Do I Remain a Communist? Post-Scarcity Politics and the Future of Human Liberation

Post-Scarcity Politics and the Future of Human Liberation

Repeatedly “washing” AI slop through itself does wild stuff.

Introduction: The Question That Haunts Modern Leftist Identity

The question haunts me during late-night scrolling through leftist Twitter: Do I still consider myself a communist? Not because I've abandoned solidarity with the working class or embraced capitalism's exploitation, but because I find myself increasingly at odds with what passes for leftist discourse today. When I advocate for universal basic income, full automation, or space colonization as tools for human liberation, I'm often met with accusations of techno-utopianism, Silicon Valley worship, or worse—being insufficiently attentive to "lived experience" and historical trauma.

This tension crystallizes around what scholars call "Left Transhumanism"—a political current that maintains classical Marxist goals of ending scarcity and expanding human potential while embracing radical technological transformation. Left Transhumanists argue that artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, life extension, and space exploration should be democratically controlled tools for universal human flourishing, not toys for billionaires. Yet this vision increasingly feels foreign to contemporary Western leftist movements, which often treat advanced technology with deep suspicion and frame abundance itself as somehow politically suspect.

The stakes of this divergence extend far beyond academic taxonomy. At the heart of Left Transhumanism lies Marx's original communist vision: the "general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum" so that everyone can pursue artistic and scientific development. This was never about permanent struggle or valorizing scarcity—it was about material abundance enabling genuine human freedom. Yet today's left often seems more comfortable with opposition aesthetics than positive programs, more focused on redistributing existing resources than creating radical new possibilities.

This essay explores whether Left Transhumanism can still claim the mantle of "the Left" by tracing three interconnected threads. First, I'll examine the historical foundations of communist thought on technology and post-scarcity, showing how Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky explicitly embraced technological progress as liberation's pathway. Second, I'll analyze how post-Marxist thinkers from Mark Fisher to Aaron Bastani have updated these visions for our digital age, often facing mixed reception from contemporary leftist movements. Finally, I'll investigate the cultural and psychological underpinnings of leftist tech-skepticism, asking why abundance can feel politically threatening even to those supposedly fighting for human liberation.

The personal dimension of this inquiry matters because identity and theory intertwine in complex ways. If I believe technology should end human toil and scarcity while remaining committed to solidarity, equality, and collective liberation, what does that make me politically? Am I a communist who's evolved beyond Marx's industrial-age assumptions, or have I unconsciously drifted toward techno-elitist delusions of grandeur? The answer, I'll argue, depends on whether we can forge a new synthesis that honors both technological possibility and justice-centered values—or whether the contemporary left's retreat from material abundance represents an abandonment of socialism's original promise.

Historical Foundations: Marx, Lenin, and the Communist Vision of Post-Work Society

To understand whether Left Transhumanism remains authentically "left," we must first examine what historical communist thinkers actually said about technology, labor, and abundance. Contrary to contemporary portrayals of socialism as primarily about redistribution or worker solidarity, the classical Marxist tradition explicitly envisioned technology as humanity's path beyond scarcity and toil.

Marx himself was remarkably clear about communism's ultimate goal in the Grundrisse, where he described the communist future as achieving "the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them" (Marx, 1857, Chapter 14). This wasn't merely about better working conditions or higher wages—it was about transcending necessary labor altogether. Marx envisioned a society where "the measure of wealth is then not any longer, in any way, labour time, but rather disposable time" (Marx, 1857, Chapter 14).

Marx and Engels took this vision even further in The German Ideology, explicitly characterizing communism as a system that "does away with labour" by abolishing the division of labor that forces individuals into specialized roles (Marx & Engels, 1845). They imagined a world where someone could "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner" without being defined as hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic (Marx & Engels, 1845). This wasn't metaphorical—they literally envisioned the abolition of alienated labor through technological and social transformation.

Lenin extended this techno-optimistic vision into concrete policy during the Russian Revolution. In his "First Decrees of Soviet Power," Lenin insisted that socialism must build on "large-scale machine production" because only through socialized automated industry could the Soviet state achieve what he called the "complete victory" of socialism (Lenin, 1917). Lenin understood that political revolution without technological transformation would remain incomplete—workers needed liberation from toil itself, not just better terms of exploitation.

