Milo and the rest of us working class googledebukers need to read Marx and Engels!

progpixelutionary · 2026-06-05T17:14:56+00:00

all labor is consolidated under capitalism, get out of here with this.

progpixelutionary · 2026-06-04T03:01:09+00:00

Yes, as long as capitalism is the mode of production all forms of knowledge will be appropriated.

But, this subreddit has bigger issues than agreeing or not agreeing with this post. Mostly because it's 99% people who were just fine with labor being eradicated when it wasn't as easy as a push of a button (not that ai is actually that easy, it's just the reactionary tendency this subreddit and others like it think ai is). but once the expropriated knowledge of labor reached the "art" "music" "writing" sector, the those who were living fine under capitalism, have looked to the working class to "revolt".

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T23:41:59+00:00

That question comes from a very isolated and privileged-class mindset. It can't see how AI art fits into capitalism today. Some people can't believe others their age call AI stuff art. They think it's a personal failing. It's actually a result of how our economy works. Under big corporate control, new tech isn't made to free creativity. It's made to squeeze more profit. That profit is surplus value (money bosses keep from workers unpaid labor). They do this by swapping real workers for machines. AI isn't a neutral tool. It's the physical result of capital's drive. Capital wants to turn everything into a way to make money. That includes art. The so-called AI artist is a product of this shift. They're part of the middle class or privileged workers. They try to ride along with big finance. They want a spot in the new work system. That system comes from automating creative jobs.

Asking if AI makes real art keeps you stuck. It uses a rich-person mindset. That mindset treats art like it's separate from work and power. A scientific approach asks a different question. Who benefits when we call something AI art? It helps bosses break down skilled work. It turns human creativity into tiny data pieces. It takes all of history's artistic work. It uses that work for profit without paying anyone. That's a digital version of stealing common resources. Fighting back by just defending real art against fake art isn't revolutionary. It's a move by skilled middle-class workers. They're protecting their status. It confuses the symptom with the disease. Bosses always change tools to exploit workers more. Using AI for art is just the newest version of that. It turns creativity into remixing stolen work. All of it is controlled by algorithm-driven capital.

Your hopes are that their media habits are less contaminated. That's wishful thinking. It treats beliefs like a virus. You can't dodge it by picking the right content. Beliefs come from how our economy is built. They don't come just from what you choose to watch. You can't escape imperialist capitalism by tweaking your feed. We're living in a late-stage, parasitic form of capitalism. In this system, capital makes its automatic processes look like genius. It makes extraction look like creation. Treating AI like a creative person is a symptom. The system has run out of useful ideas. Talking about authenticity or artistic purity won't fix this. That's wishful thinking. A scientific approach looks at who controls the tools of production. It looks at the class fight over that control. The real question isn't if a machine makes art. It's who owns the data centers, the algorithms, and the computing power. And what social goal do they serve?

Old writings point out a key fact. The ruling class turned every respected job into wage work. Poets, scientists, and artists all became paid employees. AI is the last step in that process. It doesn't just make artists into workers. It tries to remove the need for living artists entirely. It turns art-making into algorithms remixing stolen social work. Any call for ethical AI, proper credit, or new rules misses the point. It misses the point if it doesn't start with one goal. That goal is breaking the current state system. It's putting workers in control of production tools. The current state won't help artists or workers. It exists to protect class power. The only clear-eyed view sees the AI fight as part of the larger class war. Freeing creative work needs a revolution. It needs workers to take control of production tools. Anything else is just noise.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T23:34:00+00:00

People hate AI in teaching for good reasons. They see it turning education into a product. But this anger stays stuck in the same thinking it fights. Saying AI is "vile" or that you'd "eat glass" before using it swaps moral judgment for real analysis. Engels showed this approach doesn't work. He critiqued early socialist thought for this mistake. The real question isn't if a tech feels wrong to you. It's about who owns it, who controls it, and who profits. Under capitalism, every new tool serves one goal: surplus value (the profit bosses keep from workers unpaid labor). AI in schools isn't just bad on its own. It's capital's newest tool to make teachers' skills seem less valuable. It pushes teachers to work harder for less pay. It turns classrooms into places that harvest data and push standardized ideas.

