AT the recently concluded summit at Davos where the rich and powerful of the world had gathered for their annual jamboree, there was much excitement about Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI of course is not yet so profitable as to be introduced widely, but the capitalists and their backers gathered at Davos believed that the corner would be turned very soon. The question of the unemployment it would generate was raised occasionally but generally brushed aside. Some even expressed the view that the unemployment that its use would generate would be more than offset by the employment that would arise in the process of its repair and maintenance, which of course is an utterly far-fetched proposition. Elon Musk, the right-wing South African-Canadian-American businessman, while conceding the unemployment-creating effect of AI, made a suggestion: he proposed taxing the AI-users to raise resources for creating jobs elsewhere or for compensating those thrown out of work because of the use of AI.

The fact that the use of AI would destroy jobs is thus indubitable, with even Elon Musk conceding this eventuality. But what gets ignored in all this discussion is that the problem here lies not with AI but with capitalism. Consider Elon Musk’s suggestion of taxing AI users. Suppose 100 persons are employed to do a job; and with the use of AI, 50 of them become unemployed. If these 50 are to be compensated through their getting the same wage as before (if they get only an unemployment allowance that is lower than their wage, then greater unemployment would have continued to remain a social problem), then there is no reduction in the wage bill; the use of AI in such a case would be shunned for not being sufficiently profitable, unless it also increases output (turnover) while reducing employment. But this increase in turnover, while causing profits to rise despite the wage-cum-compensation bill in the new situation being the same as the wage-bill in the old, would be at the expense of the employment of those who would otherwise have been employed if the turnover had increased without the AI. The larger turnover in other words would have reduced not actual but potential employment, and those denied potential employment would remain uncompensated because they have not been directly rendered unemployed, even though their jobs too have been destroyed causing the same social problems that unemployment does. It follows therefore that the logic of capitalism is such that under this system a technological advance creates unemployment and its associated social costs, no matter what compensation schemes for the unemployed are worked out. And the workers’ opposition to the introduction of technological advances under this system, though it may be reminiscent of the “Luddites”, who had naively gone around destroying machines in early nineteenth century England because they perceived machines to be employment-destructive, has a strong rationale as machines do constitute the immediate cause behind their physical misery.

Contrast this situation with what would happen if a technological advance, in the present case AI, were to be introduced under a socialist economic arrangement. The problem of unemployment would in this case be, not just alleviated, but resolved through ensuring greater leisure for every worker, without any curtailment of the real wage-bill and hence of the real wage rate of the workers. Technological advance in a socialist society, far from causing misery for anyone, improves the lives of everyone, liberating each from the drudgery of work and allowing time for each to cultivate his or her inner creativity. The same example as above will make this point clear when applied to the context of such a society.

If 50 persons can now do the work that 100 had done earlier, with each working the same number of hours, then instead of the number of hours and wage rate remaining unchanged compared to earlier, and 50 workers being dismissed from work because of the technological advance, as would happen under capitalism, the same 100 would continue working; but each would work half the number of hours, while drawing the same wage as before. This way the share of surplus (or profit equivalent) in output produced would remain unchanged compared to earlier, and the effect of technological progress would be entirely to improve the lives of the workers by reducing the drudgery of work for each of them, rather than increasing the magnitude of profits.

Such a result can never happen in a capitalist society, because economic decisions are governed in such a society by the drive for larger profits. In fact, such a technological advance would be introduced at all only if it promises and is accompanied by a reduction in the number of workers employed. And since the magnitude of employment would necessarily shrink with the introduction of such an advance, and with it the workers’ bargaining strength, this very fact of larger unemployment would prevent any rise in the wage rate of those employed. There would thus be no rise in the wage-rate of those employed, while there would be a reduction in the numbers (in the present case halving) of those employed, giving rise to a larger share of surplus in output (which would thus have justified the expectations behind the introduction of the technological advance).

There is thus a fundamental difference between a society with a work-sharing, product-sharing ethic and one driven by the desire to increase profits. This incidentally shows why all those theories advocating that a socialist society should do away with private ownership so that all firms are state-owned but nonetheless run on the basis of the profit-motive informing the actions of all firms, are wrong. Such a conception, of socialism, consisting of state-owned but profit-driven firms, that is by no means uncommon, militates against the very idea of socialism. In other words, the idea of a socialist economy, involving only a change in the ownership of the means of production, but running along the lines that a capitalist economy, even a competitive capitalist economy and not a monopoly-dominated one, would follow, is against the very idea of socialism. Such a notion however, as already mentioned, was quite widely held at one stage, and the Yugoslav socialist economy was supposed to have been inspired by it. It is not surprising that Yugoslavia had been the only socialist economy in eastern Europe that had been characterized by noticeable unemployment and even economic fluctuations (unrelated to any “echo effects” of an earlier bunching of investment that can understandably cause investment fluctuations, though not overall economic fluctuations, in any socialist economy).

The argument that socialism alone can enable mankind to reap the benefits of major scientific and technological advances, greatly strengthens the case for socialism. If major scientific and technological advances that have the capacity to take mankind forward, when introduced under capitalist conditions, would only bring misery to the working people, then this fact constitutes a profound argument against the capitalist system. Capitalism’s bizarre quality, of introducing technological advances only at the expense of the working people, had been expressed by Marx by likening it to “that hideous, pagan, idol that would not drink the nectar but from the skulls of the slain” (The Future Results of British Rule in India). And if mankind is on the threshold of major scientific and technological break-throughs, then the necessity for socialism, for taking advantage of such breakthroughs, becomes overwhelming. Socialism then becomes a society that is not just more equitable but one that can actually do justice to human ingenuity in ushering in profound technological advances precisely because of its equitable nature, precisely because it is a society where work and product are shared equitably among all.

Indeed the more spectacular the scientific advance, the more pressing becomes the need for a society which can take full advantage of such an advance; and only socialism represents such a society. Hence, while AI under capitalism can have disastrous consequences, the very spectacular nature of the advance that AI represents, constitutes a profound and overwhelming case for socialism.

Of course, since AI can have other socially deleterious effects, quite apart from employment-destruction, even a socialist society must be judicious in making use of it. The point being made here simply is that a socialist society alone can, not just handle, but indeed take advantage of the supposedly employment-destructive effect of AI.