Trotsky developed perhaps the most sophisticated analysis of technology's revolutionary potential in The Revolution Betrayed. He anticipated a post-work society where social wealth would grow to the point that people would "forget our miserly attitude toward every excess minute of labor," leading naturally to money and the state withering away (Trotsky, 1936, Chapter 4). Trotsky envisaged "the greatest saving of time and consequently the highest flowering of culture" as automation freed workers from drudgery, enabling unprecedented human creative development (Trotsky, 1936, Chapter 4).

These weren't idle utopian fantasies—they represented core communist theory. Marx's labor theory of value explicitly predicted that increasing mechanization would eventually eliminate the basis for capitalist profit by reducing necessary labor time toward zero. The contradiction between capitalism's need for human labor and technology's tendency to eliminate that need would, Marx argued, eventually force a transition to a post-capitalist system based on abundance rather than scarcity.

What's striking about these historical texts is how confidently they embraced technological transformation as politically progressive. Marx celebrated machinery's revolutionary potential even while criticizing its capitalist deployment. Lenin actively promoted electrification and industrial automation as socialist goals. Trotsky saw advanced technology as prerequisite for the cultural flowering that would make communist life worth living.

This historical foundation reveals how far contemporary leftist discourse has drifted from classical communist visions. Where Marx anticipated technology eliminating necessary labor, many modern leftists treat automation as inherently threatening to worker dignity. Where Lenin promoted large-scale mechanization as socialist strategy, today's left often valorizes small-scale, labor-intensive alternatives. Where Trotsky envisioned abundance enabling cultural development, contemporary progressives frequently frame abundance itself as environmentally or morally suspect.

The disconnect isn't merely tactical—it reflects fundamentally different conceptions of human flourishing. Classical communists saw freedom as liberation from necessary labor, enabling individuals to develop their full creative and intellectual potential. They understood scarcity as the enemy of human liberation, and technology as scarcity's potential destroyer. Contemporary leftist movements, by contrast, often treat struggle itself as politically meaningful, viewing comfort or ease with suspicion as potential markers of privilege or complicity.

Post-Marxist and Post-Left Voices: Updating the Vision for the Digital Age

The classical communist vision of post-scarcity hasn't disappeared—it has evolved through various post-Marxist thinkers who've updated Marx's insights for our technological moment. These theorists maintain the original emancipatory goal while grappling with capitalism's new forms and possibilities that Marx couldn't have anticipated.

Mark Fisher, in works like "Capitalist Realism" and his essay "Designer Communism," argued that capitalism deliberately creates "artificial scarcity" to perpetuate shortages that could be technologically eliminated (Fisher, 2009). Fisher challenged leftists to demand what he called "luxury communism" where "the general field is practically unlimited" for redistributing culture, time, and creative possibilities (Fisher, 2018). For Fisher, the real revolutionary question wasn't how to make work more bearable, but how to make abundance universally accessible rather than artificially constrained by capitalist property relations.

Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams developed this theme systematically in "Inventing the Future," calling for full automation combined with universal basic income to create a genuine "post-work society" emancipated from "the oppression of work, patriarchy and racism" (Srnicek & Williams, 2015). They argued that the left had become trapped in "folk politics"—localism, horizontalism, and prefigurative politics—that felt authentic but couldn't match capitalism's global scale and technological sophistication. Instead, they advocated "left accelerationism" that would seize and redirect technological development toward universal human flourishing.

Feminist theorists like Donna Haraway contributed crucial insights about technology's liberatory potential in works like "A Cyborg Manifesto," celebrating the blurring of human/technology boundaries as potentially feminist liberation from biological and social constraints (Haraway, 1985). Haraway's posthumanist vision suggested that embracing our cyborg nature—our fundamental entanglement with technology—could transcend oppressive binaries between male/female, human/animal, natural/artificial that have historically justified domination.

André Gorz, blending socialism with existentialism, emphasized that automation should expand people's "autonomous sphere," enriching care, culture, and community rather than merely eliminating work (Gorz, 2017). Gorz warned that technology alone couldn't restore meaning to labor and urged development of a multidimensional "society of liberated time" encompassing art, care, and friendship alongside material production. His vision of Universal Basic Income focused on bolstering workers' power to refuse exploitative tasks rather than eliminating work entirely—a nuanced position that acknowledged both technology's liberatory potential and the human need for meaningful activity.