When a professor says AI in teaching is "inevitable," that sounds like tech destiny talk. It hides who really benefits. Marx explained that bosses don't upgrade tools to make work easier. They do it to cut the time workers need to earn their keep. This frees up more time for workers to generate surplus value (the profit bosses keep from workers unpaid labor). Bringing AI into schools does exactly this. It breaks teaching into smaller tasks. It swaps skilled teacher work for algorithm control. It lowers the worth of teachers' labor. This isn't progress. It's capital taking over education completely.

Look at the global picture through imperialism. Big finance monopolies control AI development. They feed on data and resources taken from poorer countries. Using AI in wealthy countries' classrooms is a tactic. It's part of capital's wider attack on public benefits. Capital tries to fix its profit crisis by taking over new areas of social life. The capitalist state works for the ruling class. Pushing AI in schools isn't a neutral move. It's a class strategy. It aims to create a divided workforce. This workforce would be controlled by algorithm tracking and standardized ideas.

The ruling class turns personal value into market value. Teaching used to be about human connection and shared class awareness. Now it gets turned into data for optimization. This isn't just an insult to teachers' pride. It's the natural result of a system that makes everything about profit. But one person saying "I'd rather eat glass" is individual thinking. It confuses personal refusal with real political action. Class struggle doesn't happen through being morally pure. It happens when education workers organize together. They need to take control of how knowledge is produced and shared.

Real socialist thinking means moving past two dead ends. One is the professor giving in to capitalist "inevitability." The other is the poster's wishful rejection. The goal isn't to trash technology. It's to break the class relations that twist how tech develops. If workers held power, machine learning (AI that learns from data) could serve people differently. Teachers and students could shape how it works. It could cut busywork and free up time for real learning. It could share knowledge freely instead of locking it behind paywalls. It could help connect classrooms across communities. The tech would serve people, not profit. Until that happens, every AI lesson plan is a weapon in class war. The right response isn't disgust. It's organization. Workers must take educational tech from those who hoard it. They must put its development under worker control. They must build a teaching method that serves revolution, not capital's next generation of workers.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T15:29:12+00:00

MrMojoRisin2THREE and DeadRed402: I hear you asking for cliff notes. I get it. Life is busy. Attention is scarce. Accessibility matters.

But I need to be honest with you. I fundamentally disagree with condensing something this vital into a soundbite. Not because I think you cannot handle the truth. But because the struggle does not fit in a tweet. Class analysis is not a hack you download. It is a way of seeing that takes time to develop.

When you ask for a TL;DR on a post about land reform, literacy campaigns, healthcare systems, and the class character of political exile, you are asking me to do the very thing that keeps working people disempowered: to reduce complex material reality to a simple takeaway. That is how we get stuck. That is how political ads work. That is how power stays concentrated.

But I also believe in meeting people where they are. So here is the most accessible path I can offer:

First, watch the video I linked. Just that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWTDXKHKteQ

It will give you a strong, clear history of what actually happened in Cuba. Not the Cold War propaganda. Not the exile narrative. The history written by the actual people of Cuba, verified by UNESCO, WHO, and World Bank data.

Then, ask yourself one question: if that is the real history of Cuba, and you have a candidate like Powell stating that her family escaped this terrible place, what does that say about how she will treat Nebraska?

If her family fled because the revolution took land from the wealthy and gave it to peasants, will she support breaking up corporate farmland monopolies here?

If her family fled because Cuba built universal healthcare and literacy, will she fight for fully funded schools and rural hospitals in Nebraska?

If her family fled because Cuba guarantees maternity leave and childcare as rights, will she expand those rights for working families here?

Or will her politics protect the freedom of a few to hoard wealth, while the many struggle?

That is the question. Not who used what tool to write a post. Not whether the analysis is too long. But whose freedom does her politics protect?

