The Debate on AI: A Marxist-Leninist Approach
"Socialism
is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest
discoveries of modern science." Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness
The confusion around AI is
perhaps the most widespread ideological battlefield of our time—and it is being
waged with the same weaponization of science that the bourgeoisie has always
employed. The narrative is carefully constructed:
- "AI is neutral technology":
The bourgeois apologists hide the class character of its development and
application. Technology is presented as value-neutral, ahistorical, and
classless.
- "AI will liberate humanity":
The techno-utopians obscure the fact that under capitalism, AI liberates
capital from labor, not humanity from toil.
- "AI is inevitable, adapt or perish":
The fatalists disarm the working class by presenting technological
development as a force of nature, not a product of class relations.
- "AI is dangerous, we must regulate it":
The reformists offer "regulation," "ethics
committees," and "responsible AI" — band-aids that leave
the capitalist foundation intact, creating the illusion of control while
capital continues to direct development.
These are all forms of
ideological warfare. They all serve to obscure one central truth: The
character of any technology—including AI—is determined not by its technical
specifications but by the relations of production under which it is developed
and deployed.
This confusion around AI is the
latest manifestation of the ideological warfare we have examined in previous
articles — the confusion between socialism and communism, and the weaponization
of bourgeois terminology against socialist states. In each case, the
bourgeoisie presents its system as natural and inevitable, and socialism as
impossible or backward.
In this article, we will study the subject in a dialectical flow: the theoretical foundations for science, technology, and socialism; the bourgeois narrative and its function; the revolutionary position under socialism; and the imperative to seize and repurpose AI for human liberation.
Part One: Theoretical Foundations — Science, Technology, and Socialism
Section 1: The
Marxist-Leninist Conception of Science
Marxism-Leninism does not oppose
science — it opposes the ownership of science by capital.
Science is a productive force, and its character is determined by the relations
of production under which it is developed and deployed.
Science as a Productive Force
Marx and Engels established that
science and technology are productive forces. Under capitalism, however, these
productive forces are transformed into instruments of exploitation. The
bourgeoisie presents science as "neutral" to hide this class
character. Because the primary goal of capitalism is the maximization of
surplus value, technology is deployed to extract more labor from workers for
less relative pay. Science under capitalism cannot be neutral — it serves
profit, not humanity in general and the laboring masses in particular.
Lenin's Contribution
Lenin inherited and developed
Marx's views on science and technology. He argued that building socialism and
developing the economy must depend on science and technology. Lenin's famous
formulation captured this vision:
"Communism
is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country."
For Lenin, socialism was not
simply a political change; it required a technological transformation. Lenin
repeatedly stressed the need to put science and ideology at the service of the
new socialist order. He recognized that "science and technology, with
every step forward, inevitably and mercilessly destroy the foundation of
small-scale production within capitalist society."
The core of Lenin's analysis of
the peasantry and small-scale commodity production, detailed in his early
economic work The Development of Capitalism in Russia, relates to
the idea that economic development depends on science and technology. His
analysis dismantled the Narodniks' argument to bypass capitalism entirely by
building a socialist society on the foundation of peasant communes. Lenin
argued that science and technology are not neutral forces but actively
accelerate class divisions even in a backward economy.
Stalin's Emphasis on
Technology
Stalin declared:
"The
Bolsheviks must become masters of technique."
He understood that technology is
nothing without people:
"Technology
is nothing without people. People are the decisive factor."
This critical point in the Soviet
Union was the fundamental shift from importing foreign expertise to rapidly
engineering a brand-new generation of Soviet-trained workers and engineers. In
his 1931 speech, Stalin warned:
"We are
fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make this
distance good in ten years. Either we do it, or they shall crush us."
Under Stalin, the
Marxist-Leninist view that machines are merely dead labor until human willpower
animates them, through education, millions of peasants became literate
"masters of technique" in less than a generation. This was the
Marxist-Leninist approach to technology: not as a replacement for people, but
as a tool to be mastered by people through education and collective effort.
