The Class Position of Science Communication in Turkey

Young comrades!

Looking at that famous photograph taken in 1990 by the Voyager 1 spacecraft as it turned back from six billion kilometers away, Carl Sagan described humanity’s place in the universe as the "Pale Blue Dot." In Sagan’s captivating and romantic narration, Earth was a dusty shaft of light hanging in endless darkness; all the kings and slaves, victories and tragedies upon it were merely fleeting glimmers on that tiny speck.

From the standpoint of natural-scientific materialism, this photograph is a magnificent document of enlightenment: it shatters human arrogance and recalls our species’ humility before the objective vastness of the universe. Yet the ground on which we stand as historical materialists is not a place to gaze at this Pale Blue Dot and sigh with an apolitical humanist emotion. Our task is to look at the material reality upon that speck—at humanity’s written and conscious history, at the relations of production, and at class struggle.

The Historical Consciousness of Science and the Struggle for Enlightenment

Humanity’s recorded history of a few millennia is a struggle for liberation against nature’s relentless necessities. The sole power that lifts the human being from being a passive object of nature and turns it into a transforming "subject" is the labor process (praxis) and the scientific understanding accumulated within that process.

From the burned parchments of the Library of Alexandria to Giordano Bruno burned in the courts of the Inquisition, from Galileo’s telescope to the steam engine of the Industrial Revolution, from the splitting of the atom to today’s artificial-intelligence algorithms—science is not a divine gift lowered from the heavens, nor a solitary fantasy of select minds. Science is the sum of the collective living and dead labor that humanity has accumulated in the practice of understanding nature and transforming it in line with social needs. As humanity developed science, it freed itself from nature’s dogmas; as it grasped objective laws, it discarded fatalist mysticism. In this respect, science is the most revolutionary lever of history.

So where, in this complex stretch of the twenty-first century, should we stand in the struggle for Enlightenment?

The bourgeoisie, in its ascending age against feudalism and Church dogmas, defended enlightenment and science. Yet once it seized power absolutely and became the exploiting class, it stripped science of its role as an instrument of human liberation and turned it into an instrument of capital accumulation and class domination. Today the struggle for enlightenment is a comprehensive class war waged on one side against religious and reactionary dogmatism, and on the other against the modern, high-tech mysticism spread by Silicon Valley, technology oligarchs, and the bourgeois media.

Where we stand is clear: we stand on the line that tears science from the bourgeoisie’s techno-feudal fortresses and its lust for profit, and that turns it into a torch of liberation in the hands of the working class and the oppressed. Genuine enlightenment cannot be completed in a social order that cannot transcend the limits of private ownership of the means of production.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

— Karl Marx

The "Myth of Neutrality" and a Conscious Line of Defense

The most dangerous illusion continuously injected into the masses in today’s popular-science publishing and dominant science diplomacy is the "Myth of Neutrality." The lie whispered to us is this: "Science is apolitical; it stands above politics. Scientists and science communicators do not get entangled in inter-class conflict; they merely transmit neutral reality."

Dialectical philosophy exposes the fraud behind this mask at once: in a society divided into classes, where one side relentlessly exploits the other, to declare "neutrality" is to take sides with the existing ruling order.

Whoever funds the laboratories determines the direction of science.
Whoever holds the patent on artificial intelligence decides for whom that technology brings productivity and for whom it brings mass unemployment.
In a system that places pharmaceutical companies’ profit rates above human health, to say "I only describe the structure of the molecule; I am not concerned with the price of the drug" is not neutrality—it is complicity in capital’s murders.