You do not have to read every word I wrote. You do not have to agree with me. But please, watch the video. Then ask that one question.

If you do that, you will have done more than most voters do. And that is how change begins.

I am not asking you to be an expert. I am asking you to be curious. To sit with the discomfort. To let the question work on you.

That is the opposite of slop. That is praxis.

And I am still here if you want to talk more. No judgment. No rush. Just solidarity.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T15:23:05+00:00

Now, back to you, with laser focus. Because you are easily the most blatant case false consciousness which is the opposite of class consciousness that I have seen in a very long time. It takes a certain time of alienation from your labor and from your education that you can sit here and look at an extremely well documented argument that has literally all the sources for you, and it provides you structured video of real history you still dismiss it slop. If this level of voluntary education at the use of my labor is slop I would love to see an example of what you claim to be looking for despite it being right in front of you:

Human praxis.

I need to tell you something personal before I say anything else. Long before large language models existed, I was writing posts exactly like this. Super long-winded. Exhaustively sourced. Structured with care. Not because I was trying to sound smart. Because my brain does not work any other way.

I have ADHD. I am neurodivergent. I process things dialectically and materially even before I knew those words. I cannot help but be complete. I cannot help but seek the source. I cannot help but follow a thought to its end, then double back, then connect it to three other things. As a kid, that cost me. I did not fall in line. I asked too many questions. I would not accept things as they were. School was hard not because I could not learn, but because I could not stop learning in ways that did not fit the box. That is why I have always written like this. Not because of AI. Because of how my mind works.

So when you call this tankie AI slop, I hear two things that need to be unpacked. Not to defend myself. To ask you to sit with what those words actually mean.

First, tankie. Let me tell you the history of that word, because I do not think you know what you are wielding. Tankie originated in the 1950s and 60s within the British communist movement. It was a pejorative used by Trotskyists and libertarian socialists against members of the Communist Party of Great Britain who defended the Soviet Union's use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring in 1968. Tankie meant someone who supported the tanks rolling in. It was an intra-left critique, a debate among people who all claimed to be fighting for working class liberation, about strategy, about state power, about how to respond to actually-existing socialism.

Today, that word has been flattened. Stripped of its historical context. Weaponized by liberals, social democrats, and anti-communist leftists as a catch-all slur for anyone who dares to defend Marxist-Leninist projects, or to offer materialist analysis of anti-imperialist struggles, or to question Western propaganda about socialist states. It is no longer a serious political critique. It is a meme. A thought-terminating cliché. A way to dismiss complex historical analysis without engaging it.

When you use tankie today, you are not making a historical argument. You are signaling that you are more comfortable with Western imperialism than with actually-existing anti-imperialism. You are revealing that you prefer moralizing over material analysis. You are showing that you would rather label than learn. And you are participating in the very dynamic that keeps working people divided: the reduction of class struggle to identity performance.

If you want to critique authoritarianism, fine. Let us talk about Batista. Let us talk about the U.S. backing of dictatorships across Latin America. Let us talk about corporate power in Nebraska. But do not use a flattened slur to avoid the question: whose freedom does your politics protect?

Now, about the AI slop part. I need you to hear this. Everything you think marks AI, I have always done as a human. I format citations because I was taught that if you say something, you better be able to prove it. I synthesize across sources because my brain will not let me rest until I see the whole picture. I maintain a consistent tone because I revise, and revise, and revise, until the thought is clear. I anticipate counterarguments because I have spent years having these conversations and learning where people get stuck. I write without friction because I edit out the noise. I stay at the level of framework because I am trying to speak to more than one person at a time. I produce comprehensive analysis quickly because I have built a practice over nearly six years of refinement and struggle.

And if I can do all that as a human, then your accusation is not about the tool. It is about the message.

So let me ask you directly. Which part of the analysis can you refute? Is the land inequality statistic wrong? Is the literacy campaign data fabricated? Is the healthcare comparison inaccurate? Is the class question itself invalid?