Slavoj Žižek, characteristically, offered a dialectical take on AI and automation that neither celebrated nor condemned them but asked deeper questions about freedom itself. Žižek argued for embracing the possibility of a "new form of communism" emerging from technological disruption, but insisted we must ask "Freedom for whom, to do what?" rather than assuming liberation would be automatically beneficial (Žižek, 2021). He provocatively suggested that the only "Master" we could hope to dominate would be Technology itself—requiring us to confront our own fears and actively "domesticate" technology's power rather than either submitting to it or rejecting it wholesale.

Aaron Bastani, co-founder of Novara Media, made perhaps the most explicit case for techno-optimistic socialism in "Fully Automated Luxury Communism." Bastani argued that "technology, guided by activist leftwing governments, should be used to intensify our 'mastery' of the planet" to deliver "social justice and limitless abundance" by producing goods "at almost no cost… freely and equally distributed" (Bastani, 2019). Bastani explicitly echoed Lenin with what critics called a "Silicon Valley twist," urging acceleration into a Third Industrial Revolution encompassing AI, renewable energy, and even asteroid mining under socialist planning.

These thinkers face notably mixed reception within contemporary leftist movements. Some applaud their bold techno-utopianism as necessary updates to socialist theory for the digital age. Others dismiss them as naïve techno-solutionists who ignore capitalism's structural constraints or reproduce Silicon Valley's grandiose rhetoric. The Guardian's review of Bastani's book captured this tension, describing his approach as "Lenin goes to Silicon Valley" in a tone suggesting this combination was inherently problematic (Guardian, 2019).

The polarized reception reveals fundamental tensions within contemporary leftist thought. Post-Marxist accelerationists maintain classical socialism's emancipatory goals while embracing technological transformation as liberation's pathway. Their critics worry that enthusiasm for technology reproduces capitalist logics or distracts from more immediate struggles around inequality and oppression. These debates often talk past each other because they're operating from different assumptions about whether technology is inherently political, whether abundance is desirable, and whether socialism should primarily focus on redistribution or transformation.

What's particularly notable is how these post-Marxist visions retain core communist insights while updating them for contemporary conditions. Like Marx, they see technology's potential to eliminate scarcity and necessary labor. Like Lenin, they advocate for large-scale coordination and planning. Like Trotsky, they envision cultural flowering enabled by material abundance. Yet unlike their historical predecessors, they must defend these positions against suspicion from fellow leftists who've grown skeptical of grand technological narratives.

Psychoanalytic and Cultural Analysis: Why the Left Fears Abundance

Understanding contemporary leftist tech-skepticism requires examining not just political arguments but deeper psychological and cultural dynamics that make abundance feel threatening even to those supposedly fighting for human liberation. Psychoanalytic thinkers offer crucial insights into why genuinely revolutionary possibilities can provoke anxiety rather than enthusiasm.

Slavoj Žižek provides perhaps the most penetrating analysis of this phenomenon, arguing that genuinely radical freedom can feel "inauthentic" or terrifying to people accustomed to constraint and struggle. In his characteristic provocative style, Žižek suggests that people often unconsciously prefer an external Master who justifies their sacrifices and provides meaning through resistance (Žižek, 2021). He notes that modern activist culture sometimes exhibits what he calls "hysteric" attachment to authority figures they can simultaneously rebel against and secretly depend upon for identity formation.

This dynamic helps explain why technological solutions to scarcity can feel politically suspect even when they align with stated leftist goals. If your political identity centers on fighting oppression, what happens when oppression becomes technologically solvable? If solidarity emerges through shared struggle, what bonds remain when struggle becomes unnecessary? Žižek's insight suggests that some leftist tech-skepticism stems from unconscious fear that liberation might eliminate the very conditions that make leftist identity coherent and meaningful.

