What Would Karl Marx Think of AI?
If Karl Marx were to witness the current state of the world, with artificial intelligence reshaping industries and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, he would likely see this as a grim confirmation of his theories about capitalism’s inherent contradictions. One of Marx’s core ideas was that the means of production—the tools, technologies, and capital that shape how society works—should be in the hands of the workers, not the elite. But as we stand on the precipice of an AI-driven future, it’s clear that the means of production are still firmly controlled by the wealthy. The rise of AI has given corporations unprecedented power, allowing them to automate labor, reduce costs, and extract even more wealth from the working class. Marx would argue that, rather than lifting the burden from workers, these technological advancements are simply intensifying exploitation, further entrenching inequality, and accelerating the concentration of wealth at the top.
Marx’s theory of exploitation, at the heart of his critique of capitalism, would be highly relevant in the context of AI’s growing influence on the economy. In the traditional capitalist model, capitalists extract surplus value from workers by paying them less than the value of what they produce. AI, however, exacerbates this process. With AI systems increasingly taking over tasks once performed by human labor, the demand for workers—particularly those in middle and lower-wage jobs—is rapidly decreasing. For the working class, this means fewer opportunities for stable, well-paying jobs. But the capitalists? They continue to rake in profits, now using AI to automate the labor that would traditionally be done by human beings. Marx would point out that this is just a new iteration of the same process: the rich continue to exploit the labor of the working class, but now the labor itself is replaced by machines that only benefit the elite.
In Marx’s view, the development of technology in capitalist societies is driven not by a desire to improve human well-being, but by the need to increase profits. As AI becomes more advanced, corporations are increasingly able to eliminate human labor altogether, which reduces costs and maximizes productivity. But this doesn’t translate into shared prosperity for everyone; it means more profits for those who own the technology—the capitalists. Marx would argue that this isn’t progress for society as a whole but a deepening of the exploitation of workers. The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few means that the benefits of technological advances are not being shared equitably. Instead, the owners of AI technologies and the means of production are able to leverage their power to maintain and even increase their dominance, while the working class is left behind.
Marx would likely see the “Brazilization of America” as an inevitable outcome of the unchecked rise of AI and the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. Brazil, a country known for its extreme inequality, offers a stark example of how an economy can become polarized when the means of production are controlled by a small elite. In Brazil, the rich live in isolated enclaves, benefiting from a system that works to protect their wealth, while the poor are left to fend for themselves in the informal economy or in precarious low-wage jobs. Marx would argue that America is moving in the same direction, with AI and automation creating a situation where the wealthy continue to accumulate more power, while the working and middle classes are squeezed out. The rise of AI, coupled with the consolidation of power in the hands of a few giant corporations, mirrors the class divide that Marx described in his writings—where the few at the top benefit from the labor of the many at the bottom.
The concentration of wealth and power is not just about money—it’s also about control. Marx would argue that the control over AI systems represents a new form of power in capitalist society. By owning the technologies that drive industries, corporations not only control the means of production but also the flow of information, the distribution of goods, and the very structure of the economy. The elites who own AI systems and the data they produce have an incredible advantage. They can dictate the terms of employment, create personalized advertising and consumer behavior algorithms, and even influence political outcomes through targeted information. This control is the key to maintaining their dominance in the capitalist system. Marx would view this as a further entrenchment of the power of the bourgeoisie, a class that continues to manipulate the system to serve its own interests, regardless of the consequences for the working class.
One of Marx’s most important observations was that capitalism tends to concentrate wealth and power over time. The history of capitalism, he argued, is a history of monopolies forming as smaller businesses are swallowed up by larger corporations. In the context of AI, this trend is becoming even more pronounced. Large tech companies are dominating the field, with only a few players controlling the majority of AI research, development, and application. These companies are able to use their massive resources to outcompete smaller firms, further consolidating their power. Marx would see this as the capitalist system at its worst—wealth and power becoming ever more concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving little room for competition or opportunity for the rest. The result is an economy that is no longer driven by innovation or competition, but by the control of a few large corporations that operate with increasing monopoly power.
Marx would likely see the erosion of the middle class as another direct consequence of AI and automation. The middle class, for Marx, represented a buffer between the capitalist class and the working class. It was a class that, while still part of the capitalist system, had some degree of economic security and social mobility. However, as AI continues to displace jobs, especially in white-collar sectors, this middle class is being hollowed out. The rise of automation has already led to job losses in manufacturing, retail, and customer service, but now even professions once thought to be safe, such as accounting, law, and journalism, are being disrupted by AI technologies. For Marx, this would be a clear sign that the capitalist system is on the verge of further collapse, as the middle class—a critical part of the social structure—shrinks and the working class grows ever larger, with fewer opportunities for upward mobility.
The role of the state in this situation would also be a point of concern for Marx. In his view, the state is not a neutral body but an instrument of class power. It serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, by maintaining the existing economic system and preventing revolutionary change. Marx would likely argue that the state’s role in managing AI’s growth will be designed to protect the interests of the elite, not the working class. Whether through lobbying, campaign donations, or direct influence over policy, the wealthy are able to shape the way AI is regulated. The state may offer token protections for workers, but these will likely be insufficient to counter the broader trends of automation and inequality. Marx would argue that any efforts to regulate AI in a way that benefits workers will be undermined by the power of the capitalist class.
The global nature of AI and the economy today would also be an important factor in Marx’s analysis. In his time, capitalism was largely confined to specific nation-states, but in the modern world, capital flows freely across borders, and multinational corporations have vast global reach. AI, as a global technology, can further this trend by allowing companies to exploit labor in the most cost-effective regions, regardless of national boundaries. Marx would likely see the global expansion of AI as a new form of imperialism, where the capitalist class extends its control not just over workers within one country, but across the entire globe. The working class, meanwhile, becomes increasingly fragmented and powerless, caught in a race to the bottom as corporations search for the cheapest labor and the most favorable regulatory environments.
If Marx were to analyze the impact of AI on the future of capitalism, he would likely conclude that we are witnessing the intensification of a system that is fundamentally exploitative and unsustainable. The rise of AI and automation does not represent progress for humanity; it represents a further entrenchment of capitalist power and a deepening of inequality. The working class is being pushed out of the economy as corporations continue to accumulate wealth and power, while the middle class is slowly eroded by job losses and technological disruption. Marx would argue that this is the logical conclusion of capitalism—an economic system that, by its very nature, leads to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few, while the majority of people are left to suffer the consequences. The only way to reverse this trend, Marx would say, would be to overthrow the capitalist system and take control of the means of production, including the technologies that shape our future.
And what would Adam Smith think of AI?