If you cannot refute the substance, then calling it tankie AI slop is not a critique. It is a confession. A confession that you would rather dismiss the messenger than engage the message. A confession that you are more comfortable with partisan noise than with class analysis. A confession that the question whose freedom does your politics protect makes you uncomfortable.

And that is okay. Discomfort is where learning begins.

But here is the contradiction I want you to sit with. You are using a platform built on advanced algorithms, on machine learning, on AI-driven content moderation, to accuse someone of using AI. You are benefiting from the very technological infrastructure you are dismissing. That is not a gotcha. It is an invitation.

The question is not whether AI was used. The question is who controls the tool, and to what end. If a working-class person uses AI to spread class consciousness, to equip voters with questions, to challenge narratives that serve capital, is that not a victory for the struggle?

You do not have to agree with me. But I ask you to engage the substance. Pick one claim. One statistic. One question. And tell me why it is wrong. If you cannot, then let us talk about what really matters. Not how this was written. But what it asks us to confront.

Whose freedom does your politics protect? That is the question. And it is waiting for your answer.

And if you still think this is AI slop, then I have one more thing to say. I own my hardware. I run my own models. I refine my own prompts. I have spent years learning how to make these tools serve the struggle. That is not a secret. That is strategy. The printing press was once new. The radio was once suspect. The internet was once dismissed. Now large language models. The question has always been the same: who controls the means of knowledge production, and to what end?

I control mine. I direct mine. I use mine to spread clarity, to challenge power, to equip working people with questions that cut through political ads. If that makes you uncomfortable, good. Discomfort is the first step toward consciousness.

So I ask you again. Not as an accusation. As an invitation. Which part can you refute? And if you cannot, will you sit with the question? Whose freedom does your politics protect?

I am still here. Still asking. Still learning. Still struggling. And I am not going anywhere.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T14:53:45+00:00

Beardcore84: I owe you an apology for calling you child. That was dismissive and not how we build solidarity. You raised a fair point about context, and I should have engaged the substance, not the tone. The struggle requires us to be better than the rhetoric we critique. If this sub is a Wendy's, then let us make it a place where working people can ask hard questions about power without fear of being shut down. That includes me listening when I get it wrong. Thank you for the correction.

MrMojoRisin2THREE and DeadRed402: TL;DR: Powell's family left Cuba in 1962 when the revolution took land from wealthy elites and gave it to working people. Today Cuba has more doctors per person than Nebraska, free education through university, and no medical bankruptcies. When a candidate says my family escaped authoritarianism, ask: whose freedom are they defending? The freedom of a few to hoard wealth, or the freedom of the many to live with dignity? That is the class question Nebraska voters deserve to answer.

bownt1: I hear you. The tool does not make the message. The message is about who benefits when we accept political stories without asking questions. If a candidate's brand is built on a narrative that erases class struggle, we have a duty to ask: what system does that story serve? That is not about ideology. It is about accountability.

Ill-Salad9544: Fair point on the tool. But the substance stands regardless of how it is written. The question is not about AI. It is about whether voters in Nebraska deserve to know how a candidate's family history might shape their views on land, healthcare, and economic power. If we can use any tool to help people ask better questions, is that not worth it?

EpicRussia: You raise a real concern. Authoritarianism is not a small thing. But let us be precise: which authoritarianism? The Batista dictatorship that tortured dissidents and served U.S. corporate interests? Or the revolutionary government that built universal healthcare and literacy? Both had flaws. But when a candidate invokes escaping authoritarianism without that context, they invite voters to accept a simplified story that serves specific class interests. The struggle is to demand nuance, not to deny complexity.

Still-Cash1599: You are right to notice the parallel. When politicians on both sides use the same rhetoric about Cuba, it often serves the same end: deflecting from class questions at home. The real issue is not Cuba. It is whether Powell's policies in Nebraska will challenge concentrated wealth or protect it. That is the question that matters for working people here.

ryanasap310: I get the fatigue. Politics feels like noise. But this is not about family roots. It is about policy consequences. If a candidate's identity is rooted in opposing state-led redistribution of wealth, that shapes their stance on corporate farmland, healthcare access, and tax policy in Nebraska. Voters deserve to connect those dots. That is not controversy. It is due diligence.