The cultural dimensions run even deeper. Contemporary leftist movements often valorize struggle and sacrifice as proof of authenticity and moral commitment. There's a romanticism in certain activist circles about the "good activist" living austerely in solidarity with the oppressed, viewing comfort or ease as potential markers of privilege or complicity with unjust systems. From this perspective, technological fixes or discussions of abundance can seem naively utopian at best, actively harmful at worst—distracting from "real" political work or ignoring the continuing reality of suffering.

This creates what we might call the "scarcity as moral anchor" phenomenon. Psychoanalytically, maintaining attachment to scarcity provides moral solidity by ensuring there's always something to fight for, always injustice to resist, always reason for sacrifice and struggle. Paradoxically, this can undermine the original communist goal of material liberation by making the means (struggle) more psychologically satisfying than the end (abundance).

The memetic dimension adds another layer of complexity. Contemporary leftist identity often coheres around shared narratives of systemic oppression, historical trauma, and ongoing resistance. These narratives create powerful group bonds and provide clear frameworks for understanding complex social phenomena. An outsider proposing machine-driven paradise can appear to betray the tribe by minimizing trauma's significance or suggesting technical solutions to what the group understands as fundamentally political problems.

Social media dynamics amplify these tendencies by rewarding performative critique over constructive vision. Platforms like Twitter incentivize quick takes that demonstrate proper political positioning rather than complex analysis that might challenge group consensus. Proposing ambitious technological solutions risks being labeled "solutionist," "techno-utopian," or insufficiently attentive to marginalized voices—social death in contemporary leftist spaces where moral purity often matters more than practical effectiveness.

The result is what some observers call "purity spirals"—competitive escalation of political righteousness that makes it increasingly difficult to propose positive programs without triggering accusations of insufficient radicalism or problematic assumptions. In such environments, opposition aesthetics become safer than constructive vision because critique can always be made more radical while concrete proposals inevitably involve compromises that can be attacked as betraying pure principles.

These dynamics help explain why classical communist visions of post-scarcity can feel foreign or even threatening to contemporary leftists despite sharing fundamental goals. Marx's confidence about technology eliminating necessary labor presupposed that liberation was desirable and achievable—assumptions that contemporary trauma-informed political discourse often treats with suspicion. The shift from Marx's optimistic materialism to today's pessimistic idealism reflects deeper cultural changes in how we understand progress, technology, and human nature itself.

Understanding these psychological and cultural dynamics doesn't invalidate leftist concerns about technology—many critiques of Silicon Valley techno-utopianism are entirely justified. But it does suggest that some resistance to Left Transhumanist visions stems from sources other than rational political analysis. Recognizing these dynamics might enable more productive dialogue between technological optimists and social justice advocates who ultimately share similar values but express them through different cultural and psychological frameworks.

Contemporary Leftist Skepticism: Identity Politics, Anti-Intellectualism, and the Retreat from Material Abundance

The contemporary Western left's relationship with technology and abundance reveals troubling patterns that diverge sharply from historical communist traditions. Rather than embracing technological solutions to scarcity, much of today's leftist discourse treats advanced technology with reflexive suspicion, often prioritizing symbolic politics over material transformation.

Consider recent debates around Universal Basic Income, a policy proposal that would provide unconditional cash payments to all citizens. Classical communists would likely view UBI as a step toward Marx's vision of reducing necessary labor, potentially enabling greater human creative development. Yet contemporary leftist responses often focus on whether UBI proposals adequately address racial wealth gaps, gender discrimination, or colonial legacies rather than whether they might fundamentally transform the relationship between work and human flourishing.

This pattern repeats across numerous technological and policy domains. Artificial intelligence governance discussions get derailed into concerns about algorithmic bias rather than exploring AI's potential to eliminate scarcity economics. Space exploration proposals trigger immediate objections about "colonialism" rather than consideration of how off-world resources might enable post-scarcity abundance. Genetic engineering advances provoke warnings about eugenics rather than examination of their potential to eliminate hereditary diseases and enhance human capabilities.

The underlying dynamic reflects what some critics call the "identitarianization" of leftist politics—a shift from class-based material analysis toward identity-based cultural critique. Contemporary leftist discourse often centers on identity groups, historical injustices, and existential threats while sidelining discussions of material abundance or labor automation. Policy proposals get evaluated primarily through the lens of symbolic representation rather than practical effectiveness at improving material conditions.