The Soviet Example
The Soviet Union demonstrated
that under socialism, science can flourish. The launch of Sputnik was declared
"the natural victory of socialism over capitalism." Soviet science
was supported by the state and directed toward the construction of socialism.
The Soviet Union created research institutes where scientists could concentrate
on research without teaching obligations. The Stakhanovite movement, launched
in August 1935, fundamentally transformed everyday life in Soviet
manufacturing, fostering a technical culture while rapidly increasing
industrial output.
Note: The Lysenko
affair was a specific historical episode, not the essence of Soviet science.
The bourgeoisie uses it to discredit socialist science while ignoring the
systematic suppression of science under capitalism for profit. Capitalists
suppress knowledge through financial starvation, media control, and
institutional capture — which has the functional outcome of a legal ban on any
research that threatens profit. Dominant industries control the funding for
research, own the media channels, control information flow, and lobby
governments to shape regulatory standards. They create conditions where
contradicting science becomes practically invisible to the public, and without
funding, it does not develop.
This historical experience demonstrates a fundamental truth: the character of science and technology is determined not by their technical specifications but by the relations of production under which they are developed and deployed.
Section 2: Productive Forces
and Relations of Production
AI is a productive force. Under
capitalism, it is subordinated to extraction and control. Under socialism, it
could be subordinated to human liberation.
The Marxist Framework
The mode of production is the
unity of productive forces and relations of production. Productive forces
include science, technology, and labor. Relations of production are determined
by who owns the means of production. When productive forces develop, they come
into contradiction with existing relations of production.
AI as a Productive Force
AI is the most advanced form of
technology in our era, representing a new quality of productivity characterized
by the intelligence of productive factors. Under capitalism, AI is adopted and
operated as an intrinsic element of the productive forces — but as an object of
labor that can be exploited for profit generation.
Marx's "Fragment on
Machines" from the Grundrisse provides direct evidence
about a future stage of capitalism where the primary force of production is no
longer manual muscle power, but the "general intellect" driven by
knowledge and science. Marx predicted that as machinery becomes automated, the
worker ceases to be the main agent of production and instead stands alongside
the process as a regulator:
"Labour
no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather,
the human being comes to relate to the production process more as watchman and
regulator."
"The
worker no longer inserts a modified natural thing as middle link between the
object and himself; rather, he inserts the process of nature, transformed into
an industrial process, as a means between himself and inorganic nature, which
he masters. He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its
chief actor."
Marx also argued that knowledge
and science would replace direct labor time:
"The
creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labour time and on the amount
of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set in motion during
labour time, whose 'efficiency' [...] is instead proportionate to the general
state of science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this
science to production."
He defined the "general
intellect" as follows:
"The
development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge
has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the
conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of
the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it."
"Nature
builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting
mules etc. These are products of human industry [...] organs of the human
brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified."
In our era, generative AI is the
ultimate realization of general intellect. It is the automated crystallization
of humanity's collective intelligence, a single queryable software
architecture fed by historical data of human socialization and thought.
When we put together Marx's
arguments — that machines are "organs of the human brain" and
"the power of knowledge, objectified" — he was outlining the precise
mechanics of generative AI. AI is a massive repository of human output, writing,
and knowledge converted into an automated system that operates without
dependence on manual labor. In this sense, AI represents the realization of the
shift Marx predicted.
The Contradiction Under
Capitalism
AI is developed by and for
capital. The idea that AI is a "neutral," objective arbiter of truth
is a carefully constructed myth because its mathematical equations and codes
are not immune to human bias, ideology, or economic interests. In other words,
it has data within it covering all the inequalities and historical bias. AI
does not absorb the concrete world as we see and live; it absorbs the world as
it is written on the internet and through "training," which in
reality reflects the hegemony of those who carry out the feeding of data,
algorithms, coding, and training. The algorithm — what type of data goes in,
what goes out, how the parameters are weighted, and what makes an output
successful — is all fed by "humans." Considering that the data on
the internet is dominantly Western and English, tech companies decide what is
safe, what is propaganda (government-controlled media vs. corporate media),
what is polite, and what is appropriate. The "neutrality" of AI
narrative is an endorsement of the status quo propagated by the tech companies,
and thus it cannot be anything but ideological. AI under capitalism is a
powerful instrument of "narrative" control filtered through the
historical biases of the bourgeoisie and corporations.