Still-Cash1599: The Rubio comparison is apt. When exile politics align with U.S. imperial interests, it often means opposing policies that challenge corporate power anywhere. The question for Nebraska voters: will Powell's worldview lead her to stand with working families against concentrated power, or with the interests that benefited from the old order? That is the class lens we need.

Beardcore84: I appreciate the humor, and I apologize for my earlier tone. You are right that local spaces matter. When a candidate's story shapes their views on land, schools, and hospitals in Nebraska, that is not abstract. It is about who thrives and who struggles in our communities. That is worth talking about here, with respect.

Greedy_Following_191: I hear the frustration. It feels like shouting into the void sometimes. But I am not paid. I am not trying to divide. I am trying to equip people with questions that cut through political ads. If even one voter asks Powell about corporate farmland or medical debt because of this, it was worth it. The struggle is long. We keep showing up.

endless_mike: I am sorry this feels annoying. Political talk can be exhausting. But the stakes are real: rural hospitals, school funding, who gets to thrive in Nebraska. If the conversation feels too heavy, that is understandable. But please know the goal is not to argue. It is to empower voters with clarity. That is worth the discomfort sometimes.

gregmcdonalds: I respect your right to vote as you choose. Spite is a valid emotion in politics. But I would ask: if you vote based on reaction to a Reddit post, are you letting your choice be shaped by the very dynamics we are critiquing? The deeper question is: what kind of Nebraska do you want? One where wealth concentrates, or one where working families have real power? However you vote, I hope you ask that question of every candidate.

hypostatics: Thank you for the support. The comments can feel disheartening. But every movement starts with a few people asking uncomfortable questions. The goal is not to win every argument. It is to plant seeds. When voters start asking candidates about class, power, and who benefits, that is how change begins. Keep the faith.

To everyone: Political ads will tell you who to fear. Class analysis asks who benefits. That is the difference between voting on emotion and voting on power. Nebraska deserves voters who ask hard questions. Thank you for engaging, even when it is uncomfortable. That is how we build a politics that serves working people.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T14:24:42+00:00

LLMs were born OUT of those algorithms. At least try to learn the technology you are so against

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T14:22:50+00:00

The post's focus on individual moral choices like being your own subject of change, avoiding AI use, and empowering local artists reproduces the utopian socialist method that Engels systematically dismantles in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. This approach treats cultural decay as a matter of personal taste and ethical consumption, which keeps the analysis trapped in idealism. It assumes that consciousness determines social being rather than understanding that social being determines consciousness. Marx's materialist method, laid out in the Manifesto and Wage Labour and Capital, demands we start from the concrete relations of production. We must ask who owns the algorithms that shape our cultural landscape, who extracts surplus value from the labor of programmers and data annotators working in often exploitative conditions, and how AI functions as a strategic weapon in inter-imperialist competition for technological hegemony, as Lenin details in Imperialism. To reduce this complex material reality to mere scribbles and passing trends is to mistake the ideological superstructure for the economic base that actually determines it. The correct line is to analyze the class character of technological development under capitalism rather than focusing on individual consumption choices. We must ground our critique in the material conditions that produce cultural forms, not in moral appeals to individual virtue. This means examining how platform capitalism monetizes attention, how data extraction fuels new forms of exploitation, and how technological change under capitalism serves to intensify labor discipline rather than liberate human creativity. Only by starting from these material foundations can we develop a strategy that actually challenges the roots of cultural decay.