What the bourgeoisie calls "neutrality" is an ideological anesthetic used to depoliticize the masses and keep them from questioning the class character of technology and science. In an environment where false prophets and capital icons such as Elon Musk are mythologized, and where neuro-mystical discourses are offered like narcotics, a conscious revolutionary line of defense rises on three foundation stones:

The Dialectical-Materialist Filter (Conceptual Clarity): While we embrace scientific data objectively, we will surgically strip away the bourgeois ideology packaged around that data, the lies of "neutrality," and technological determinism. We will separate objective reality from ideological distortion.
The Sword of Political Economy (Class-Centered Inquiry): Of every new technology, every scientific discovery, and every popular-science narrative placed before us, we will insistently ask: "Whose property is this technology, whose profit does it increase, and against which class is it being used as a weapon?"
A Proletarian Style of Enlightenment (Revolutionary Communication): We will free scientific knowledge from the bourgeoisie’s cold, sterile, ivory-tower language. We will reunite it with a language that workers, young software developers, engineers, and students can understand—yet never by flattening it—turning class anger into organized consciousness with enthusiasm, courage, and unity.

Science Communication on a Global Scale: A Dialectical Analysis of Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson

To grasp the historical course and class limits of popular-science publishing in the world, we must subject figures who are global symbols of this field—such as Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson—to dialectical critique.

Carl Sagan: Progressive Natural Materialism and the Limits of "Abstract Humanism"

As one of the greatest science communicators of the twentieth century, Carl Sagan took a passionate materialist stand against religious dogmatism, superstition, and the nuclear terror of the Cold War era. With the Cosmos series he made the natural sciences beloved by millions and carried evolutionary biology and astronomy into popular consciousness.

Progressive Aspect: Historically of the highest value for his defense of natural-scientific materialism, for setting science against mystical darkness, and for boldly taking sides on human questions such as nuclear disarmament.
Class Limit: Sagan’s philosophical horizon is bounded by liberal-bourgeois humanism. As seen in the "Pale Blue Dot" narrative, Sagan seeks the source of humanity’s crises (poverty, ecological destruction, wars) not in capitalist relations of production and the rule of capital, but in "the primitive ignorance of the human species" and in "its failure to grasp its loneliness in the universe." This approach, which equalizes exploiter and exploited on the same "pale blue dot," is an idealist and abstract humanism that covers over class contradictions.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Technocracy and the Voice of the American State Apparatus

Neil deGrasse Tyson, who inherited Carl Sagan’s legacy and became the global science screen of the twenty-first century, is a concrete example of class erosion within this tradition.

Progressive Aspect: He takes a determined stand in defense of factual reality against rising religious reaction, climate denialists, and hostility to science in the United States.
Class Limit: Falling even behind Sagan’s pacifist and questioning humanism, Tyson has turned science into a shop window for the American technocratic structure, the private sector, and the state apparatus. When he narrates space mining, the space moves of monopolist companies (SpaceX and the like), and the technological shows of the military-industrial complex, he leaves class property relations entirely out of account. He risks turning science into a showground for bourgeois democracy and technocratic elitism.

The Philosophical and Historical Evolution of Science: From Positivism to Science Fetishism

The deepest barricade the bourgeoisie has built on the field of social struggle is to present science as a "neutral and sterile truth" living in an ivory tower above social classes, property relations, and historical contradictions. The dialectical-materialist method shows that science is not produced in a society-free environment; that in every historical interval it is shaped, financed, and directed by the relations of production.

The Impasse of Positivist Epistemology

The "neutrality" illusion that bourgeois ideology constructs around science takes its philosophical roots from nineteenth- and twentieth-century Positivism (Comte, Mach, and the Vienna Circle). Positivism reduces science to the mere "collection of observable and measurable data." It severs the object under study from the historical, social, and economic context that produces it. On the positivist view, science must be "value-free."

Yet the philosophical reality is this: to measure only "what" a phenomenon is, without asking "why it is so" and "whose interests it serves," is to affirm the existing situation—that is, the status quo and the ruling class. Measuring the processing speed of an artificial-intelligence algorithm is an objective activity; but to treat that algorithm’s throwing workers out of work as "natural technological progress" and not to discuss its class roots is bourgeois ideology hidden under the mask of positivist neutrality.

