u/dumbandasking

No way!

Is this real? Leftists for AI? I am new here. For so long I have been complaining a lot. You can check my post history.

I have said for so long that there is something suspicious about how some activism is approaching the AI issue. I have not denied the job displacement or the environmental impact. The thing that I have been suspicious about though is how reactionary some of Anti AI movements have been. For example, environmental issues have taught us not to take out our disappointment on the individual, but on the companies responsible. Just like how when we realized even if every individual household started to recycle, it wouldn't change that there are cargo ships contributing to a large share of the pollution, It seems like for AI even if everyone boycotted AI, it wouldn't change that many companies are still zoning recklessly.

It seemed strange to me we were attacking local artists, small businesses, friends and family for using AI. I thought as progressives we would be able to look at technology and say, 'who are the owners', 'who runs it', and start to be the ones who can dream the answers to the hard question of 'what is the better way', or 'how could this have been developed to help society instead'. When many people's analysis was just 'slop is slop', or I saw far leftists saying it's either dead end tech or produces nothing of value, I realized that the left isn't immune to attack or psyops from the media.. I say that because I think that the companies benefit from lazy analysis and slogans. By saying that the entire issue is just dismissable as slop is slop, now the technology is developed by anyone except the activists who are tricked into boycotting it. So I wanted to ask. What is your opinion on AI? Why are you a leftist but are supportive of AI when many people are convinced it is evil?

Hello,

Very short text for a simple discussion question I've always wanted to ask both sides about.

How real is wage slavery, and what should be done?

Have you heard of a wage slave? The discussion I wanted to bring up is whether or not you believe it is a serious concept, and what should be done about it.

If you do not think wage slavery is real can you explain your view and your alternative analysis on what should be done?

I opened this question up because I believe I am not exposed to the issue from the perspective of others enough. So I want to see if I might learn something new.

In case you need some additional ideas to help discuss wage slavery, I want to also ask have you heard of the concepts race to the bottom? About learning something new; have you encountered this viewpoint before:

> the anarcho-capitalist economist Walter Block go further and maintain that all rights are in fact alienable, stating voluntary slavery and by extension wage slavery is legitimate.

Did you also know this isn't necessarily a modern critique either?

> Similarities between wage labor and slavery were noted as early as Cicero in Ancient Rome, such as in De Officiis

I hope we can discuss this. Please express what you really think.

You can still see it now. We can't say abducted! That's associated badly! You can't say suicide! That's associated with bad things! Say 'disappeared'. Say 'unalived'.

Sometimes that just comes off like someone wants to control the definitions again by tricking you. They trick you by making you look at how the word is associated badly so that you will instead use a word they made the definition for.

What's a communist? What's a socialist? What's AI? What's profit?

The thing is many don't actually know the definition for each, and they react on the associations.

Communist? USSR. OK? USSR is an association. What's the definition of it? Finding out would help one understand the 'failure' of the USSR.

What's a socialist? Marxists. OK? That's an association. What's the definition of it? Finding out would help one realize some Marxists are disliked in some socialist circles.

What's capitalism? Elon Musk. OK? That's an association. What's the definition of it? Finding out might help you criticize Elon Musk more.. maybe might even make you question the government more.

What's AI? Slop is slop. OK? That's again an association. Always reacting to the worst use cases will make you forget what it is even for. What's the definition of AI? If we took the time to find out, we wouldn't have had commenters saying 'Oh fuck, I realized there's machine learning and then there's GenAI'. We would probably have people being more specific on how to make the tech less shitty and unethical.

What's profit? Greed. Yet again an association. Did you know you can share profits?

By looking at definitions and ignoring the associations once in a while, it can lead to simple but novel ideas. "Profit? That's surplus. Ok what if we share it?"

The funny thing is, is that capitalist, socialist, or communist, to share that surplus? No one will know anymore. Someone already yelled "That's Communist!!" The truth is that it can happen in all three.

These days it feels like everyone's just arguing but to avoid being associated with things, rather than trying to find the true solutions.

Socialists,

What would be the processes or definitions used in the transition from capitalism into socialism and then into communism to distinguish a real laborer and someone who isn't. For example landlords will disappear but who else and how did you determine that? What happens to small business owners, or petty bourgeois? Does a shop owner with less than 50 employees have to register as a co-op or could we go after the companies that we find are causing societal harm? Do you just want to come after Amazon instead of several small property owners? Or is there an advantage to trying to let intermediate groups transition first?