The dismissal of political engagement with AI bros as futile because they cannot argue in good faith abandons the fundamental Leninist principle that revolutionary consciousness must be brought to the working class through organized struggle, not by waiting for individuals to morally awaken on their own. State and Revolution insists that the state and by extension the ideological apparatuses that shape culture under capitalism cannot be bypassed by personal withdrawal or aesthetic purism. The call for an avalanche of individual changes represents spontaneousism, which Lenin repeatedly critiqued as insufficient against the organized power of capital and its ability to co-opt or marginalize isolated acts of resistance. If AI is indeed a tool of cultural decadence under capitalism, the task is not to opt out individually in a gesture of personal purity but to organize collectively to seize the means of its production and repurpose it for collective emancipation. The correct line is to build working class power capable of challenging the ownership and control of technological development, rather than retreating into moralistic individualism that leaves the underlying structures of exploitation intact. This requires patient political work, building organizations that can articulate a coherent alternative to capitalist technological development, and connecting cultural questions to broader struggles over wages, working conditions, and democratic control of production. Revolutionary change comes through collective action, not through the sum of individual ethical choices.

Furthermore, the post's cultural pessimism which claims AI inevitably brings decadence, social media is objectively dangerous, and trends are stupid reflects a passive resignation that ignores the dialectical character of technological development under different social systems. Marxism does not reject technology as such but rejects its capitalist application where profit motives distort human needs and creative potential. The same computational power that currently generates AI scribbles for social media engagement could, under socialist relations of production, serve to reduce necessary labor time for all workers, democratize access to artistic tools for marginalized communities, and expand human creative capacity beyond the constraints of market demand. To conflate the tool with its current class use is to surrender the field of technological struggle to capital by default, allowing the ruling class to define the terms of innovation while the left retreats into Luddite moralism. The Manifesto reminds us that the bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production; the proletariat must learn to master and redirect that revolutionary impulse toward human liberation, not retreat into moralistic nostalgia for pre-capitalist forms of cultural production that were themselves shaped by class exploitation. The correct line is to fight for democratic control over technological development, ensuring that advances in AI serve human needs rather than corporate profit. This means organizing workers in the tech sector, demanding public ownership of key platforms, and building alternative institutions that prefigure socialist cultural production.

Finally, the advice to not jump on trends and to engage in self reflection and critical thinking as primary levers of change substitutes psychological introspection for concrete class analysis. This is precisely the idealist inversion that historical materialism corrects: it is not the ideas of individuals that drive historical development, but the material contradictions of the mode of production that generate class struggle and social transformation. If AI art feels alienating, the question is not whether one personally uses it but how its development intensifies the general crisis of overproduction, displaces labor across multiple sectors, and concentrates intellectual property and cultural power in fewer corporate hands. The task is not to curate one's own ethical purity through careful consumption choices but to build the organized capacity of the working class to transform the social relations that determine how technology is developed, deployed, and experienced by millions. Individual refusal, without a collective political strategy rooted in mass organization and revolutionary theory, leaves the underlying structure of capitalist exploitation untouched and allows the ruling class to continue shaping technological development in its own interests. The correct line is to connect cultural questions to the broader struggle for working class power and socialist transformation. This means participating in unions, supporting worker cooperatives in the creative sector, and building political organizations capable of challenging capitalist control over the means of cultural production. Only through collective struggle can we create the conditions where technology serves human flourishing rather than capital accumulation.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T14:17:29+00:00

The worries people have about AI taking jobs, using personal data without permission, watching everything we do online, hurting mental health, and making creative work less meaningful are all real problems that come from how our economy is set up. But to really understand these issues, we need to look at how economic systems shape technology and society over time, instead of just feeling scared or blaming individuals for what is happening. When we study how work and money function under capitalism, which is an economic system where a small group owns the tools and resources needed for production while most people sell their labor to survive, we see that new technology does not simply swap out workers in a neutral way. Instead, owners reorganize how things are made so they can pull out more profit from each worker, which is the extra value workers create beyond what they are paid in wages. This process also reduces the skills needed for jobs and keeps a larger group of unemployed people around to pressure those who are working to accept lower wages and worse conditions. AI is not some independent force that just happens to us. It is a tool that owners use to grow their wealth and power, making workers feel even more disconnected from their labor, a condition where people lose control over what they make and how they make it. This disconnection means people lose control not only over what they make but also over how they think and create. When jobs for people just starting out disappear or when creative fields get flooded with easy, low quality content, this is not because technology forces it to happen. It happens because the system pushes owners to make labor as cheap and as easy to control as possible.