While enhancing the productive
forces of society, AI simultaneously renders the fundamental contradictions of
capitalism more visible. Under capitalism, AI serves to increase the
productivity of human labor — but this productivity is appropriated by capital.
AI under capitalism is primarily used to help digital capital integrate other
capital sectors and to subsume labor processes.
Marx distinguished between
the formal subsumption of labor — where the tools of
production are changed little — and the real subsumption of labor —
where capital completely redesigns the physical tools and the labor process
itself. AI represents an advanced phase of real subsumption, dictating the
exact pace of each work process and subordinating labor to the rhythm and logic
of the software architecture. This creates the ultimate alienation of labor:
the worker becomes a regulator of a process they no longer control.
The Socialist Alternative
Under a socialist system,
artificial intelligence can break through the tool limitations of capital
accumulation. It can be transformed into a strategic fulcrum for liberating
productive forces and optimizing social relations. When freed from the imperatives
of the endless cycle of profit-seeking, AI undergoes a fundamental shift from
being weaponized as a tool to compress wages or alienate workers to the
transformation into an apparatus for collective liberation and conscious
planning for the benefit of society.
Having established the framework, we must now examine how AI actually functions under capitalism — and what it reveals about the system that produces it. The bourgeois narrative presents AI as neutral, inevitable, and progressive. The reality is quite different.
Part Two: The Bourgeois
Narrative — AI as Ideology
Section 3: The Myth of
Neutrality and AI as a Weapon of Capital
The bourgeoisie presents AI as
value-neutral, ahistorical, and classless. This is ideological warfare against
socialism.
The Positivist Illusion
The dominant bourgeois approach
seeks authority through positivist claims for objective scientific knowledge,
which obscures the class character of technological development. Technology is
presented as if it exists outside of social relations.
The Erasure of Class
The bourgeoisie cannot analyze
technology through class relations. So they reduce technology to technical
specifications, ignoring who controls it and who benefits from it. This is the
same mechanism we have seen in the confusion between socialism and communism.
The Function of the Myth
If technology is
"neutral," then its effects are "natural" and
"inevitable." This disarms any resistance: "You can't fight
progress." This serves capital by presenting exploitation as technological
necessity.
But AI under capitalism is not
neutral. It is a weapon.
AI as a Weapon of Capital
Under capitalism, AI is developed
and deployed to extract profit, control labor, and manufacture consent. In
practical reality, AI as a "weapon of capital" takes several forms:
- Automation in any industry destroys labor
power and disciplines workers.
- Surveillance serves the dominant class to
control populations and suppress dissent.
- Algorithms and recommendation engines manipulate
and manufacture consent.
- Data extraction creates a new field of
profit extraction as a new form of primitive accumulation.
1. Automation to Destroy Labor
Under capitalism, machines —
including AI — serve to increase the productivity of human labor, but this
productivity is appropriated by capital. AI is used to replace workers, driving
down wages and increasing exploitation. This is not "progress" — it
is class warfare.
2. Surveillance to Control
AI enables unprecedented
surveillance of workers and populations. This is not for "security";
it is for control. Under capitalism, surveillance serves capital, not the
people.
3. Manipulation to Manufacture
Consent
AI is used to manipulate public
opinion through algorithms and recommendation engines. This is not
"personalization" — it is mind management. The bourgeoisie uses AI to
manufacture consent for its rule.
4. The Three Contradictions of
Capitalist AI
- Technological monopolization: AI is
concentrated in the hands of a few tech monopolies.
- Digital labor exploitation: AI depends on
the exploitation of digital labor.
