Editor’s Note: On June 21, we sat down in Beijing with Jyotishman Mudiar, host of the YouTube channel India & Global Left, and explored question "Will India be the 'next China'?" The following is a lightly edited transcript of our interview, revised for clarity and readability.
For over 1,500 years of the last 2025, India was the largest economy.
India is where China was 20 years ago, and it won’t take 20 years to catch up with modern technology.
India had 250 years of occupation and looting from UK (they stole the equivalent of $68 TRILLION), before that it faced over 1,000 years of attacks from Islamic invaders. It will recover, it survived them all.
Whatever may be, China shouldn’t fear India’s rise, China can’t face the West alone. China and India have spent thousands of years in peace, with a few hiccups. China shouldn’t act like USA, it should be better.
China Academy carries an interview on 21 June 2025 with Jyotishman Mudiar, host of the YouTube channel India & Global Left. Although the theme of the interview was "AI is Robbing our Jobs: What can Workers Do”, Jvotishman Mudiar made various observations about AI and Socialism. Below are my comments.
When Socialist Ideals Grapple with the Digital Age's Realities
In the introduction to the interview, Mudiar noted: What worries me—beyond the labour-capital relationship, which is of course the heart of socialism—is this dramatic collapse of the idea of the collective, the idea of public good, of solidarity. We’re being reduced to individual atoms, effectively creating a social-Darwinian world, a hierarchy world, where no reality exists outside your own individual self. That is deeply concerning for me. And I don’t think AI will help us—unless we, as humanity, seriously reflect on these changes and develop collective defence mechanisms against them.
Mudiar offers a thought-provoking, albeit deeply pessimistic, exploration of technology's impact on contemporary society and, by extension, on the very essence of socialist thought.
While the interview commendably highlights critical challenges posed by technological shifts, its overall tone risks sounding like a modern-day Luddite, and in its lament for a vanishing collective, it misses the foundational point of socialism as a transformative system of economic relationships in human society.
Beyond Sentiment to Structure
Mudiar’s central premise seems to define "the heart of socialism" primarily through the lens of collective belonging and solidarity. While these are undoubtedly vital aspects of a socialist society, Mudiar’s emphasis on their "dramatic collapse" due to technology appears to misinterpret the fundamental nature of socialism itself.
Socialism, at its core, is a stage of human society where the means of production are socialised, as opposed to privatised under capitalism. It's about who owns and controls the tools, factories, land, and now, the algorithms and data that drive our economy.
By focusing almost exclusively on the erosion of social cohesion, Mudiar detaches the "heart" from the "body" of socialist theory – the material conditions and economic structures that enable or hinder collective action and shared prosperity.
The concern about a "social-Darwinian world" where individuals are reduced to "atoms" is valid, but this outcome is a product of unchecked capitalism, not technology in a vacuum. If the means of production, including advanced technologies like AI, were democratically controlled and used for collective benefit, the outcomes could be vastly different. One such example is the use of big data and AI to democratise health care, or eventually the rule of law.
Mudiar’s failure to consistently anchor its socialist critique in this foundational understanding weakens its argument.
Technology: A Socialist Tool, Not Just an Oppressor
Mudiar rightly acknowledges the liberating potential of technology, citing the Dalit movement's advocacy for AI to replace menial, degrading labour. This crucial point, however, is largely overshadowed by a pervasive sense of technological determinism, where technology is seen primarily as an agent of fragmentation and disempowerment.
Indeed, technology is not fundamentally opposed to socialist principles. In a socialised economy, AI could be a powerful tool for optimising resource allocation, enhancing public services, and ultimately freeing human labour from drudgery.
A crucial point often overlooked is how AI can actively serve socialist goals within a marketplace, effectively replacing the imperfect 'invisible hand' of Adam Smith. In fact, with AI, it strengthens the argument for the socialist cause.
For instance, under democratic control, the state could leverage AI to precisely identify and target those living in abject poverty, as seen in China's remarkable poverty alleviation efforts, which would be incredibly challenging without such technological precision.