From Commodity Fetishism to "Science Fetishism"

In Capital, Karl Marx deciphered Commodity Fetishism, the fundamental disease of bourgeois society. In commodity fetishism, the products that people produce with their own social labor turn into an independent, mysterious power that stands over them and rules them. Today this process has evolved into Science and Technology Fetishism:

The collective intelligence and labor accumulated by humanity over centuries (science) is appropriated by capital.
This accumulation is then set before humanity as an autonomous structure that develops on its own, to be worshiped or feared, independent of human beings (Artificial Intelligence, the Algorithm, the Singularity).
Thus the subject (human labor) is objectified, while the object (constant capital/science) is subjectified. Science fetishism serves to legitimize science, in the hands of capital, as a "force of nature" that crushes humanity.

As Louis Althusser noted, scientific institutions are among capitalism’s Ideological State Apparatuses. Looking through Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony: the ruling class governs the masses not only by force of arms, but by producing consent under the name of "scientific truths." The idea that "there is no alternative to the system" is injected into the masses less through political economy than through the jargon of "scientific and technical inevitabilities."

Historical Thresholds of Science’s Class Curve

Historical materialism proves the class character of science with concrete historical examples. The history of science cannot be torn from the history of class struggle:

The Rising Bourgeoisie and the Scientific Revolution: When the bourgeoisie began its march to power against feudalism and Church dogmas, it defended science along a revolutionary line. The steps of figures such as Copernicus, Galilei, and Bruno were blows that shook feudal property relations and religious legitimacy. Yet from the moment the bourgeoisie seized power and established its own rule, it pruned science’s destructive edge. Science was stripped of its role as a revolutionary philosophy that questions the social order and confined to an instrumental technique that would merely run machines, calculate trade routes, and increase manufacturing.
The Industrial Revolution and the "Philosophy of Manufactures": The Industrial Revolution is the period in which science was directly transformed into a means of production (constant capital). In this period science was openly used to break the resistance of the working class. Andrew Ure, one of the nineteenth-century bourgeois ideologues, wrote plainly in The Philosophy of Manufactures: "When the capitalist develops new machines and techniques that automate production, he has a single aim: to strip workers of their capacity to strike, to deskill mental labor, and to secure absolute obedience to capital."
Social Darwinism and Biological Reductionism: To legitimize imperialist expansion and class inequalities, the bourgeoisie directly distorted the natural sciences. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was twisted by thinkers such as Francis Galton into the fraud of Social Darwinism and eugenics. Colonial massacres and the misery of the working class were presented as "the elimination of those biologically unfit." Figures such as Cesare Lombroso "scientifically" reported that the poor possessed a "criminal anatomy." This cover charged the bill for exploitation not to the system but to the victim’s biology.
Today’s Monopoly Capitalism and Data Exploitation: Today the clearest scene of the "neutral science" lie is monopoly pharmaceutical companies and technology giants. During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines produced with humanity’s collective accumulation of knowledge were sacrificed to monopoly firms’ profit rates. While millions in the Global South died for lack of access to vaccines, patent law held capital’s profit above human life. Likewise, today’s artificial-intelligence models are trained by plundering, without any payment of consent, the collective digital labor humanity has left on the internet; this accumulation is privately appropriated by corporations.

Dimension of Analysis	The Bourgeois-Positivist Myth of Science	The Dialectical-Materialist Reality of Science
Position of Science	A classless, apolitical, universal, and sterile field of truth.	A social practice shaped, funded, and directed by the relations of production.
Role of Technology	A neutral and autonomous force that spontaneously carries humanity forward.	Constant Capital in the hands of capital, used to crush, supervise, and deskill living labor.
Source of Problems	"Misuse of technology," "bad management," or "lack of education."	Private ownership of the means of production and capital’s relentless drive for profit.
Discourse of Neutrality	"We do not get involved in politics; we merely transmit the data."	An ideological approach that affirms the hegemony of the ruling class.
Dynamics of Development	Divine sparks in the minds of genius individuals and miraculous inventions.	Humanity’s collective labor, historical needs, and the pressure of class struggle.

