Chapter 1 — Beyond Communism

From Marx’s Vision of Society to Humanity’s Open-Ended Future

About 178 years ago, Karl Marx imagined what human society could become.

Today, 178 years later, I imagine what humanity itself might become.

I grew up in China, where I was taught that communism was the highest stage of human society, following socialism. In that future society, everyone would contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.

This was the vision of communism I encountered growing up. It is not a complete account of Marx’s writings, which distinguished different phases of communist society and did not provide a detailed blueprint for every aspect of the future.

For much of human history, such a society seemed beyond the world’s economic possibilities. Human labor and productive capacity were limited, while human needs and desires continued to grow.

But what if those limitations begin to disappear?

A Calculator and a New Possibility

When I first came to America many years ago, I could easily add ten or fifteen numbers in my head and get the correct total in less than a minute.

A few years later, after becoming accustomed to calculators, I could hardly determine the age difference between two people from their birthdays without assistance.

Technology had made calculation easier but weakened an ability I once exercised regularly.

Artificial intelligence may have a similar effect on human intelligence, but on a much greater scale.

Yet technology can also have the opposite effect.

I have written poetry and a novel in Chinese, and even poetry in English. But I would never have imagined writing a book like this in English for publication.

But with AI, I dare.

The same technology that allows one person to stop exercising an ability may encourage another to explore possibilities that would otherwise remain undiscovered.

Will AI diminish human abilities or awaken new ones?

It depends.

When Machines Begin to Think

Throughout history, human survival has depended on human labor. Machines gradually replaced human muscle. Computers automated calculations. Now AI is beginning to perform tasks involving reasoning, analysis and decision-making. Robots are extending automation into the physical world.

AI may become the brain, while robots become the hands and feet.

Together, they could eventually perform much of the intellectual and physical labor necessary to sustain human civilization.

What happens when human labor is no longer essential to producing most of what we need?

That possibility brings us back to Marx.

Marx analyzed an industrial world in which human labor was central to production. Today, we can revisit his questions without assuming that his account of history or any later political interpretation must determine humanity’s future.

Marx and the Conditions of Abundance

In Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), Marx described a higher phase of communist society in which the traditional division of labor no longer constrained individuals, the opposition between mental and physical labor had disappeared, productive forces had greatly increased, and social wealth flowed abundantly.

Only under those conditions did he envision society operating by the principle:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

More than 150 years later, AI and robots are beginning to make some of those material conditions technologically conceivable.

America has become a major center of AI development, while China has developed enormous manufacturing capacity and become a major force in industrial robotics. Both countries are advancing in both fields.

The Paradox of Technological Abundance

Imagine a future in which AI designs products, robots manufacture them, automated transportation delivers them, and intelligent systems coordinate much of the economy.

Goods and services might become extraordinarily abundant and affordable. Money could become less important, less meaningful, and perhaps less powerful in everyday life—especially when it comes to obtaining basic necessities. But money would not necessarily disappear: scarce resources, unequal ownership, and competition for opportunities could preserve its influence.

The gap between rich and poor has long contributed to social divisions and conflict. If material abundance makes money less decisive in everyday life, what might define social classes in the future? Knowledge, control of technology, political power, influence—or divisions we cannot yet imagine? Old class boundaries might fade while new ones emerge.

This is a possibility, not a forecast. Energy, raw materials, housing, infrastructure, care, and many other goods and services would still face constraints. Greater productivity would not necessarily mean abundance for everyone.

Yet ownership of AI systems, robots, computing infrastructure and other productive assets might become increasingly concentrated.

The world could experience extraordinary material abundance alongside extraordinary concentrations of wealth and power.

Could capitalism, through competition, investment and technological innovation, create the material conditions Marx believed necessary for communism?

Could America reach those conditions before China?

Would we call it “Capitalized Communism” or “Communized Capitalism”?

Technological abundance would not guarantee equal access. Ownership, distribution and political power would still matter.

The key question may become not only how much AI and robotics can produce, but who owns the productive systems and who can benefit from their output. Broader ownership, public investment, income support, or arrangements not yet imagined could lead to very different outcomes. Technology alone cannot choose among them.

But suppose humanity eventually overcomes much of the economic necessity that has shaped civilization for thousands of years.

Would that be the highest stage of human society?

Or merely another milestone?

Even if some material conditions Marx associated with a higher phase of communism were achieved, this would not, by itself, establish communism. Social ownership, political institutions, distribution, and human relationships would still matter.

Material Wealth and Human Nature

Marx imagined that changing material and social conditions could transform human relationships.

But human beings do not necessarily become better simply because they become richer or freer.

Greed, jealousy, selfishness, dishonesty, hatred and the desire for power have accompanied humanity throughout history.

A person struggling to survive may steal food. A wealthy person who has more than enough may still steal millions.

Material abundance cannot guarantee moral goodness. Nor can freedom from necessary labor guarantee freedom from human sin.

Technology may increase human capability without increasing kindness, wisdom, or compassion. Greed, arrogance, hatred, and the pursuit of power could become more destructive when amplified by powerful tools. Destruction is often easier than construction. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing reminds us that human malice could cause immense harm even without modern AI. As technology grows more powerful, we must ask who uses it—and for what purpose. It may not be AI that destroys humanity, but the mind behind AI.