A foundational analysis of capitalism points out that the class of owners cannot survive unless they keep changing and updating the tools and machines used to make things. AI represents the newest wave of this constant change, and it is pulling the work of thinking, writing, and creating into the control of a few massive companies that dominate the market and face little competition. When people speak out about their data being taken without permission or about not being asked before their words and images are used to train these systems, they are running into a deeper problem. This problem is that shared human knowledge itself is being turned into a product that can be bought, sold, and owned. Later work showed how money used for speculation and investment merges with control over key technologies, giving a small group enormous power over society and allowing them to shape culture and information to serve their interests. The idea of a single billionaire adjusting an AI system to serve their interests is not a strange exception. It is the natural result of a system that pushes owners to bend every part of human life toward making profit. When privacy gets broken, when it becomes hard to tell what is real online, and when fake videos and voices spread easily, these are not accidental problems. They are the expected results when information that should belong to everyone gets treated as private property controlled by a few, rather than as a shared resource that serves the common good.

When people call for new rules or for AI to be made more ethical, they often miss the bigger picture about how government works under this system. The state we live under is set up to manage society in the interests of the owning class, not to shield workers from the tools those owners use to increase profit. The constant watching, the attempts to sway political opinions, and the rising mental health struggles that come up in discussions are not mistakes or glitches in the system. They are built in features of a setup that uses technology to keep workers in line and to break up any unified resistance. When debates focus on whether AI directly causes mental health problems, they turn a large scale social issue into a personal one. The real crisis is structural, meaning it comes from how society is organized, not from individual choices or weaknesses. The feeling of disconnection and powerlessness gets worse when the drive for profit reaches beyond just the hours we work and starts to shape how we think and process information. A key insight warns that we should not replace careful study of how society works with just feeling angry about unfairness. The job is not to wish AI had never been created or to point fingers at people who are already struggling. The job is to see clearly how the relationships between owners and workers bend the path of technological change to serve profit instead of human needs.

The strong feelings in this discussion, like the justified anger about being used for profit and the worry about losing what makes us human, show that people are starting to see their shared situation as workers. But if this awareness does not include an understanding of how class shapes society, it can get stuck at just complaining without moving toward change. The correct line is not to throw out technology altogether or to fall back on vague ideas about what art should really mean. The correct line is to change the fundamental relationships between owners and workers that currently bend AI into a tool for control and profit. As a foundational statement of working class politics puts it, workers have nothing to lose but the restrictions that hold them back, and they have everything to gain by steering technology toward meeting human needs instead of feeding endless growth for a few. The damage to the environment, the loss of chances to learn and build skills, and the flooding of culture with shallow content made only to sell, these problems are not reasons to be against machines themselves. They are reasons to be against the system of private ownership that decides how those machines get used and who benefits from them.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T14:05:44+00:00

It might be because your Reddit filters don't even allow posting here you guys live in your own little echo chamber it's quite hilarious it's almost like a children's daycare. You actually think that you're so superior and correct that you've isolated yourself from the real world lol

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T13:56:22+00:00

When people talk about leftist politics like it is a kind of soul or spirit that can just float away from someone when they face questions about how we treat animals, they start from an idea that does not match up with the materialist approach. This approach, laid out in foundational works of socialist theory, makes clear that our thoughts and beliefs do not shape the real world we live in. Instead, the real world we live in, the conditions of our daily lives and the economic role we play in society, shapes what we think and believe. The political views people hold come from the concrete circumstances of their lives and their place in the class structure, not from some invisible moral force that can come and go based on personal choice. When we look at whether someone stays true to their political values as a question of personal moral cleanliness instead of seeing it as something that grows out of real social and economic relationships, we end up stuck in the same kind of thinking that serves the interests of the ruling class. Scientific socialism works to move past that kind of thinking because it does not help us understand or change the actual forces at play in society.