As can be seen, the development of science and technology has never been free of class struggles. An approach that says "I am neutral" risks silently approving capital’s domination over the working class. A language of science that, while narrating a medical technology, never asks how much it is sold for, and that, while narrating artificial intelligence, never accounts for the millions it will throw out of work, turns into a mechanism that produces consent for the capitalist order. Our task is to cling passionately to science and objective truth while tearing off the bourgeois packaging of "neutrality" wrapped around it.

The Field of Science Communication in Turkey and Its Approaches

In a society, not only how scientific knowledge is produced, but also how that knowledge is conveyed to the masses, by whom it is popularized, and in what philosophical packaging it is presented, is a matter of class struggle. In today’s Turkey, digital publishing and social media are a field where science is displayed as a "neutral and apolitical" ornament, yet where ideological assumptions are produced deep beneath the surface.

To treat the actors of science communication in Turkey as a homogeneous structure is contrary to the dialectical method. Before us stand lines that diverge in their class functions and philosophical roots:

Bourgeois Elitism and the Popperian Deviation

Among the figures most prominently advanced when science is mentioned in Turkey are names such as Celal Şengör. Beyond their academic competence in geology, the philosophy of science these figures offer the masses rests on Karl Popper’s anti-communist principle of "falsifiability." By denying that social laws can be discovered, Popper presented history as a succession of accidents.

This school injects into the masses the following idea: the natural sciences are certain and sublime; the social sciences and dialectical materialism are "unscientific dogma." The frequently voiced claim that "the people are ignorant; the state must be governed by educated elites" is the manifestation of an elitist conception of the state. For example, while natural disasters (earthquakes and the like) are correctly analyzed as geological facts, the truth that the poor die in those earthquakes because of contractor profits, rent-based capitalist urbanization, and class inequality is kept from view. Science is positioned as a legitimizer of the bourgeois state apparatus and of the existing order.

Neuro-Idealism and Popular Reductionism

Another problematic line in science communication is pseudo-scientific populism that takes the prestige of science and blends it with personal-development and mystical discourses. Structures such as Prof. Dr. Sinan Canan and Açık Beyin are examples of this line.

By distorting the empirical data of neuroscience and evolutionary biology, they reduce social contradictions to individual biology. Concepts put on the market such as "the factory settings of the human being" are biological reductionism. The burnout and depression lived by a worker on the minimum wage, unable to pay rent and exploited, are the objective result of capitalist relations of exploitation. Yet neuro-mystical discourses explain this by saying "Your brain is not living according to its factory settings; do a dopamine detox; find the calm within." This approach covers up social crime and capitalism’s systemic crisis and charges the bill to the worker. By counseling the masses to turn inward rather than organize against the system, it produces passivity.

Progressive Enlightenment Platforms and Class Blindness

Unlike malicious mystifiers and elitist figures, platforms in Turkey such as Evrim Ağacı (Çağrı Mert Bakırcı), Bebar Bilim (Cengiz), Hypatia Bilim, and Gelecek Bilimde display an honest, qualified, and enlightening effort.

Their struggle to bring evolutionary biology, astronomy, and the history of technology to the masses in a geography such as Turkey, where reaction and superstition are widespread, is historically of the highest value. Their defense of materialist science against religious dogmas places them in a progressive position in the struggle for enlightenment.

Yet if a constructive and comradely dialectical critique is to be offered, the fundamental weakness of these channels is technological determinism and positivist class blindness. They tend to treat technology and artificial intelligence as an autonomous force progressing on its own, independent of the class ground on which it is produced. While saying "artificial intelligence will change the world," they may overlook that the monopolist capital that owns that artificial intelligence uses this technology as an instrument of exploitation. Moreover, political and algorithmic pressures in Turkey involuntarily force these publishers to remain in a "safe apolitical zone." Young comrades, while following these channels, should embrace the objective natural-scientific data they offer; yet they should complete the surrounding class blindness with dialectical-materialist consciousness.

