this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2025
60 points (86.6% liked)
Socialism
808 readers
1 users here now
#Welcome to /c/socialism
Socialism as a political system is defined by democratic and social control of the means of production by the workers for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit, based fundamentally on the abolition of private property relations.
Socialism is also a sociopolitical movement dedicated to the critique and dismantling of exploitative structures, including economic, gendered, ethnic oppression.
Socialism, as a movement, confronts these different systems of oppression as mutually conditioning, intersectional, and/or dialectically related within the current hegemonic order. It seeks to overcome oppression in a holistic manner without neglecting any particular axis so that it might be eliminated and genuine social emancipation may be realized. We recognize that Socialism cannot be achieved while structural oppression continues and workers are divided.
We look forward to your participation in our sub, but please be mindful of our posting guidelines.
Are you new to socialist ideas? Wondering what alternatives to capitalism exist? Please check out our educational materials and wiki further down in this sidebar.
#Posting Guidelines
Keep meta posts constructive. Avoid shitposting. This is not a sub for sharing other users' post histories or for sharing screenshots of ridiculous things liberals say.
No linking to /c/Socialism in brigade subs or participating in subs that harass our users
/c/Socialism is a sub for socialists, and a certain level of knowledge about socialism is expected. If you are derailing discussions or promoting non-socialist positions, your comments may be removed, and you may receive a warning or a ban. If you are not a Socialist but are learning about it, be polite, or you will be banned for trolling. Low effort images: powerful expressions of socialism are always welcomed in r/socialism. Expressions may vary including pictures, cartoons, comics, illustrations, and even memes. However, those expressions which lack quality (does not clearly shows a socialistic construct), or has low-quality insights (possibly for karma and/or upvotes) may not be posted. Thus, those images that do not meet these quality standards will be removed.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We got Marvel movies because capitalists only value art insofar as it makes them money, leading to the aforementioned mass-produced slop. I'd rather not see mass-produced slop become a staple of any socialist future, personally.
AI slop as agitprop seems like a poor strategy when the average joe is polling as hating AI in general. You seem to have forgotten that this tech is primarily being developed by & for capitalists as one big pyramid scheme and has since become the aesthetic of fascist techbros. Who exactly do you think you're going to win over by having an algorithm draw up a picture of Lenin with three eyes? Because the people you're trying to appeal to are turned off by it by their own words. Sounds like you want us to shoot ourselves in the foot. How about we do everything we can to support actual creators on the Left instead of using the enemy's cheap money printers to spam garbage?
I was of this opinion exactly but it is undialectical.
Please consider the following narrative:
While some will be turned off by this, they will also be by literally anything else.
As lenin states in left wing communism, purism is absolute idiocy. While the party ideology must remain pure, the outside world never is and never will be.
We have to use populism, demagoguery, every dirty trick in the book.
Also he states that we must only judge deeds, never words. Everything is okay that gets the job done.
Btw this also happens in Germany where the left party wont vote for reforms because the alt right does. This is called ultraleftism and is dysfunctional crap.
The argument here is that AI doesn't get the job done though if people reflexively reject AI. This isnt an argument of moral purity, it's an argument of pragmatics and should be addressed as such.
To that point:
And others? There are of course people who are unreachable by any means. But foe those who are reachable by some means byt not others, it's worth considering whether AI is the best route to do so. And there are definitely those who will see AI and immediately reject or ignore whatever message it contains. They may accuse the poster of being a bot, and doubt the veracity of communistic advocacy in general, which is the path of least resistance in a society that lends suppirt to every communist debunk.
It's precisely because we are fighting from an anti-hegemonic position that we must safeguard our credibility. It is already too easy for our enemies to make our truth seem like lies, and perceived dishonesty will harm us more than the ease of AI will help us.
Would you please prove your arguments because they arent defined enough for me to falsify them. That ai is "reflexively rejected" requires significant knowledge of our focus group.
Then, your argument of a reflexively rejected tool being ineffective requires proof as well.
I said there are some that reflexively reject ai. Do you dispute that?
Thats only a tiny part of what you said.
That some reject ai doesnt make the tool ineffective. You would need to prove when a tool becomes ineffective, that this is the case with the significant group, etc.
Otherwise youre just incorrect.
My argument is that it's worth considering that AI might not be the best route to persuade people.