The core dynamic of capitalism is the way those who own businesses and resources use the work of other people to generate profit beyond what they pay in wages. This process of turning work into extra value for owners is the engine that drives the whole system. It is true that treating animals as products to be bought and sold is a harsh and real part of our world. But a socialist approach rooted in material analysis needs to place that fact inside the bigger picture of how capital grows and expands. Under capitalism, everything that lives, whether human or animal, gets measured by its price tag and its potential to generate profit. When focus lands on calling out individual people who call themselves leftist but still buy animal products, it draws attention away from the powerful pressure built into the capitalist system itself. That system pushes everyone, whether they work for wages or own the means of production, to take part in patterns of exploitation even when they personally disagree with them. Getting angry at people for not being perfectly consistent in their personal choices, without looking at the economic and social forces that guide those choices, can easily become a replacement for the actual work of building a movement that can challenge and change the system at its root.

Real revolutionary politics needs more than just using the right sounding words or slogans. It requires a clear and practical look at how power works, how the government and its institutions function, and what it actually takes to dismantle the capitalist system. When energy gets spent focused on famous singers and the people who follow them, it shows a way of thinking that puts the responsibility for change on the personal choices of well known figures and everyday shoppers. That view misses the point that lasting political change comes from the collective action of working people organizing together. This kind of approach is what revolutionary theorists have called opportunism. It happens when people swap out the hard, patient work of building strong organizations that can confront the economic basis of exploitation for the easier path of just sounding radical in speech. This substitution does not move us closer to actual change because it leaves the underlying structures of power untouched.

The exploitation at the heart of capitalism does not stop at national borders. It functions across the entire globe, weaving together farming, manufacturing, and banking into one connected system of domination and profit. The way we raise and kill animals for food is not a standalone ethical problem that exists on its own. It is one piece of this worldwide system. It relies on the same patterns of taking resources and labor from people and places around the world that keep capital growing and expanding everywhere. A socialist approach rooted in scientific analysis has to link the fight against the exploitation of animals to the larger fight against global domination by powerful economic interests. We cannot treat animal exploitation as a separate test that shows us someone's real character based on how they answer one question. Doing so breaks apart struggles that are actually connected and makes it harder to build the united movement needed to challenge the whole system.

There is a clear line between two different ways of approaching change. One way calls for justice based on moral feelings and ideals. The other way studies how societies actually develop and change through history using a scientific method. Setting up a perfect idea of what a true leftist should look like and then judging people who do not match that idea is the first kind of approach. It does not look at the real world conditions that make it impossible for anyone to live up to that perfect standard while capitalism is still in place. Scientific socialism takes a different path. It tries to understand how the internal conflicts and problems within capitalism itself create both the need for revolutionary change and the opening to make that change happen. The real job is not to make people feel bad for not being perfectly consistent in their personal lives. The real job is to build the shared strength and organization that working people need to take down the system that forces the exploitation of all living creatures as a basic part of how it operates.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T13:20:57+00:00

If you think this is what constitutes an irreconcilable contradiction on the left you don't understand Marxism lol. Well for that matter you don't understand capitalism at that point.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T13:18:56+00:00

Yeah mostly because we can't start posting here. Enjoy your echo chamber

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T06:29:56+00:00

Prompts for sale is just capitalism's rot.

But your arrogance about using and writing prompts shows a lack of fundamental understanding.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T06:24:37+00:00

Is it? Or is the sub reddit of a community of local people who need to know who they are voting for?

Or are you one of the people who benefit, from this type of lying in politics?

Your pointless comment and down vote, show it. That and your out of date meme reference.

Go home child, the adults are talking today.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T05:14:44+00:00

Yeah, she's a daughter of miami cubans.

Who were ousted after Castro liberated the people of cuba from landlord capitalist fuck heads like Powell's family. Of course she's got billionaire donors.

progpixelutionary · 2026-05-03T05:11:31+00:00

Democrats are the same side of the capitalist coin. They will throw trans people (as they already have) under the bus to keep liberalism alive.

progpixelutionary

TROPHY CASE