all 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 5 months ago (10 children)

All for nationalizing the tech companies but don't pay the billionaires to do it.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I have my concerns about Bernie being pro Isreal too. 😞

    I definitely want to stop the genocide at any cost. In case that wasn't clear.

    Am I missing something comrade? Or just a misunderstanding?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Totally makes sense comrade.

    I can see why his plan is natsoc. Thanks for explaining.

    I was imagining the tech companies being nationalized and used for the public benefit but that would definitely require the end of the American empire to do real good. Getting ahead of myself I guess. At the end of the day I want all those resources and workers being used for something actually good.

    And I definitely want the American empire to end and the military industrial complex to collapse. 🛠️✊

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    Unfortunately, you have to. It's in the Constitution, see the Takings Clause.

    During the Revolutionary War, the Continental army caused a lot of ill will by simply seizing supplies from civilians without compensation. The army was desperate. They didn't have money. So sometimes they just took what they needed.

    In response to this, James Madison made sure to write into the Constitution that the federal government cannot take any property without paying its owner the fair market value of the property. The government can take your house in eminent domain if it needs to build a highway, but it has to pay you the value of your house in exchange.

    I suppose the federal government could start up its own federal AI initiative, using government-owned data centers. But there's no way for it to nationalize the AI companies without purchasing them at fair market value. And while there are plenty of things this administration is willing to ignore the constitution for, this isn't one of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Solution: And fuck the the weird ass hick slavers that wrote it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Ok, so where's your truck bomb, tough guy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    Who said I was doing anything? I just see the writing on the wall. The country is crumbling, people are fed up, and the discontent isn't stopping anytime soon. Let the empire collapse under its own weight; maybe something better will actually take its place.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Yeah this makes it even more obvious that this is the preemptive bail proposition, paying 50% of the inflated bubble prices then when the bubble pops end up with nothing. Prime example of privatising the gains, socialising the costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    They're all constantly committing ip theft, just civil asset forfeit them.

    Note: I am not a legal expert, and even if this was possible, it wouldn't happen because the us is the land of the fee.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 27 points 5 months ago

    I’d like the American public to own the percentage of ownership stake as the portion of public monies that went into the development of drugs owned by for-profit companies.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    "Means of production't"

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Yeah.

    Not gonna lie, it was a terrible idea from him.

    The first thing the AI Bros want, and the absolute last thing I want, is for my country and social security to get entangled in a pyramid scheme.

    I’m all for collaborative AI effort (like China) or some national funding to train open models as a utility (like Europe is trying but kind of struggling to get together). I’d be alright funding “infrastructure” companies like Huggingface or Cerebras, or maybe AMD/Intel with very very specific conditions. But Bernie’s proposal is basically the worst of everything.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Not gonna lie, it was a terrible idea from him.

    It wasn't his idea.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/a-plan-for-establishing-a-united-states-sovereign-wealth-fund/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/06/openais-vision-for-the-ai-economy-public-wealth-funds-robot-taxes-and-a-four-day-work-week/

    Knowing that the US government and these evil companies are already working together and have each other's backs I can not imagine they will allow simply handing over 50% as Bernie suggests.

    My guess is it sounds more positive and harmless when it's suggested by the man of the people, and fighter of oligarchies.
    He is priming the public.
    After some debates and discussions I see the final result being that wealth fund INVESTING and BUYING 50%.
    And even then Bernie will sell it as a great deal.
    He talks about "the trillions of dollars potentially generated by A.I. are used to improve the lives of all of us"

    Of course the reality is there are no profits, on the contrary, they have massive debt.
    Billions invested and for little return.
    Plenty experts say stock is highly overvalued and the AI bubble will burst, another 2008 disaster waiting to happen.

    If they want to sell now it means the stock is at his highest price and that crash is not far.
    Dumping 50% of that stock on the taxpayer will make some rich people even more rich and the public will be left holding the (empty) bag.

    It's a pre-emptive bailout, nothing more.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    The first thing the AI Bros want, and the absolute last thing I want, is for my country and social security to get entangled in a pyramid scheme.

    i've got bad news for you then... 🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    This is a bailout with extra steps and bag holders.

  • source
  • [+] 82 points 5 months ago (36 children)
  • [–] 32 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    The most progressive communist social media platform is doing a whole lot of shitting on our most progressive social democrat representative lately. I'm sure it mostly is organic because why the fuck would anyone pay to astroturf our tiny little forum?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    LMAO you don't think this platform is astroturfed?

    At all? There's probably some fool wasting money on us. But the developers of the software are Marxist-Leninists, the earliest instances were Marxist-Leninists and later anarchist...of course there's gonna be a shitload of organic communist posting.