- Epistemic colonialism: AI represents the
private monopolization of knowledge, data, and computational
infrastructure. The concentration of AI is in the hands of a few tech monopolies in
the Global North. Global South is excluded from its benefits while its
data is extracted. This is epistemic colonialism — the privatization of
human knowledge by capital.
The bourgeoisie wants you to believe AI is either a savior or an inevitable threat — never a tool of class power.
Section 4: The Utopian
Distraction and the Fatalist Trap
The bourgeoisie presents two
false narratives: that AI will solve all problems, and that AI is inevitable
and resistance is futile.
The Techno-Utopian Narrative
AI is the new and most effective
utopian distraction, with claims that "AI will solve all problems"
regardless of the political system. In fact, the problems are created by
capitalism, and under capitalism no problems concerning the laboring people can
be solved. With this utopian distraction, the capitalist class shifts attention
from class struggle to technological salvation, creating a passivity of
"wait and see" for the technology to save us all.
"AI will solve poverty,
disease, and inequality." This shifts attention from class struggle to
technological salvation. It creates passivity: "Wait for technology to
save us." The reality: AI under capitalism creates the problems it claims
to solve.
The Fatalist Narrative
AI is also a fatalist trap, with
the argument that it is inevitable and resistance to it futile. Thus, the
argument that capitalism is the only possible future is reinforced, and through
this they strive to disarm the revolutionary consciousness of the people:
technology itself is the "revolution" to save all humanity.
"AI is inevitable,
resistance is futile." This presents capitalism as the only possible
future. It disarms revolutionary consciousness. The reality: technology is not
inevitable — it is developed and deployed by class forces.
The Connection to Bourgeois
Ideology
Both narratives serve the same
function: to prevent the working class from understanding that who
controls technology is the decisive question. This is the same
ideological warfare we have seen in the confusion between socialism and
communism and in the "cult of personality" accusation.
To counter these narratives, we must return to the Marxist-Leninist method.
Part Three: The Revolutionary
Position — AI Under Socialism
Section 5: What AI Could Be
Under Socialism
Under socialism, AI development
would be planned by the state, not driven by profit. Research priorities would
be set by human needs, not market demand. The state would ensure that AI serves
the people, not to exploit them. Only under socialism could AI serve human
liberation. That’s why the question is not "should we have AI?" but
"who controls AI?"
From a Marxist-Leninist
perspective, AI is a productive force under capitalism that is subordinated to
the extraction of profits and control of minds and opposition. Only under
socialism could AI be subordinated to building socialism, preparation for the
transition to communism, and the liberation of humanity.
Under a socialist system, AI
could be used for:
Democratic Planning
AI could be used to optimize
production and distribution for the benefit of all — not for profit
maximization, but for need satisfaction. This is the rational planning that
socialism requires.
Elimination of Monotonous
Labor
AI could free humanity from
repetitive, dangerous, and dehumanizing work. This would allow for the
development of human potential. This is the transition to "labor as life's
prime want" that Marx described.
Mass Education and Culture
AI could be a tool for mass
enlightenment — not for manipulation, but for liberation. Under socialism, AI
could democratize knowledge and culture.
Public Ownership of Data
Data is the raw material of AI.
Under capitalism, data is privately owned and exploited. Under socialism, data
would be a collective resource of humanity.
Under the framework of the
socialist system, artificial intelligence can break through the tool
limitations of capital appreciation and be transformed into a strategic fulcrum
for liberating productive forces and optimizing social relations.
This is not utopianism. This is the application of the Marxist-Leninist method to the most advanced technology of our era."
Section 6: The Revolutionary
Imperative
Just as the “socialism/communism”
confusion serves the bourgeoisie, AI confusion serves capital. The bourgeoisie
wants you to believe AI is either a savior or an inevitable threat — never a
tool of class power.
Marxist-Leninists are not against
AI. They are against capitalist AI. The struggle is not technological — it is
political.