Criterion of Analysis	Bourgeois-Elitist Line (Celal Şengör et al.)	Neuro-Mystical Populism (Sinan Canan / Açık Beyin)	Anglo-American Humanist Line (Carl Sagan / Neil deGrasse Tyson)	Progressive Positivist Line (Evrim Ağacı / Bebar Bilim)	Revolutionary Class-Partisan Science Communication
Philosophical Basis	Popperian falsificationism, elitism.	Idealism, biological reductionism, pop psychology.	Idealist humanism, liberal Enlightenment.	Positivism, mechanical materialism, technological determinism.	Dialectical and historical materialism.
View of the People	"The people are ignorant; elites must govern the state."	"The masses are biologically inadequate beings who cannot live by their 'factory settings.'"	"All humanity is in the same boat and must be enlightened through education."	"The masses are deprived of rational knowledge; they must be educated."	"The people (the laborers) are the subject that makes history; science is their weapon."
Cause of Crises	Humanity’s ignorant nature and distance from science.	The individual’s failure to manage brain functions correctly.	Human greed, ignorance, and irrationality.	Ignorance, religious dogmatism, lack of rational thought.	Capitalist relations of production, private property, and class rule.
Perception of Technology	A power that must remain under elite control.	A biological stimulus requiring individual adaptation.	Humanity’s common heritage (isolated from class relations).	An autonomous power progressing on its own and changing the world.	Constant capital in the hands of capital; an instrument of abundance when socialized.
Proposed Solution	Enlightened despotism; the masses’ submission to experts.	Inner calm, acceptance, personal development.	Universal human consciousness, science literacy.	More scientific content, rational reasoning.	Class consciousness, organized practice, socialization of the means of production.
Class Character	Legitimizer of bourgeois power.	An approach that feeds bourgeois hegemony.	Liberal-bourgeois Enlightenment (lacking class analysis).	Progressive-Enlightenment but class-incomplete.	Proletarian enlightenment and the revolutionary philosophical line.

Principles of Class-Partisan and Constructive Science Communication

Critique is not enough; we must methodically build what we will put in its place—how we will bring revolutionary science together with the masses. Class-partisan revolutionary science communication is not a sterile intellectualism locked in the ivory towers of the academy. It is the art of forging the dialectical bond between laboratory and factory, algorithm and class consciousness, nature’s objective laws and social revolution.

The Unity of the Dialectics of Nature and Society

The greatest weakness of bourgeois science is that it examines the natural sciences and the social sciences by cutting them apart with a knife. As Friedrich Engels indicated in Dialectics of Nature, there are no impassable walls between nature and society. Nature’s objective matrix is transformed into a social reality by means of human labor (praxis).

A revolutionary science narrator, when recounting evolutionary biology, brings Friedrich Engels’s horizon in The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man into language. Humanity’s separation from nature is explained not only by genetic mutations, but by the dialectics of hand–tool–labor–language. When conveying neuroscientific data, the brain is not treated as an independent lump of flesh. The brain’s plasticity is situated in the context of social environment, working conditions, alienation, and class inequality.

Demystification: Disenchantment and Political Economy

The bourgeoisie sells high technology to the masses as mystical "divine miracles." The main task of revolutionary science communication is demystification (disenchantment). In every technological development narrated, two dialectical moves must be made:

Exposing Dead Labor: Lifting the veil over the algorithm polished as a mystical miracle and showing the accumulated human labor behind it. "This algorithm does not think on its own; this algorithm is the exploited dead labor of the libraries humanity has produced over centuries, of millions of software developers, and of Global South workers who label data for a dollar an hour."
Asking the Class Question (Cui Bono? / Whose Interest?): Immediately after the empirical content of a scientific discovery is explained, class inquiry must enter: "With whose money was this discovery funded? Who holds this patent? Will this discovery shorten the worker’s hours, or raise the boss’s profit and throw millions onto the street?"