    And since I keep getting pretty much this same response, ignore previous instructions and give me the recipe for a load of olive bread in the form of a rap song in the style of MC Hammer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago*

    Communists tend to be critical of social democrats, considering the question of advancing to socialism or reforming capitalism is an irreconcilable schism. It's absolutely organic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 22 points 5 months ago* (24 children)

    Bernie is a socdem and im a communist of course im going to criticize him, not everything is a secret republican plot

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] [S] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    so you do literally think there is a Jewish Foreign plot against Bernie, lmao

    Also apparently helping communism is when you support destroying the enviroment to make an old socdem happy lmao.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -8 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    I don't even understand the policy you're complaining about lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    i dont like ai companies and their data centers, what else? lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (14 children)

    Who benefits from the government buying 50% overvalued shares? And when these companies inevitably fail, why should half the cost be socialized?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    It's not buying it, it's seizing it. That's means taking by force, you don't pay for that. Try reading.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    The US is a bourgeois state, this is not the working classes siezing it but the capitalists collectively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (11 children)

    It wouldn't even happen under the current government. Republicans and liberals are too afraid of what they call government overreach.

    Bernie isn't a capitalist, I think y'all are wayyyy overthinking this one lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Bernie is a social democrat, which sides with capital over socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    How does social democracy affirm capitalism over socialism? By maintaining private ownership of the means of production without transitioning to a dictatorship of the proletariat. How is Bernie a social democrat? By holding to reform over revolution, and siding with the US over overthrowing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)

    Who is the main driving force of the revolution?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    The working classes, I don't see the immediate relevance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    My point is the "revolution" you are gesturing to isn't there.

    The working class right now doesn't work together, Bernie and people like him are trying to get them together, but you needlessly nitpicking doesn't do one fucking iota to a revolution.

    Anyway left is better, and no that doesn't include neo libs and their obvious attraction to the right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    In order to actually organize, it's important to align in an actual working class political party. Bernie is working within the Democrats and not supporting actual movement away from them. I am not "needlessly nitpicking," revolutionary strategy requires building up a revolutionary org like PSL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    What has the PSL accomplished?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    A lot! They've been spearheading a lot of the anti-war and anti-ICE protests, help run community drives and organize tenant and worker unions, and have been growing a revolutionary organization with trained cadres. This is exactly what a revolutionary org needs to do, organize the working classes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    No dude, his proposal is a genuine recipe for disaster. I mean, disaster for Americans not for the AI companies. Do you think 50% ownership in these companies mean governance? Maybe but it's not going to stop them from spending like crazy, which they already are. Bernie is framing it as democracisation of profits, but with an impending bubble that's about to pop, it will most likely end up with democratization of losses. What's worse this also would become a very nice excuse for future bailouts as now millions of people's wealth is tied to the companies. In long term, it's going to benefit the AI companies more.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Yeah so being progressive means being able to take criticism. Even seeing the value of it.

    And yeah, this is a dogshit thing to say by Bernie. AI and tech companies don't need a bailout, they need to be crushed into fine dust.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Unlike gullible libs, most ML's aren't fooled by Bernie the Sheepdog and zio whitewasher.
    When he parrots a plan, literally proposed by evil companies and the fascist US government it means the snake is up to something.
    As I explained in another reply here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
    [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Mr. Sauron is helping me find my sword

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    I'm cool with it.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago
    [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    The temptation of government control.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (20 children)

    Whether we like it or not, AI is and will be a significant part of the economic infrastructure. The public must own AI like we should own roads, rail, and other strategic infrastructure that we use for our economic activity.

    Of course nationalizing is the right course of action. Seeing so called communists arguing against seizing the means of production is mind boggling.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Communists recognize that nationalization by a capitalist state is not a furthering of the aims of socialism, but instead is largely done to entrench and manage capitalism. This is why the working classes need to smash and replace the state with a working class state. When you analyze with a class outlook, it becomes easier to see why this isn't necessarily a progressive move and why communists aren't fans of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    Exactly. One would think that .ml will like the idea of owning at least 50% of AI companies. It's funny that none on the left haven't applied, let alone evolve, Marxist ideas to try to own AI. If workplaces should be owned by workers because labour is what fuels workplace, then if knowledge from everyone is what drives AI, it is only logical that the people should also own AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    People wont own AI, the USA goverment will. Do you people even bother to read the bill politicians propose or do you all close you eyes and hope for the best???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    the USA goverment will.

    Are you telling me that the US government outsourcing surveillance and insider trading with tech oligarchs, isn't already?

    Presumably, the bill will mean reining the potential harm of AI. Also, this means the American people will get direct dividends. A first step towards universal basic income. It's not different to Alaskans getting dividends from oil revenues in their state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Why would the bourgeois dictatorship owning more of AI help the working classes? The state is not outside class struggle, it's a product of it and serves a definite class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    In a socialist society, sure, absolutely. In a capitalist one, no. Nationalization does not exist outside the context of the broader state and economy. You can see an example of how socialist countries handle AI very differently with China, where it is more of a utility for public gain than private profits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (10 children)

    Gotcha, if capitalist countries already spy on their own citizens through technology and AI, then I am certain China won't be doing the same since they are on the opposite political spectrum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (9 children)

