Artificial Intelligence and the Socialist Alternative: A Vision from the Perspective of the Electronic Left

Al-Hewar Al-Mutamaddin – Issue 8293 – March 26, 2025 – 08:22


Our friend Rezgar Akrawi has published his book on artificial intelligence, and I had the opportunity to read its electronic version. He describes himself as an independent leftist interested in the left and the technological revolution, and works as an expert in systems development and electronic governance.

I first met him in the autumn of 2003 in Copenhagen, when he invited me to give a lecture on fundamentalisms at the Islamic Cultural Center. At that time, I learned that he was editor-in-chief of a leftist website that publishes thousands of articles annually at a cost not exceeding a few thousand dollars, since those involved are volunteer militants from several Arab countries, producing a bulletin called Al-Hewar Al-Mutamaddin.

I had traveled to Sweden from Berlin, by train and then ferry to Malmö, where comrade Aref Mansour welcomed me, organized a seminar for me in the city where he lives, and then drove me the next day to Copenhagen via a road connecting Sweden to Denmark, consisting of a bridge over the sea and part of it a tunnel under the water.

In Berlin, I had also met Dr. John Nasta, a Syrian graduate of German universities and member of an Arab cultural association called Ibn Rushd. After returning from that trip to Lebanon, Dr. Nasta asked me about an Arabic-language website that could be nominated for the Ibn Rushd Prize. I did not hesitate to nominate Al-Hewar Al-Mutamaddin.

The association discussed the proposal and agreed to grant the prize to whoever represented the site. Rezgar Akrawi kindly sent me the speech he would deliver upon receiving the award. For the first time, I read a text that used the term “electronic left.” The originator of this expression is none other than Rezgar Akrawi himself.

Based on this introduction, I will not permit myself to debate the scientific aspect of the book, i.e., the part related to artificial intelligence, for the author is our teacher in this field, and from him we learn. I will confine myself to presenting ideas closer to impressions than to critique. From a quick reading, it seemed to me that the enemy we must confront is “science” itself, which capitalist civilization had the merit of launching in its modern version against religious metaphysical sciences, while Marx placed before us the task of confronting the brutal side of this civilization, above all the exploitation of human by human.

Science can be used in a brutal way, as with nuclear science or chemistry in general (the barrels of nitrate in Syria are an example). These sciences were used at the beginnings of textile manufacturing and were considered revolutionary. The former socialist system managed to compete and was even pioneering in using science, becoming a leader in space exploration. The Soviet Union was the first to send a spacecraft to the moon. Today also, it seems that China has achieved breakthroughs in penetrating the cyber systems of the United States (my knowledge on the subject does not exceed what is published in the media), and certainly the author is more capable than I am of providing evidence.

The dilemma facing the global left, in its electronic form or in any form of internationals, is not about seeking alternative sciences or ways to limit the brutal use of science, but in presenting an alternative model to the brutal side of capitalism. This is what socialism tried to do in the Leninist experiment of the Soviet Union and the Third International, which lasted three-quarters of a century and during that period managed to engage in competition that was partially successful with the capitalist camp. It presented a model of distribution that was the most just in both ancient and modern history since primitive communism. Yet it also presented a poor model of production and the worst model of governance.

The dilemma, then, lies in the socialist alternative whose realized experiment collapsed, and believers in this alternative must dust off Marx’s ingenious discovery, which was completed in economic analysis and can be summarized in the phrase “the commodity is a fetish” (artificial intelligence is a fetish commodity), but which was not completed in politics— expressed in Samir Amin’s phrase “power is a fetish.”

Socialism was able to confront capitalist nuclear science, not by abolishing it, but by using socialist nuclear science, and thus the balance of terror became the deterrent to any brutal use of science. Can such a thing happen regarding artificial intelligence? I tend to believe that any confrontation with this dangerous science— and every science is dangerous compared to the ignorance that preceded it— will not succeed except under a balance of power tilted in favor of a new global left capable of learning from both the successes and failures of previous leftist experiences.

The dilemma, then, does not lie in the identity of artificial intelligence or any other science, nor in the identity of the party that uses it— whether capitalist or socialist— but in the monopolization of its use by the stronger. This is one of the symptoms of the absence of democracy, whether in capitalism or in realized socialist experiments.

Humans have struggled since the beginning of their existence on this earth for two issues: freedom and justice. The capitalist revolution sided with freedom, and the socialist revolution with justice. It seems to me that the successful battle with capitalism today, including on the field of artificial intelligence, is the one that must be fought for freedom and human rights and for democracy in the political system, that is, for the defense of two political achievements created by capitalist civilization itself and which it soon squandered.

Perhaps it is upon us, we the children of socialism and those who believe in it, to work on restoring socialist thought, by renewing it and reaffirming its values in a form suitable for competing in the arena of struggle with capitalism. In my view, realized socialism collapsed because of a lack of democracy, not because of a lack of justice. To what extent does the phrase I read in a book by Kamal Jumblatt remain valid, though I do not know who originally said it: “What good is bread without freedom?”

Our argument, we socialists, was strong in confronting capitalism when socialism was strong. After the collapse of the realized experiment, it has become incumbent upon us to build the socialist alternative that protects our struggle with capitalism in the field of artificial intelligence as in others. And I believe that the arena of struggle against capitalism, and against the shortcomings of realized socialism, is freedom and democracy.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1