I just realized,

How would socialism interact with the part of the economy that exchanges and produces drugs? For example, in mixed economies today you saw how drugs were handled. Some are legal some are not.

However in a socialist society that starts anew,

If there were drug productions starting up how would that be handled? Would some be considered illegal? But on what basis?

Or in other words, would you claim that socialism actually would have handled the drugs scenario better than capitalism? But how would it do that?

Would it struggle with it more? In capitalist countries we saw that the government can collect tax on drug sales even if it is still federally questionable. In socialist countries, they would.. do what better?

Capitalists,

Technology has come far and innovation is happening. Look at how there is AI or how there are cars driving themselves. It looks like companies can clearly deliver novel solutions to problems some might have dismissed.

However,

There is clearly a huge demand for green products, green processes.

It's popular opinion to say 'oil companies bad'.

Green capitalism comes to mind, so I looked it up:

> Green capitalism, also known as eco-capitalism or natural capitalism, is an economic approach that seeks to resolve environmental issues by integrating ecological concerns into the logic of the free market. It operates on the premise that private property, entrepreneurial freedom, and market exchange are the most efficient mechanisms for managing natural resources and reducing environmental degradation.

What is taking so long then? Why is the climate change problem worsening instead?

But a more important question for capitalists is,

I am sure we're going to say government is part of the problem. But I am highly interested in YOUR approach to the whole situation.

> What type of economy is best for society?

If it is capitalism, then what is capitalism's approach to climate change and the regulatory capture scenario?

I ask this because capitalists rejected socialist solution of abolishing private property and where workers owning the means of production then are claimed to lead into better practices.

If this is rejected what is the better way? This is a discussion post part of my journey to honestly learn. I hated when people will ask this but just to gotcha. No. Maybe capitalists have novel ideas. Can we hear it?

No, I'm not a right winger. I'm a leftist too.

I feel like my own side needs better messaging already. We can keep saying over and over how bad the right wing is and how they are morally corrupt or whatever. The thing is, who's messages are being practiced? Who's messages are being remembered? As much as I can already see how controversial some takes are, the thing is that what is really being achieved if activists for example decide that with the 'truth', they will just deliver it in a way that makes everyone offput. Then that means the truth is lost on people!

Have you ever been 'educated' by a leftist, only to be so offput that this is actually why you are either centrist or on the right wing?

I feel like that's something important but my own side will just sometimes act like that is not a big deal. Ok so here is an example.

Did language policing help people understand movements, or did it push them to just react against it?

I think it pushed them to just react against it. "Anti woke" comes to mind.

While I was reading Marx I was wondering, is time a commodity?

So when I looked it up I got this result:

> time is chopped into labor hours for sale, transforming it from a natural flow of life into a commodity with exchange value, often summarized by the adage "time is money."

However, I got interested when I saw this part too:

> Critics argue that this view is a delusion that objectifies human existence, turning life’s essence into a marketable resource. They suggest that reclaiming time involves rejecting this commodified framework to restore time as a medium for authentic experience and community rather than profit.

Socialists, what exactly would the decommodification of time lead to? The commoditization of things is one thing I remember socialists are wary of. With that said, while I have heard of trying to deal with money itself, what about time?

What exactly is the commodification of time, then what happens when society decides to decommodify it, and would that be worth our time at all?

Capitalists,

This is a shorter post but I wanted to get straight to an issue that confuses me. There is a model of firms, the co-op. To be simple and straightforward, I've heard of proposals to make all firms become co-ops. What confuses me is what about the traditional model is important, or what of importance would be lost, if such a thing happened? I believe if there was an honest discussion about this then there could be real understanding. So far all I see is just it must be one way or the other without even understanding why each side wants what they do.

I have heard of why socialists want co-ops but I realized I haven't paid attention enough. What about what the capitalists are saying? What are your reasons that you might reject a switch to the co-op model and what might be some advantages of the traditional model you see? Rather than the disadvantages of co-ops.