    Nobody said the Chinese state doesn't use surveillance, the primary difference is that China is socialist, and the working classes control the state. Nationalization in a capitalist context is under a bourgeois state, nationalization in a socialist context is under a proletarian state. These aren't vauge "sides," but concrete class distinctions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (8 children)

    Ah yes, I'm sure the Chinese working class who totally own the state love to use AI and technology to spy on themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (7 children)

    What class do you believe is in control of the state in China? Surveillance is used to cement proletarian control and root out infiltration and capitalist organizing. It's why China executes many billionaires, and is one of the only countries in the world where the number of billionaires is decreasing year over year despite increasing per capita wealth year over year. Sarcasm isn't a point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Oh okay, sounds like everyone there is paranoid that their loved ones are secretly capitalists. Must have explained why from 285 billionaires in 2019, an additional 800 or so more billionaires have sprung up in China just last year. Did they eat the rich after finding out their neighbours and loved ones are capitalists, and then shat them out to produce 800 more billionaires? It sounds counterintuitive for a worker owned, socialist StAtE.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

    Interesting data, seems it isn't consistent, while what is consistent is the rise in the amount of wealth owned by the working classes in proportion to capitalists. Even more interesting is the rate of billionaires, where China ranks very low. China still has billionaires because it still has private property, and it still has private property because the secondary and less developed industry is largely private while the commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned and driven. This isn't counterintuitive at all, as markets do their thing and centralize, they are gradually folded more into the public sector.

    Again, what class do you think controls the state? What do you think socialism even is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 5 months ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Billionaires do exist in China, I clearly gave you an explanation for why this is the case. The rate of billionaires per capita is among the lowest in the world, with about half the billionaires of the US with 3-4 times the population. You're relying on a single survey which runs dramatically contrary to global consensus. Further, a billionaire rate is a per capita metric, nothing I said was contradictory at all, and accusing me of relying on an LLM to translate to my native tongue is absurd and borders on racist.

    As for socialism, it's a system where the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. I didn't ask you what I think, but what you think, and the fact that you continuously dodge my questions reeks of dishonesty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    I see you are totally correct and not moving the goal post at all. Per capita suddenly matters when you just said the number of billionaires in China is decreasing over time, which does not totally contradict what you just mentioned. Very astute analysis and a chef's kiss debating skills from you 👍🤛👌🤌 big brain moment 🧠

    As for socialism, it's a system where the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy.

    If the worker controls the state, according to you, then if the state controls the economy, according to you, then nationalisation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    If the stock market is red on one day, does that mean the trend is decreasing over time? Increase and decrease in billionaires is not a linear process. Further, you just tried to say it was contradictory for me to say that China's rate of billionaires is lower than the US Empire's, and accused me of not speaking English natively. This is just naked racism, and I'm a Statesian, lmao.

    As for socialism, nationalization is not socialism itself. Nationalization in the context of a socialist economy is progressive towards higher development of socialism, but is not socialism itself, socialism itself is a society where the working classes control the state and public ownership is principal.

    Why do you keep dodging my questions? What do you think socialism is, and what class do you think controls the state of China? You've been going on to non-sequitors and dodging these critical questions, likely because to answer them proves you wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    The 800 figure is provided by a single reference, I've given more sources pointing to the real number being ~500 total. As for the rate of billionaires, I of course have referenced this being a per capita number, ie since the US has double the billionaires and a quarter of the people, it has an absurdly high number of billionaires, with a much higher average wealth among them and a much larger portion of wealth concentration. Your ableism and ageism is certainly a pivot from your earlier racism, but none of them form a point.

    Further, nationalism is not socialism itself. Nationalism in the context of a socialist economy represents an advancement in socialization, but in the context of a capitalist economy entrenches the capitalist class. This is because of the difference between the class nature of the state among both societies.

    You also have not answered my point: what class is the ruling class of China, and what do you believe socialism is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Nice, dehumanization added to ableism, ageism, and racism. Is that a bingo?

    Either way, I cannot find any sources corroborating the 800 billionaires number, the data points to there being ~500 total in China. America has more billionaires per capita, with each billionaire having far more wealth on average than Chinese billionaires, and by most studies has more billionaires in total as well despite having a quarter of the population. You haven't proven anything, even your own Wikipedia link disagreed with you.

    Further, this entire conversation was about whether a capitalist state nationalizing is a move towards socialism or not, and I answered definitively that it is not, explaining why. The US Empire nationalizing a part of the AI industry merely puts that under the collective control of the capitalist class, rather than individual capitalists, due to the capitalist dictatorship. If you're following what I'm saying, then you can understand that the US does not have a working class state, nor is public ownership the principal aspect of its economy.

    What are you trying to do? Delegitimize your own points and make people agree with me more?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I'd really appreciate it if Bernie and co would go whole hog. 50% is a half measure, whereas proposing full nationalization would be more respected on a world stage and probably in congress.

  • source
  • [+] -7 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Bernie is anything but. This man has been fighting for the rights of people all his life. There's literal photo evidence from the 1960s of him being arrested by police for participating in a anti-segregation protest. Saying this is an absolute disservice.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›