This spawns the aforementioned "purity spirals" in political movements—competitive escalation of ideological righteousness that makes increasingly pure positions necessary to maintain group standing. In such environments, proposing technological solutions to social problems risks accusations of being insufficiently attentive to "lived experience," marginalized voices, or structural inequalities. The safest political position becomes perpetual critique rather than constructive vision.

Anti-intellectual tendencies compound these problems. Some contemporary leftist activists express deep distrust of technocratic solutions, expert knowledge, or complex policy design, viewing them as inherently elitist or disconnected from grassroots organizing. Engaging seriously with artificial intelligence research, economic modeling, or infrastructure planning can provoke backlash as "not listening to the people" or betraying anti-colonial values. This creates a peculiar situation where the political movement supposedly most committed to rationality and scientific socialism becomes suspicious of rational analysis and scientific approaches to social problems.

The irony becomes even more pronounced when considering leftist attitudes toward historical technological progress. Most contemporary leftists readily acknowledge that innovations like antibiotics, electricity, and sewage systems dramatically improved human welfare. Yet discussions of current technological frontiers—artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, space technology—often begin from assumptions of danger rather than possibility. The same movement that celebrates past technological liberation becomes deeply skeptical of future technological potential.

Part of this stems from legitimate concerns about how capitalism shapes technological development. Contemporary leftists correctly observe that new technologies often increase inequality, eliminate jobs without providing alternatives, or serve elite interests rather than universal human welfare. The problem arises when these valid critiques of capitalist technology deployment become generalized skepticism toward technological possibility itself.

This represents a significant departure from classical Marxist methodology, which always distinguished between capitalist use of technology and technology's inherent potential. Marx criticized factory conditions and worker exploitation while celebrating machinery's revolutionary possibilities. Lenin denounced capitalist industrialization while promoting socialist electrification. Contemporary leftists often collapse this distinction, treating technological advance itself as suspect rather than focusing on who controls technology and how its benefits get distributed.

The retreat from material abundance also reflects deeper cultural shifts within Western leftist movements. Where historical communism emerged from industrial working-class experiences of scarcity and toil, contemporary Western leftism often originates in middle-class academic environments where material needs are largely satisfied. This creates different psychological relationships to abundance and scarcity—for industrial workers, ending scarcity represented obvious liberation, while for comfortable academics, abundance might feel morally problematic or environmentally unsustainable.

Social media dynamics amplify these tendencies by creating echo chambers where symbolic politics matter more than practical outcomes. Platforms reward quick takes that demonstrate proper political positioning over complex analysis that might challenge group assumptions. In such environments, proposing ambitious technological solutions becomes high-risk behavior that might result in social ostracism or political cancellation.

The result is a contemporary left that often seems more comfortable with permanent opposition than positive vision, more focused on redistribution than transformation, more committed to moral purity than practical effectiveness. This represents a dramatic departure from classical communist traditions that confidently embraced technological progress as humanity's pathway beyond scarcity and exploitation.

Synthesis and Heuristics: Toward a New Left Transhumanist Politics

The tensions between Left Transhumanism and contemporary leftist movements aren't merely academic—they reflect deeper questions about the nature of progress, freedom, and human flourishing that any serious left politics must address. Rather than dismissing either technological optimism or social justice concerns, we need frameworks for integrating both sets of insights into coherent political vision.

The fundamental challenge lies in bridging what we might call the "abundance gap" between classical communist visions of post-scarcity and contemporary leftist emphasis on redistribution and identity recognition. Classical communists assumed that expanding productive capacity would naturally serve human liberation if properly organized. Contemporary leftists worry that technological abundance might reproduce or amplify existing inequalities unless carefully regulated through social justice frameworks.

Both perspectives contain crucial insights. Left Transhumanists correctly recognize that genuine human liberation requires transcending scarcity rather than merely redistributing existing resources more fairly. No amount of progressive taxation or social programs can fully address human suffering if we remain constrained by fundamental resource limitations, aging, disease, and death. Technological transformation offers possibilities for human flourishing that purely redistributive politics cannot achieve.