Furthermore, AI could be deployed to combat corruption, detect crime, and even expose injustices, acting as a powerful mechanism for transparency and accountability within a system striving for equity. The issue isn't the technology itself, but who controls it and for what purpose.
At a global level, AI will eventually be an indispensable tool to help bridge the technological North-South divide and solve the global environmental problem.
Under capitalism, technology is often deployed to maximize profit, leading to automation-driven job displacement and increased control for capital. This is a critical distinction that Mudiar sometimes blurs, painting technology with too broad a brush of negativity.
The Shifting Sands of Labour Power: A Capitalist Consequence
Mudiar acutely observes how technological revolutions, from container ships to disarticulated assembly lines and subcontracting, have "significantly shifted the balance of power within the labour-capital relationship—toward capital." The example of Nike's fragmented production chain vividly illustrates how globalised capitalism, aided by technology, undermines labour'ss ability to organise and strike.
This analysis of how technology facilitates the creation of a "larger reserve army of labour" and diminishes bargaining power is a powerful and accurate critique of capitalism's strategic use of technological advancements to suppress wages and weaken unions.
However, this insightful observation inadvertently reinforces the point that the problem isn't technology per se, but its deployment within a capitalist framework.
If a socialist society were to utilize these same technologies, the goal would be to reduce onerous work, redistribute wealth, and enhance leisure time for all, rather than concentrating power and profit.
The Erosion of the Collective: A Symptom, Not the Disease
Mudiar’s deep concern about the "dramatic collapse of the idea of the collective, the idea of public good, of solidarity" is perhaps the most emotionally resonant aspect of the interview. The anxieties around children's isolation due to digital devices, the individualistic mindset fostered by commercial platforms, and the redefinition of collective goods into narrow, nationalistic sentiments are palpable. Mudiar examines the themes of alienation and atomization in modern societies, noting that even "the rich increasingly feel victimised everywhere."
Yet, these are symptoms of a deeper malaise: unfettered capitalism's relentless commodification of life and its promotion of hyper-individualism. Technology, in this context, acts as an accelerant, not the root cause. Mudiar laments for a lost sense of "neighbourhood socialisation" and the "work unit system that China used to have" evokes nostalgia for forms of collective organisation that, while imperfect, offered a counterpoint to pure individualism. On the other hand, AI and digital technology are increasingly used creatively as tools to unite communities and help achieve a better society. They can empower the “marginalised” majority, undermining old power structures.
Ultimately, while Mudiar effectively articulates the anxieties and challenges posed by rapid technological advancement under capitalism, its critique would be strengthened by a more precise differentiation between the inherent nature of technology and its specific applications within a given economic system. To build collective "defence mechanisms" against these changes, as Mudiar advocates, we must first understand that the battle for the "heart of socialism" is not against technology itself, but against the capitalist structures that wield it for private gain and social fragmentation.
No two countries are the same, as each is shaped by a unique combination of geographic location, population size and makeup, natural resources, languages, cultures, and historical experiences. These factors influence how societies form, how political systems evolve, and how nations choose to govern and grow. As a result, every country follows its development path, shaped by its specific strengths, limitations, and institutional frameworks. Comparing one nation to another without understanding these differences oversimplifies the complex realities that define each country’s journey.
India's labour was just as cheap as China's in 1980. But, yes, its elite didnt follow the East Asian Model. Tamil Nadu and its southern neighbours are industrialising steadily even within the Indian Union. For geopolitical reasons, This century, India isolated itself from RCEP and the BRI. That means it missed out entering many more supply chains (jobs and factories and infrastructure. Chinese investment is pushed away. It is an own goal. The article is correct about China re domestic consumption and its hinterland. But it's overly pessimistic. It offers no explanation of why even Bangladesh (however badly run) can partially industrialise, while West Bengal deindustrialised. India won't become another China because of its deluded elite, not because the world has changed. Meanwhile, 620 million strong ASEAN is getting closer to China, and both are moving up in sync.