Socialists,

There are many versions of you but I'm trying to open up honest discussions because I was only recently aware of the ML segment being disliked but ML's are welcome to reply,

I am getting bored seeing the same kind of discussions so I'm trying to do an honest attempt to see 'who is who' in a sense. Who here has actual theory or practical ideas compared to I guess who is only here to fight. So please I want to learn socialism, ever since I learned the ML branch is controversial here it is again trying to relearn from square one.

If anyone is interested I was thinking of documenting this journey but I am not sure if everyone is happy to be seen on a video.

Ok this aside, I am most interested from a modern perspective, because reading the original texts sometimes it can be difficult to know how it translates into modern life. So since socialists here have more experience I was looking for help to understand the following:

How do you valuate things? For example I've heard of 'socially necessary labor time' and LTV but the thing is how exactly would one determine if an item is more valuable than the other? Wouldn't it be that naturally the one that is demanded more is more valuable irregardless of the labor spent into it? The reason I ask this is because I look at art. Many times we have complained about putting hours of labor into something only for it to not be desired somehow. I always thought this was a marketing problem. However does socialism have an alternative way to valuate that could help?

What is this mudpies argument I keep hearing about too? I'm new so there's been a lot of narratives I've been given. Which are real and which are dishonest?

Anyways I keep cycling around this issue because I sincerely feel like socialism does address things but for some odd reason I keep anticipating the return of 'money'

Capitalists,

If social ownership of the means of production is not universally the way, and there are many social concerns, or rather, large market demand for affordable housing, what exactly is the capitalist approach towards this? For example let's abstract it that there is a large amount of poor people, willing to work, but unable to get secure housing or affordable housing, and they're all complaining that housing prices are rising. Well if socialist ideas are not your preference, I wanted to know what the brightest capitalists would say towards alleviating the fact there are a lot of poor people looking for housing to start work. How would you meaningfully approach this problem but as a capitalist?

I'm trying to start discussion questions where I am stuck and I intend to learn so please share your ideas.

Socialists,

If you had your way and you can implement exactly two policies, how would you address specifically the United States economy and not anywhere else? I wanted to gather the strategic opinions of socialists if there are any. For example it might be more understandable if we see applications discussed but towards something we all know about: The American Economy.

For example, a good start is, what would you do regarding healthcare? What about housing prices?

You do not need to be a socialist to answer because I realized there may be competing answers from non socialists. However, I am asking socialists to answer because I wanted to get a discussion going.

Socialists,

Is there any ideas you have that aren't necessarily socialist but isn't exactly pro capitalist either? The reason I ask is that I'm concerned that it looks like progressivism, if it defines itself as exclusively a socialist endeavor, it might actually represent a freeze. Good ideas for society and to help the economy; must they necessarily be socialist, or do you have something that is somehow outside of socialism but isn't exactly pro capitalist?

This is a discussion question. As a progressive my worry is if we marry a label. For example, what if ideas that are usually associated with socialists could happen as long as it isn't a requirement to brand it as 'socialism'?

Most AI hate is not even rigorous, but rather a product of media and social permission. For example, I am someone who is aware of the pollutive impact and I don't like how people abuse AI. Yet at the same time, it really woke me up that a lot of AI hate isn't even rigorous but is almost like a bandwagon when people were bashing on things that are suspected to be chatGPT, but then these very same people will just use Gemini.

Codex is bad! But then they end up using Claude.

CGI sucks! AI comes out. Oh CGI is legit now, but AI is bad!

I just think it's possible to acknowledge the environmental negatives of AI, the fact that the technology does get abused, but without at the same time bashing on just anyone who uses AI. Have someone who uses it but they're your close friend? An artist? It's not actually activism to shame them. What if people who were anti AI were to get familiar with the technology and then that means their commentaries can be more relatable and specific? So I'm not against anti AI, I'm mad that some of it is more slogans than actual strategy to get people to see what the actual problem is with using it. For example you can say it really can be used to make stuff, but it doesn't outweigh the costs, and maybe it is not a tool that should be open to the entire public, maybe experts only.

Capitalists,

The stock market exists at all and we are able to use it even if we aren't exactly experts and if we have some money. The questions are, why did the stock market come to be? Why are we able to use it as regular people?

If we removed the stock market tomorrow what should we expect in the next decade?

Is the stock market at all useful to someone who isn't a business person? Why or why not?

Why should the average person care that the stock market exists?