No Marxist-Leninist could be
against science. The question of AI for them is not "should we have
AI?" but "who will control AI and for what purposes?" Science
must serve people, not profit. Here the opposition of Marxist-Leninists is focused:
not science itself, but the purpose of its use — for profit and enslavement of
people.
We Are Not Luddites
Going back in history, the
Luddite raids in 1811–1816 primarily targeted the mechanical knitting machine.
It was not new technology or a machine, but a 200-year-old one. For
generations, these exact machines were owned and used by skilled textile
artisans in their own homes. Accusations of Luddites as technophobes conceal
the fact that they did not object to the machine; they objected to the factory
system that took the machines out of their hands and utilized them in large
corporate mills.
The Luddites were not against
technology — they were against the use of technology to destroy their
livelihoods, against exploitation. The Marxist-Leninist position is identical:
we are against the ownership of technology by capital. The bourgeoisie presents
Marxist-Leninists as "anti-science" to discredit our valid argument.
The "AI Replaces
Labor" Narrative — Capitalist-Specific, Not Universal
The bourgeoisie presents the
"AI replaces laborers" narrative as if it were a universal law of
technological development. It is not. It is a law of capitalist technological
development. This is true under capitalism — but it is not a universal law. In
socialist countries like China, Vietnam, and North Korea, workers are retrained
and redeployed, not fired.
Under capitalism, labor is a
cost. Reducing costs increases profit. Therefore, AI is deployed to replace
workers — and workers are fired.
Under socialism, labor is not a
cost — it is a source of human dignity and social contribution. The goal of
technological development is not profit maximization but need satisfaction and
the liberation of human potential. Therefore, AI is deployed to eliminate
monotonous, dangerous, or dehumanizing work — not to fire workers.
China provides concrete
evidence of this distinction.
The Chinese Labor Law protects
workers from being replaced by AI or automation without cause. AI is considered
a "company preference" or "choice" — not a legitimate
reason for termination. Under socialist labor policy, when technology is
introduced, workers are retrained and redeployed. The state coordinates the
introduction of new technology with labor needs, ensuring that automation
serves the people's needs, not corporate profit.
This is the class character of
technology in practice. The "AI replaces labor" narrative is true
only where capital rules. Under socialism, AI replaces the burden of
labor — not the laborer.
North Korea provides further
evidence.
Under the Juche ideology,
technology is developed and deployed to serve the people and strengthen the
nation — not to replace workers. Full employment is guaranteed by the state.
Technology is introduced through state planning, not market forces. The state
coordinates the introduction of new technology with labor needs, ensuring that
workers are retrained and redeployed. The working class is the master of the
means of production.
Vietnam offers additional
proof.
Under Vietnam's Labor Code,
technology is not a legitimate reason for termination. Workers must be
consulted before new technology is introduced. Employers are required to
provide training and retraining when technology changes. The state promotes
"inclusive digital transformation" — technology must serve the
people, not exploit them. The Vietnamese approach demonstrates that technology
can be introduced without sacrificing workers' well-being.
This is the class character of
technology in practice. The "AI replaces labor" narrative is
true only where capital rules. Under socialism, AI replaces the burden of
labor — not the laborer.
The Class Character of
Technology
Technology is not and cannot be neutral;
it serves the ruling class. Under capitalism, technology serves capital. Under
socialism, technology could serve humanity. The character of technology is
determined by the relations of production. In historical materialism,
technology is never a neutral, isolated force in history. Its development,
deployment, architecture, and social effects are entirely determined by the
relations of production: who owns the means of production and how labor is
organized. If the economic base changes, the very character of the technology
shifts with it. AI is not an autonomous entity that is inherently
"good" or "bad" for society. That perspective is what Marx
called commodity fetishism: treating relations between people as if they are
merely relations between objects.
The Reformist Trap
"Regulating" AI while
leaving capitalism intact is not a solution — it is a distraction.