For over 1,500 years of the last 2025, India was the largest economy.
India is where China was 20 years ago, and it won’t take 20 years to catch up with modern technology.
India had 250 years of occupation and looting from UK (they stole the equivalent of $68 TRILLION), before that it faced over 1,000 years of attacks from Islamic invaders. It will recover, it survived them all.
Whatever may be, China shouldn’t fear India’s rise, China can’t face the West alone. China and India have spent thousands of years in peace, with a few hiccups. China shouldn’t act like USA, it should be better.
From Tan Wah Piow, London
China Academy carries an interview on 21 June 2025 with Jyotishman Mudiar, host of the YouTube channel India & Global Left. Although the theme of the interview was "AI is Robbing our Jobs: What can Workers Do”, Jvotishman Mudiar made various observations about AI and Socialism. Below are my comments.
When Socialist Ideals Grapple with the Digital Age's Realities
In the introduction to the interview, Mudiar noted: What worries me—beyond the labour-capital relationship, which is of course the heart of socialism—is this dramatic collapse of the idea of the collective, the idea of public good, of solidarity. We’re being reduced to individual atoms, effectively creating a social-Darwinian world, a hierarchy world, where no reality exists outside your own individual self. That is deeply concerning for me. And I don’t think AI will help us—unless we, as humanity, seriously reflect on these changes and develop collective defence mechanisms against them.
Mudiar offers a thought-provoking, albeit deeply pessimistic, exploration of technology's impact on contemporary society and, by extension, on the very essence of socialist thought.
While the interview commendably highlights critical challenges posed by technological shifts, its overall tone risks sounding like a modern-day Luddite, and in its lament for a vanishing collective, it misses the foundational point of socialism as a transformative system of economic relationships in human society.
Beyond Sentiment to Structure
Mudiar’s central premise seems to define "the heart of socialism" primarily through the lens of collective belonging and solidarity. While these are undoubtedly vital aspects of a socialist society, Mudiar’s emphasis on their "dramatic collapse" due to technology appears to misinterpret the fundamental nature of socialism itself.
Socialism, at its core, is a stage of human society where the means of production are socialised, as opposed to privatised under capitalism. It's about who owns and controls the tools, factories, land, and now, the algorithms and data that drive our economy.
By focusing almost exclusively on the erosion of social cohesion, Mudiar detaches the "heart" from the "body" of socialist theory – the material conditions and economic structures that enable or hinder collective action and shared prosperity.
The concern about a "social-Darwinian world" where individuals are reduced to "atoms" is valid, but this outcome is a product of unchecked capitalism, not technology in a vacuum. If the means of production, including advanced technologies like AI, were democratically controlled and used for collective benefit, the outcomes could be vastly different. One such example is the use of big data and AI to democratise health care, or eventually the rule of law.
Mudiar’s failure to consistently anchor its socialist critique in this foundational understanding weakens its argument.
Technology: A Socialist Tool, Not Just an Oppressor
Mudiar rightly acknowledges the liberating potential of technology, citing the Dalit movement's advocacy for AI to replace menial, degrading labour. This crucial point, however, is largely overshadowed by a pervasive sense of technological determinism, where technology is seen primarily as an agent of fragmentation and disempowerment.
Indeed, technology is not fundamentally opposed to socialist principles. In a socialised economy, AI could be a powerful tool for optimising resource allocation, enhancing public services, and ultimately freeing human labour from drudgery.
A crucial point often overlooked is how AI can actively serve socialist goals within a marketplace, effectively replacing the imperfect 'invisible hand' of Adam Smith. In fact, with AI, it strengthens the argument for the socialist cause.
For instance, under democratic control, the state could leverage AI to precisely identify and target those living in abject poverty, as seen in China's remarkable poverty alleviation efforts, which would be incredibly challenging without such technological precision.