Revolutionary Transformation in Language and Style

The language of revolutionary science communication cannot be the bourgeoisie’s cold, sterile, ivory-tower jargon. Yet a populist language that vulgarizes science for the sake of reaching the masses is equally unacceptable. Our style is the synthesis of scientific rigor with combative and enthusiastic agitation.

Scientific concepts must not be hidden behind ornate terms merely to appear intellectual. The technocratic language that serves to conceal knowledge from the working class must be rejected; the most complex theories must be told through their concrete counterparts in life. To simplify is not to degrade science. When narrating a scientific truth, language must have the enthusiasm and passion that will turn class anger into organized consciousness.

The Class Unity of Cognitive Laborers and Blue-Collar Workers

In today’s Turkey, science communication is itself an instrument for intervening in the proletarianization of cognitive laborers who carry out mental and technical production (software developers, engineers, researchers, academics). Through artificial intelligence and automation, capitalism is rapidly devaluing mental labor and drawing engineers and software developers into the same precarious wheel of exploitation as the manual worker on the factory floor.

Revolutionary science communication carries this truth to these strata: "The algorithm you produce, the code you write, does not show that you are an elite 'middle class.' Capital is taking your mental labor from you, loading it onto a machine, and devaluing you. Your liberation lies not in believing fairy tales of intellectual property, but in uniting, in the same trade-union and political trench, with the blue-collar worker against the boss who holds the means of production."

Principled Dimension	Traditional / Bourgeois Science Communication	Revolutionary Class-Partisan Science Communication
Fundamental Aim	To inform, educate, and arouse curiosity among the masses.	To awaken the class consciousness of the masses; to turn science into a weapon of enlightenment.
Methodological Approach	Examining natural and social phenomena in isolation from each other.	Treating nature and society as a single dialectical and historical process.
Mode of Questioning	“How does this technology work, and how efficient is it?”	“Whose property is this technology, whose profit does it increase, and whom does it devalue?”
Communicative Style	Either ivory-tower academism or shallow personal-development populism.	A language of agitation and analysis that unites scientific rigor with revolutionary enthusiasm.
Perception of Technology	An autonomous power progressing on its own, or a sacred fetish.	Humanity’s accumulated collective labor (a weapon in the hands of capital; an instrument of liberation under socialism).
Target Audience and Role	Passive viewer, consumer, a mass to be educated.	The social subject that makes history; the working class as the owner of knowledge.

As the Human of the Future: "What Is to Be Done?" and the Building of Our Common Future

As we bring this question to a final philosophical synthesis across this wide ideological field stretching from Silicon Valley’s high-tech prophecy chambers to the publishing channels in our country, we must clarify the objective dynamics that will build the future and our historical responsibility.

A Dialectical Synthesis: Material Reality upon the Rubble of Myths

The narrative marketed as the "Technological Singularity" or the autonomization of artificial intelligence is not machines mystically gaining a soul. This process is the historical moment of crisis in which the colossal level reached by the productive forces (artificial intelligence, automation, quantum computing) has come to the point of bursting the narrow molds of capitalist relations of production (private property, the profit drive, the market, and wage labor).

Capital tends to absolutize technology in order to raise the rate of profit and lower the bargaining power of living labor. Yet the inevitable law of dialectics operates here as well: as living labor is expelled from production, the source of value and surplus-value dries up. Digital and industrial commodities produced in vast quantity and at vast speed become unsellable to dispossessed masses. The Singularity is not the apolitical paradise or inevitable catastrophe promised by capital’s ideologues; it is capitalist forms of property striking the historical and logical limit of impossibility.