The person who started this subthread is the one who seems to be claiming that AI is ineffective agitprop, and says that polling backs it up.
I merely think that's worth considering and that their claim should be addressed for what it is, rather than just accusing them of moralizing. If you want the evidence that they claim to have, you shoud reply to them
Thats not what you said. You stated that this were the case, without backing up your claim and now tying to backtrack because you have been caught.
We all "consider" this argument because we are Marxists. I suggest you read up on dialectical materialism.
Your initial claim that ai is just not the right tool is evidently wrong. If you want to become a good marxist you will just accept this valid criticism and learn to grow from it
AI is a tool and a very powerful one at that. It is of absolutely no consequence that some are repulsed by it. Please read up on left communism by lenin. Without theory, you are not a revolutionary but an agent of the counterrevolution.
If you need any help or have any good faith questions i will happily invest more of my time for you, comrade.
Quote me then. Ive been precise with my claims. You.kight be confusing me with another poster
I did in fact not see that you took over from the other person but your claim is no less incorrect.
I understand what you're saying here and to an extent I do agree but as a writer myself I won't deny my immediate bias against AI in the arts. My passion is under assault from machines that lack that same passion, used by people who are lazy and unskilled, promoted by the very people making my life as a prole actively worse for their own profit, and polluting the very medium I want to participate in. The arts have already been placed under siege by capitalism and AI is just another front in that war against human culture. This is a very personal issue for me as a consequence.
I sympathize. Still, this is textbook reactionism. Please reread your theory to let go of this nonsense. Its the same reactionism the luddites had (also for even better reasons because the machines actually killed them at times, they were very dangerous). But the issue is misdirected. It is not the machine that kills you, it is the factory owner, buying the machine and the system, enabling him.
With ai it is the same. It is a tool, nothing more. Try to explore it dialectically and you will see how much energy you are wasting thinking about this. Its not worth it.
More idealism. If you want to support workers, do so by overthrowing capitalism, not demanding they use specific pre-technological methods when creating content for your consumption.
If you find personal fulfillment out of buying stuff from artisans, that's cool! Me too! But individual consumption has nothing to do with leftism.
Oh and where is Lenin's third eye in the image? You're making shit up to get mad at based on tech from years ago.
Not everything you disagree with is idealism. Please learn the definition of the word and stop abusing it.
AI is not a "method" of creation; it is an imitation of it. You have not created anything - a machine did it for you. This is not a tool like a pen and paper, typewriter, or even just a basic computer and keyboard. The algorithm made this; not you. The algorithm is the creator; not you. This is the usurpation of human creativity by an imitative, automated process that is devoid of the same passion and intellect that a human creator is capable of.
We're literally being robbed of our own creativity and you're doing everything in your power to find an excuse for why that's a good thing. What is the point of overthrowing capitalism if all the passions we were supposed to spend our newfound time and energy on have been taken up by machines instead? Actually think about the consequences of what you're advocating for, please.
Never said otherwise. Strawman argument.
I was not referencing the image directly. That was apparent to everyone except you, apparently.
Oh no I have not "created anything"? Workers don't "create", they work. I have worked. Operating machines is work.
Have you created? Are you creating class? Is that class on the side of the working class or not?
Could the energy of tailism to artisanal reaction be better directed elsewhere? We are all products of liberal society, the phones we type and the internet we use as a result of capitalist production; it is in capitalism we find the seeds of its destruction.
It's not "tailism" to point out that mainstream AI use is aiding in the capitalist destruction of not just culture and art but also our ability to think critically and engage with anything complex. There's no "mass hysteria" going on here; these are legitimate concerns that deserve legitimate attention. You're just doing the 21st century equivalent of what they did to the Luddites in the 1800s.
But then Marx happened and we're not going back to ludditism. The point is to supercede ludditism; it doesn't go far enough for worker emancipation.
https://redsails.org/artisanal-intelligence/
Missed the point of the analogy entirely.
I brought up the Luddites because they've been dismissed out of hand as simply being technophobes - kind of like how critics of AI are being treated the same. It's just dismissive of criticism without engaging with it. This is dangerous and definitely not dialectical.
No I'm dismissing luddites because they don't go far enough with worker emancipation. I don't think it is technophobia that's the problem here, it is a deeper reaction.
AI generated "art" is not going to emancipate workers. Please be serious.
Not under capitalism. I thought you said you were a marxist. Please be serious.