Furthermore, AI could be deployed to combat corruption, detect crime, and even expose injustices, acting as a powerful mechanism for transparency and accountability within a system striving for equity. The issue isn't the technology itself, but who controls it and for what purpose.
At a global level, AI will eventually be an indispensable tool to help bridge the technological North-South divide and solve the global environmental problem.
Under capitalism, technology is often deployed to maximize profit, leading to automation-driven job displacement and increased control for capital. This is a critical distinction that Mudiar sometimes blurs, painting technology with too broad a brush of negativity.
The Shifting Sands of Labour Power: A Capitalist Consequence
Mudiar acutely observes how technological revolutions, from container ships to disarticulated assembly lines and subcontracting, have "significantly shifted the balance of power within the labour-capital relationship—toward capital." The example of Nike's fragmented production chain vividly illustrates how globalised capitalism, aided by technology, undermines labour'ss ability to organise and strike.
This analysis of how technology facilitates the creation of a "larger reserve army of labour" and diminishes bargaining power is a powerful and accurate critique of capitalism's strategic use of technological advancements to suppress wages and weaken unions.
However, this insightful observation inadvertently reinforces the point that the problem isn't technology per se, but its deployment within a capitalist framework.
If a socialist society were to utilize these same technologies, the goal would be to reduce onerous work, redistribute wealth, and enhance leisure time for all, rather than concentrating power and profit.
The Erosion of the Collective: A Symptom, Not the Disease
Mudiar’s deep concern about the "dramatic collapse of the idea of the collective, the idea of public good, of solidarity" is perhaps the most emotionally resonant aspect of the interview. The anxieties around children's isolation due to digital devices, the individualistic mindset fostered by commercial platforms, and the redefinition of collective goods into narrow, nationalistic sentiments are palpable. Mudiar examines the themes of alienation and atomization in modern societies, noting that even "the rich increasingly feel victimised everywhere."
Yet, these are symptoms of a deeper malaise: unfettered capitalism's relentless commodification of life and its promotion of hyper-individualism. Technology, in this context, acts as an accelerant, not the root cause. Mudiar laments for a lost sense of "neighbourhood socialisation" and the "work unit system that China used to have" evokes nostalgia for forms of collective organisation that, while imperfect, offered a counterpoint to pure individualism. On the other hand, AI and digital technology are increasingly used creatively as tools to unite communities and help achieve a better society. They can empower the “marginalised” majority, undermining old power structures.
Ultimately, while Mudiar effectively articulates the anxieties and challenges posed by rapid technological advancement under capitalism, its critique would be strengthened by a more precise differentiation between the inherent nature of technology and its specific applications within a given economic system. To build collective "defence mechanisms" against these changes, as Mudiar advocates, we must first understand that the battle for the "heart of socialism" is not against technology itself, but against the capitalist structures that wield it for private gain and social fragmentation.
No two countries are the same, as each is shaped by a unique combination of geographic location, population size and makeup, natural resources, languages, cultures, and historical experiences. These factors influence how societies form, how political systems evolve, and how nations choose to govern and grow. As a result, every country follows its development path, shaped by its specific strengths, limitations, and institutional frameworks. Comparing one nation to another without understanding these differences oversimplifies the complex realities that define each country’s journey.
Ask ChatGPT
India's labour was just as cheap as China's in 1980. But, yes, its elite didnt follow the East Asian Model. Tamil Nadu and its southern neighbours are industrialising steadily even within the Indian Union. For geopolitical reasons, This century, India isolated itself from RCEP and the BRI. That means it missed out entering many more supply chains (jobs and factories and infrastructure. Chinese investment is pushed away. It is an own goal. The article is correct about China re domestic consumption and its hinterland. But it's overly pessimistic. It offers no explanation of why even Bangladesh (however badly run) can partially industrialise, while West Bengal deindustrialised. India won't become another China because of its deluded elite, not because the world has changed. Meanwhile, 620 million strong ASEAN is getting closer to China, and both are moving up in sync.