The bourgeoisie offers
"regulation," "ethics committees," and "responsible
AI." These are band-aids that leave the capitalist foundation intact. They
create the illusion of control while capital continues to direct development.
The solution is not regulation — it is the seizure of the means of production.
Reformism serves to divert energy
from revolutionary struggle. It presents the problem as technical rather than
political. It accepts the capitalist framework and asks only for
"nicer" capitalism.
The problem is not AI — it is
capitalist AI. The solution is not regulation — it is the seizure of the means
of production. The struggle is not technological — it is political.
The idea that AI is
"autonomous" is itself a bourgeois myth designed to disarm
resistance. It is developed and deployed by human beings under specific social
relations. Under socialism, those social relations would change, and the
character of AI would change with them.
The Revolutionary Task
Seize the means of production —
including the means of technological development. Repurpose AI for human
liberation. Build socialism as the precondition for humane science.
The Connection to Previous
Articles
The confusion about AI's
"neutrality" is the same kind of ideological warfare as the confusion
between socialism and communism. The bourgeoisie uses the same tactics: present
their system as natural and inevitable, present socialism as impossible or
backward. The response is the same: expose the weapon, clarify the science, and
fight for socialism.
The victory of socialism globally
requires not only the defeat of capitalist economics but the defeat of
capitalist ideology.
Part Four: Conclusion
"Socialism
is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest
discoveries of modern science." Lenin, "Left-Wing"
Childishness
We began with Lenin's words. We
end with them.
The bourgeoisie wants you to
believe that AI is neutral, inevitable, and progressive. In reality, under
capitalism, AI serves capital, not humanity. Under socialism, AI could serve
human liberation. The question is not technological — it is political.
Summary of the Argument
The bourgeoisie presents AI as
neutral, inevitable, and progressive. In reality, under capitalism, AI serves
capital, not humanity. Under socialism, AI could serve human liberation. The
question is not technological — it is political.
Proof in Practice
The "AI replaces labor"
narrative is often presented as an inevitable fact of technological progress.
But this is only true under capitalism, where labor is a cost to be minimized.
The socialist world demonstrates
otherwise. In China, the Labor Law protects workers from AI-driven termination
— workers are retrained and redeployed, not fired. In Vietnam, the Labor Code
requires consultation and retraining when new technology is introduced. In
North Korea, full employment is guaranteed by the state, and technology is
introduced through planning, not market forces.
Under socialism, technology
replaces the burden of labor — not the laborer. This is the
class character of technology in practice, and it proves that the "AI
replaces labor" narrative is not universal — it is capitalist-specific.
The Scientific Distinction
We are not against science — we
are against capitalist science. We are not against AI — we are against
capitalist AI. The struggle is not technological — it is political. AI must be
seized and repurposed for the liberation of humanity. Socialism is the precondition
for humane science. Under socialism, AI could help build the foundation for
communism. By eliminating monotonous labor, freeing humanity for creative work,
and democratizing knowledge, AI could contribute to the development of the
productive forces and the transformation of consciousness that communism
requires
The Call to Action
The duty of Marxist-Leninists is
to expose the myth of AI neutrality and defend the possibility of socialist
science as history has proven. That necessitates the fight for the seizure of
the means of production in each given country (without waiting for a “world
revolution”) — including the means of technological development. We have to recognize
and make the masses comprehend that the struggle is not technological — it is
political.
The task is to seize that
engineering and place it in the service of the people.
Only socialism can liberate
science. Only science can liberate humanity.
The future is not technological —
it is political. Only under socialism can science serve the people. Confusion
about socialism and communism is exactly what prevents people from seeing this.
Socialism is the precondition for
humane science. Communism is the society where science finally serves human
development without exploitation.
Erdogan A
September 9, 2026
(I acknowledge the use of DeepSeek for the dialectical structuring and evaluation of the dialectical flow of the structured sections, checking for redundancy, and the correctness of data, playing "devil's advocate" to find out what the counterarguments would be, validation of the correctness of the referenced quotes, a final grammar check, and evaluation of the article.)