Contemporary leftists correctly recognize that technological development doesn't automatically serve egalitarian purposes and often reinforces existing power structures. Silicon Valley's track record of creating winner-take-all markets, eliminating middle-class jobs, and concentrating wealth among tech elites provides ample evidence that technological progress under capitalist conditions can increase rather than reduce inequality. Any viable Left Transhumanist politics must seriously address these concerns rather than assuming technology's benefits will naturally trickle down.

The synthesis requires what we might call "institutional imagination"—developing concrete mechanisms for ensuring that advanced technologies serve universal human flourishing rather than elite accumulation. This means moving beyond both naive techno-optimism and reflexive techno-pessimism toward serious engagement with governance structures, distribution mechanisms, and democratic control over technological development.

Several heuristic questions can guide this integration:

Democratic Control: Who makes decisions about technological development and deployment? Left Transhumanist politics must insist on democratic participation in technological governance rather than leaving these decisions to market forces or technocratic experts. This might involve citizens' assemblies on AI development, public ownership of key technologies, or participatory technology assessment processes that include affected communities in decision-making.

Universal Access: How do we ensure that advanced technologies serve everyone rather than just economic elites? This requires both preventing artificial scarcity (through intellectual property reform, public research funding, and antitrust enforcement) and creating positive mechanisms for universal access (through public utilities, universal basic services, or social wealth funds that distribute technological dividends).

Transition Justice: How do we manage the social disruptions that technological transformation inevitably creates? Even beneficial changes like automation or life extension will displace existing industries, communities, and ways of life. Left Transhumanist politics must include robust transition support, retraining programs, and social safety nets that help people adapt to technological change rather than being victimized by it.

Ecological Integration: How do we pursue technological abundance while respecting planetary boundaries? This isn't necessarily a contradiction—advanced technologies might enable radical resource efficiency, closed-loop production systems, and space-based industry that reduces Earth's ecological footprint. But it requires conscious planning rather than assuming that technological growth automatically solves environmental problems.

Cultural Preservation: How do we maintain human meaning, community, and identity in post-scarcity conditions? André Gorz's emphasis on autonomous spheres provides important guidance here—technological abundance should expand opportunities for care, creativity, and community rather than eliminating them. This might mean preserving spaces for traditional crafts, local culture, and human-scale institutions even in highly automated societies.

The political implications extend beyond policy prescriptions to questions of movement building and coalition formation. Left Transhumanists need to demonstrate genuine commitment to social justice rather than treating equality as secondary to technological progress. This means centering voices from marginalized communities in discussions of technological futures, supporting immediate struggles for economic justice and civil rights, and acknowledging how existing inequalities shape access to technological benefits.

Contemporary leftists, meanwhile, might benefit from recovering classical socialism's confidence about material progress and human potential. This doesn't mean uncritical embrace of Silicon Valley narratives, but rather serious engagement with how technology might serve emancipatory goals if properly organized and controlled. The environmental movement's shift from purely oppositional politics toward "Green New Deal" visions of technological transformation provides one model for this integration.

The ultimate goal should be what we might call "Socialist Transhumanism"—a political vision that combines technological optimism with egalitarian values, democratic control with innovative possibility, material abundance with social justice. This requires moving beyond both the naive utopianism that assumes technology automatically improves human life and the pessimistic assumption that technological advance necessarily reinforces oppression.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Communist Futurism

So do I still consider myself a communist? After examining the historical foundations, contemporary tensions, and possible syntheses, my answer is emphatically yes—but with important qualifications about what communism means in our technological moment.

I remain communist because I continue to believe in Marx's fundamental insight that human liberation requires transcending scarcity rather than merely redistributing existing limitations. The classical communist vision of technology eliminating necessary labor to enable unprecedented human creative development still strikes me as both desirable and potentially achievable. The question isn't whether we should pursue post-scarcity abundance, but how to ensure that abundance serves universal human flourishing rather than elite accumulation.

Where I diverge from much contemporary leftist discourse is in embracing rather than fearing technological transformation's revolutionary potential. Artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, life extension, and space exploration aren't inherently capitalist technologies that leftists should oppose—they're tools that could serve either emancipatory or oppressive purposes depending on who controls them and how their benefits get distributed. The appropriate leftist response isn't “Luddite” rejection but democratic seizure and redirection of technological development toward communist goals.