This post is me trying to consider what happens if we removed the stock market because I remember that it might be the first thing to go in a socialist transition of economy. But then I wanted to ask capitalists what exactly would they expect would happen if it were removed?

Hello,

Socialists and communists I was looking at that large chart and was contemplating something. So while there are many ideas on how to remove the establishment and to address exploitation, there was something that had me hesitating.

Is representation even ethical or possible? This is because when we looked at pay, the 'representative' existing at all was a source of exploitation. The one who purchases your labor was at some point considered representative of the whole firm, and was entitled to collect revenues and pretty much pay you less than your labor.

---

Ok that's one thing,

But what about political rights and other things? If it is not acceptable to have a representative of the firm collect money and route it, and we would've argued instead that workers self represent and own and manage the firm directly,

Wouldn't this logic extend to the state and society too? What reason can there be a leader, a representative for the workers, if that would mean that suddenly the power or rights are now concentrated into someone on behalf of many? So for example, wouldn't it be exploitative to have a leader, a state representative, or even things like a union representative?

What happens when a leader of the revolution says things no one actually wanted or expected? What happens when there is a state representative, but he is proposing what 51% approved of, what about the rest?

---

Now I can imagine a society that just simply lacks these things, no representation, no exploitation. The issue though is that representation and proxies allowed for leverage and this means that without representation, you might have slower political and economic decisions when trying to help a whole populace. Does this mean socialism or communist societies may have a tradeoff of slower decisions but because there is more priority to have a process that is free of exploitation? If workers are supposed to own their workplaces, why should they give political power to rulers, representatives, anything like that all?

Hello,

Is there at all any system that is not socialism, not communism, but still aims to solve the problems you may be observing in capitalism or markets today?

This is a challenge because I think that if the only thing we can think of that is post capitalism is just socialism or communism then there might be a trap or a bottleneck to progressive thinking.

So I was wondering if anyone can step up and speak on if there is at all anything that is Not Socialism, Not Communism, but indeed alleviates or represents the best type of economy for society in your view.

If you still seek to remove capitalism completely that's fine! But what would you propose if your restriction was it couldn't be socialist or communist?

Were you someone who used to be capitalist, socialist, or communist? This thread is for you because if you are that person you probably have underdiscussed ideas please share it because I'm curious if there really are only two things that is beyond what we have.

This is a short post but,

For a while I've heard of policies that ask to tax the rich or to get everyone to pay more taxes so that we can start some social policies aimed at helping everyone.

My question though is that when we look at the rich they dislike tax for one but another thing is that when we look at everyone else, they outnumber the rich, they all work, and they all need something.

My question is why wouldn't it be possible to have a policy that the nonrich vote for, and this policy basically requires all the voters to pay more taxes. These voters then receive the social programs while at the same time the rich don't need to pay for the tax. If anything, if this policy does lead to good social programs I think that the rich might voluntarily donate because rich people will do philanthropy for self interest.

When I look at social programs we all need, what if the problem is we keep asking the unwilling hands (the rich) when we could potentially collectivize the ones who are willing (the rest of us, the poor)?

I understand that some will say a small percentage tax to the rich can fund entire things but I guess my mind was thinking that technically negotiating with them might take longer than if we just did our own solutions without needing them formally. What do you think?

Capitalists,

Some say that it is a problem when someone rich buys a property that was admired but because of the land value. The problem is that since they are only buying it for the land value, in some cases the building can be allowed to be abandoned or not maintained.

Some say that it is a problem and sometimes want the government to step in. But I wanted to ask capitalists, what value is the buyer doing here when they buy just for the land value and sell it later? And that they aren't really buying for the building on it or development on it

Here is my guess. Is it because the alternative is that the land is unowned, it goes abandoned and unmaintained, and because no one has a claim to it, there's trouble enforcing getting people out when someone wants to develop it again?

This would mean that when the person is buying that property for the land value to eventually resell it, the hope is that the new buyer would then develop into it. But what happens when the property is just bought and held for generations because of this, and it never really does get used or maintained?

Instead of Georgism, would it be bad if the government itself was allowed to be a possible buyer, because they have an obligation to actually develop it? But then again, what would stop the government from just holding it too to resell it? Maybe it would have an obligation to sell to only ones that would actually develop.