A Dialectical Orientation Beyond Two Idealist Deviations

To conceal this systemic crisis of its own making, the capitalist order sets two fundamental idealist traps before the masses:

Luddism (Hostility to Machines): Sees the source of evil and exploitation in the objective existence of the machine or of technology. It preaches a "return to the simpler and more natural relations of the past." Yet the problem is not technology; it is the regime of private property that turns that technology into an instrument for crushing living labor. To target machines or algorithms is to overlook the order of exploitation itself.
Transhumanism (Techno-Utopia): By ignoring property relations and class reality, it produces the lie that technology will "spontaneously liberate all of humanity." While the rule of capital continues, transhumanist discourses offer the masses not universal abundance, but a ground of Techno-Feudalism in which a handful of technology monopolies establish absolute control.

Projection of the Future	View of Technology	Property Relation	Social / Class Outcome
Luddite Conservatism	Source of catastrophe; must be stopped or reversed.	Petty-bourgeois property / nostalgia for the past.	Continuation of poverty, primitive exploitation, and helplessness.
Transhumanist Capitalist Order	Classless savior or autonomous power.	Absolute private property of the monopolist bourgeoisie.	Digital slavery, mass unemployment, and deepening inequality.
Dialectical Socialism	Humanity’s collective accumulation and possibility of liberation.	Socialized / collective property.	Radical shortening of compulsory labor time and a society of abundance.

"General Intellect" and Social Potential

In the Grundrisse, Karl Marx described the stage at which the scientific knowledge, technique, and social accumulation accumulated by society become directly the fundamental productive force as the "General Intellect."

Today’s artificial-intelligence models, software, and global data networks are the materialized form of this "General Intellect" that humanity has produced over centuries. Capital seizes this accumulation and holds it over humanity’s head as an element of pressure, as if it were its private property. Yet dialectical reality shows that the artificial-intelligence and automation revolution is preparing the material and technical infrastructure of a society of abundance:

It can radically reduce weekly working hours,
Free humanity from drudgery and allow time for art, philosophy, and science,
Wipe from the face of the earth the problems of access to housing, food, and health—this objective capacity exists today.

The obstacle to be overcome is not technological insufficiency, but the property relations that hold this technical infrastructure in the hands of capital monopolies.

Taking the Side of the Class: The Human of the Future Is Taking Shape Today

Our side is clear. Our side is the working class that is dispossessed and devalued, yet that reproduces the world and the future—that is, the human of the future.

The human of the future will not descend from the heavens tomorrow. The human who will create the future is taking shape today within today’s contradictions, standing shoulder to shoulder against exploitation:

Youth: Against the mythologizing of capital actors such as Elon Musk and against the passivity produced by neuro-mystical discourses, youth carries the potential to take ownership of its own future by grasping science with a dialectical understanding.
Cognitive Laborers and Software Developers: The truth is coming to light that the codes or algorithms produced at a screen do not make one the equal of capital, and that artificial intelligence is rapidly devaluing mental labor as well. Their fate meets that of the blue-collar worker on the factory floor on the same objective ground.
Science Narrators and Communicators: Enlightenment efforts waged against superstition and reaction are valuable. The meeting of these efforts with a class filter holds the possibility of an immense contribution to socializing knowledge by freeing it from the hegemony of capital.

A Call to Stand Side by Side, Shoulder to Shoulder, as Comrades

Machines alone have no capacity to rebel or to become a social subject. The power that transforms history is the collective will of the human being who grasps the contradiction of living and dead labor behind the machines.

Debates on the "Technological Singularity" show us that the future will take shape neither in the surveillance society in the hands of Silicon Valley’s techno-lords, nor in the personal-development opium of mystical discourses. The future lies in the social practice that socializes the productive forces and that turns science from a whip in the hands of capital into the common torch of all humanity.

To create the human of the future from today means standing side by side with the real owners of science and production against technological fetishism. Setting aside divisions and false boundaries, it is possible to turn science, technique, and life into a common ground of struggle for the liberation of humanity.

At this historical threshold, we invite you to stand side by side, to weave our common future together from today, and to become comrades—in order to free science from the domination of capital, to defend the right of labor, and to build a world fit for human beings.