicating the source if you need.
​
And this is an answer from AI:
That is a fascinating conceptual question. The short answer is **no, there is no mainstream AI architecture specifically engineered from the ground up to operate *by* the laws of dialectical and historical materialism.** However, looking at the intersection of Marxist philosophy and computer science reveals deep parallels, structural contradictions, and active theoretical explorations regarding how AI *could* be understood or built through this lens.
## 1. Why Modern AI Isn't Dialectical (The Formal Logic Barrier)
Mainstream AI—from traditional expert systems to modern Large Language Models (LLMs)—is fundamentally built on **formal logic, mathematics, and statistical optimization**.
* **Formal Logic vs. Dialectics:** Computer science relies on the binary, non-contradictory foundations of formal logic (A = A and A \neq \neg A). Dialectical materialism, drawing from Hegel and Marx, posits that reality is driven by *internal contradictions* (the interpenetration of opposites) where a thing is simultaneously itself and its own negation in a constant state of becoming.
* **The Problem of "Static" Data:** Modern AI models learn patterns from frozen historical datasets. They optimize for a static loss function. Dialectical materialism argues that human thought and social structures are in a constant, dynamic flux driven by material conditions, meaning an AI that purely mimics past data cannot truly capture the open-ended, self-transforming nature of history.
## 2. Parallels and Materialist Interpretations of AI
While no AI is explicitly "Marxist," the internal mechanics of certain AI architectures mirror dialectical principles in striking ways:
### Quantitative to Qualitative Transformation
One of the core laws of dialectical materialism is that a continuous accumulation of quantitative changes eventually leads to a sudden, qualitative leap.
* This is precisely what we observe in **Deep Learning and Scale**. Adding billions of parameters and petabytes of text (quantitative increases) to a transformer model doesn't just make it a faster regurgitator; it triggers **emergent abilities** (qualitative leaps) like reasoning, translation, and code generation that were not explicitly programmed.
### Connectionism vs. Idealism
The battle in AI history between *Symbolic AI* (rule-based) and *Connectionism* (neural networks) can be viewed through a materialist lens:
* **Symbolic AI** treated intelligence as an abstract, top-down system of idealized rules (closer to philosophical idealism).
* **Neural Networks** mimic the physical, material structure of the human brain (synapses and weights). They suggest that intelligence and "mind" are emergent properties of highly organized, interconnected **matter in motion**—a deeply materialist premise.
## 3. Historical Materialism: AI as "Fixed Capital"
If we look at AI not through its code, but through **historical materialism**, AI is not an independent "agent" but a highly advanced **force of production**.
In *Capital*, Marx analyzed how machinery under capitalism acts as "fixed capital." Matteo Pasquinelli’s recent scholarship (*The Eye of the Master: A Social History of Artificial Intelligence*, 2023) applies this directly to AI. From this perspective:
* An AI algorithm is essentially the **crystallization of collective human labor**. LLMs are trained on the accumulated knowledge, writing, and labor of millions of human workers.
* Under current material conditions, AI is used to increase the rate of surplus value, automate tasks, and alienate the worker from their own cognitive labor.
## 4. Could a "Dialectical AI" Exist?
For an AI to truly be designed *using* dialectical materialism, it would likely need to move away from static optimization and embrace a framework where **contradiction is a feature, not a bug**.
Some researchers look toward **Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)** as a primitive example of this: two neural networks (a Generator and a Discriminator) are placed in a direct, contradictory relationship. The thesis of one clashes with the antithesis of the other, driving the system to a higher synthesis (a highly realistic output).
True dialectical AI, however, would require a machine capable of actively engaging with changing physical reality and human social practice to constantly restructure its own internal logic.
Are you interested in how Marxist scholars analyze the impact of AI on labor today, or are you more curious about the purely computational side of how a dialectical algorithm might function?
Is Survival of Capitalism from Henri Lefebvre a good choice？
I've been reading Mao's Book recently, and the section on economic investigation really struck a chord with me.
The basic framework is this: the purpose of economic investigation is to estimate class forces — understanding:
The ultimate goal, as Mao put it, is to get a correct class estimation, which then informs strategy — figuring out who are the main revolutionary forces, who are reliable allies, and who are the targets.
I think this survey work is a very good starting point, not only in terms of its significance, but also as a key starting point for building unity among various organizations.
I've been reading Mao's Book recently, and the section on economic investigation really struck a chord with me.
The basic framework is this: the purpose of economic investigation is to estimate class forces — understanding:
The ultimate goal, as Mao put it, is to get a correct class estimation, which then informs strategy — figuring out who are the main revolutionary forces, who are reliable allies, and who are the targets.
I think this survey work is a very good starting point, not only in terms of its significance, but also as a key starting point for building unity among various organizations.
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to build a rigorous, step-by-step reading pathway (papers and articles, not necessarily books) to understand one specific question: In what sense is Marxism "scientific"?
To avoid vague generalities, I want to trace this through a precise logical chain:
I'm looking for peer-reviewed journal articles (or book chapters) that engage critically with this exact trajectory. I take it seriously. Thanks.
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to build a rigorous, step-by-step reading pathway (papers and articles, not necessarily books) to understand one specific question: In what sense is Marxism "scientific"?
To avoid vague generalities, I want to trace this through a precise logical chain:
I'm looking for peer-reviewed journal articles (or book chapters) that engage critically with this exact trajectory. I take it seriously. Thanks!
Hi everyone. I'm exploring the debation history of the Transformation Problem in “Das Kapital” ; I wonder how is the general consensus (if there even is one) nowadays?
Besides, I recently came across the work of Anwar Shaikh. From what I’ve gathered so far, his approach—particularly his defense of the labor theory of value —feels highly intuitive and correct to me. Before I submerge myself in his work, I would love to hear this community's thoughts on him and What are the primary criticisms leveled against his framework within academic circles?
Thanks in advance !