This position puts me at odds with contemporary leftist movements that often treat technological optimism as inherently suspect and abundance itself as politically problematic. But I'd argue that this represents a retreat from rather than advancement of socialist principles. Classical communists confidently embraced material progress as liberation's pathway while fighting to ensure that progress served everyone rather than just the wealthy. Contemporary leftists too often collapse the distinction between capitalist deployment of technology and technology's inherent emancipatory potential.

The personal dimension matters because political identity shapes practical commitment. If I believed that genuine human liberation was impossible or that technological progress necessarily reinforced oppression, I might retreat into purely oppositional politics focused on minimizing harm rather than maximizing possibility. Instead, believing that post-scarcity communist abundance remains achievable if we fight for democratic control over technological development gives me reason for revolutionary optimism rather than defensive pessimism.

This doesn't mean ignoring legitimate concerns about technological development under capitalism or dismissing the importance of addressing existing inequalities and injustices. It means integrating social justice concerns with technological possibility rather than treating them as competing priorities. The goal should be ensuring that advanced technologies serve universal human liberation rather than accepting artificial scarcity as permanent constraint on human potential.

Perhaps most importantly, reclaiming communist futurism means recovering the confidence that another world is not only possible but achievable through conscious human effort. The classical communist tradition combined rigorous analysis of existing conditions with bold vision of transcendent possibility. Contemporary leftist movements often excel at the former while struggling with the latter, creating political cultures better at critique than construction.

Left Transhumanism at its best represents an attempt to recover that constructive confidence while learning from contemporary insights about identity, ecology, and democratic participation. Whether it remains authentically "left" depends not on doctrinal purity but on practical commitment to ensuring that technological transformation serves universal human flourishing rather than elite accumulation.

The stakes extend far beyond academic categorization. Climate change, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and space technology will shape human civilization's trajectory regardless of whether leftists engage constructively with these developments. The choice isn't between accepting or rejecting technological change—it's between fighting to direct that change toward emancipatory ends or allowing it to proceed under capitalist logic that treats human welfare as secondary to profit maximization.

I consider myself communist because I believe another world is possible, and I believe technology can help us build it if we seize democratic control over technological development. That combination of revolutionary optimism and practical commitment to equality still seems like the best available definition of what it means to be on the left in the twenty-first century.

---

Bibliography

Bastani, Aaron. Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto. London: Verso, 2019. Argues for accelerationist socialism that uses AI, renewable energy, and space technology to achieve post-scarcity abundance under democratic control.

Fisher, Mark. "Designer Communism." Making & Breaking, 2018. Critiques capitalism's artificial scarcity while advocating for "luxury communism" that makes cultural abundance universally accessible.

Fisher, Mark. Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester: Zero Books, 2009. Analyzes how capitalism has colonized desires and imagination, making alternatives appear impossible despite material conditions that could support them.

Gorz, André. Critique of Economic Reason. London: Verso, 1989. Develops existentialist socialism emphasizing autonomous spheres and meaningful activity alongside technological automation.

Haraway, Donna. "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century." 1985. Explores how technology might transcend oppressive binaries and enable feminist liberation through embracing cyborg identity.

Lenin, Vladimir. "First Decrees of Soviet Power." 1917. Available at marxists.org. Demonstrates Lenin's commitment to large-scale mechanization and industrial automation as prerequisites for socialist victory.

Marx, Karl. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. 1857. Chapter 14. Contains Marx's clearest statements about communism reducing necessary labor to enable artistic and scientific development.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The German Ideology. 1845. Articulates the communist goal of abolishing alienated labor and enabling individuals to develop their full human potential.

Srnicek, Nick and Alex Williams. Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. London: Verso, 2015. Advocates "left accelerationism" combining full automation with universal basic income to create genuine post-work society.

Trotsky, Leon. The Revolution Betrayed. 1936. Chapter 4. Available at marxists.org. Envisions post-work society where abundance enables "the highest flowering of culture" through time liberation from drudgery.

Žižek, Slavoj. Heaven in Disorder. New York: OR Books, 2021. Offers dialectical analysis of AI and automation while questioning assumptions about freedom and liberation in technological society.