AI and robots may transform the conditions of human life. But they may not transform human nature.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to an ideal society is not our inability to produce enough, but our inability to control ourselves.

Freedom and the Human Spirit

For thousands of years, necessity has helped drive human progress. We learned, invented, struggled and cooperated because survival demanded it.

But what happens when AI, robots, and future technologies free us from much of that necessity?

Some people may use their freedom to explore knowledge, create art and pursue achievements once beyond their reach.

Others may become increasingly dependent on machines, allowing AI to think, decide and create for them—or even using it to harm others and society.

Convenience, comfort, and satisfaction provided by AI and future technologies may gradually put many human spirits to sleep, weakening initiative and independent thought. Yet a smaller number of curious and courageous people may be awakened by those same possibilities, making discoveries and perhaps helping humanity confront technological or human-made existential risks. An awakened spirit, however, is not necessarily a benevolent one.

Comfort, convenience and satisfaction may gradually weaken the abilities and motivation that once drove human progress.

On the other hand, AI will awaken some human spirits, encouraging people to explore possibilities that might otherwise remain undiscovered.

Even an awakened human spirit does not necessarily lead to goodness.

Ambition can inspire extraordinary discoveries or the pursuit of domination. Intelligence can serve compassion or cruelty. Creativity can build civilization or help destroy it.

AI may amplify both the greatness and the darkness of human nature.

The contrast could become more pronounced: those who seek to do good may accomplish more good with technology, while those driven by malice may cause greater harm. In that sense, the good might become better and the bad worse. But this is a possibility, not a law; technology amplifies capability without determining moral choice.

The future may depend not only on whether the human spirit is awakened, but also on what guides it.

Technology keeps opening new doors. But who decides which doors humanity should walk through?

Freedom from necessary labor could open time for inquiry and creation, but it could also diminish the routines through which people develop skill, discipline, and purpose. What would we do with that freedom? I cannot prescribe the answer for everyone.

Beyond Any Final Stage

Yet why should we assume that the age of AI and robots represents the final stage of human development?

A thousand years ago, much of what we take for granted today would have seemed impossible.

What will become possible another thousand years from now?

AI and robots may be only another milestone in humanity’s long journey.

Present and future technologies may transform the human body, extend our intelligence and change our understanding of consciousness. Human civilization may expand beyond Earth, establishing settlements on other planets, reaching distant star systems and perhaps one day exploring galaxies across the universe.

Artificial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology, and other present and future technologies may change the conditions of human life in ways that no economic model can fully anticipate.

Perhaps humanity will even overcome death itself—the ultimate limitation of human existence today.

We do not know whether biological immortality is possible. But why should we assume that the limitations we face today will remain permanent?

The possibility of transforming life before death will receive closer examination later in this book. It is not a claim that death has been conquered, or that continuity of personal identity is guaranteed by any future technology.

Centuries ago, explorers crossed oceans in search of new routes and opportunities, often with profound consequences for the people already living on the lands they reached. Today, space entrepreneurs and scientists imagine human journeys to other planets.

The ambitions, technologies, and consequences differ, and exploration does not automatically mean progress. Yet curiosity and the desire to look beyond familiar boundaries remain.

A thousand years from now, what new frontiers might humanity attempt to cross?

Perhaps the greatest significance of exploration is not simply reaching new places, but refusing to accept our present boundaries as permanent.

And every limitation humanity overcomes may reveal another.

Destination, Fate, and Destiny

Before asking whether humanity has a final destination, we should distinguish three words that can sound similar but carry different meanings. In everyday speech, destiny and fate often overlap. Here, Everbecomingism uses destiny in a particular philosophical sense.

Concept	Common meaning	Meaning in this discussion
Destination	A place or endpoint toward which a journey leads	A predetermined final condition that humanity need not assume
Fate	An outcome believed to be fixed or unavoidable	The idea of inevitability, which Everbecomingism does not require
Destiny	Often an appointed future; sometimes a life’s unfolding course	An unfolding future shaped by conditions, choices, relationships, and possibilities—not a guaranteed endpoint

Who controls destiny? We influence our own futures through decisions and actions, but we do not control every consequence. Other people, social institutions, technology, natural conditions, and chance also shape what becomes possible. Religious traditions may understand destiny in relation to divine purpose; Everbecomingism does not claim to settle that question.

In this book, destiny is not a prewritten script. It is the future as it unfolds through continuity, transformation, relationships, and changing possibilities. We can help shape it without claiming to command it.

This is the sense in which I say: “There is no destination. Only destiny!” It is a declaration of an open-ended journey, not a promise of a fixed fate or an endless life.

The Open-Ended Journey

Marx envisioned communism as an advanced stage of human society. But even if such a society became possible, why should human development stop there?

Marx did not leave a single detailed final blueprint, and his writings should not be reduced to the claim that historical change must simply stop. Our disagreement is therefore with the assumption that any social ideal should be treated as humanity’s ultimate destination—not with every aspect of Marx’s philosophy.

What if humanity has no final destination?

I call this vision Everbecomingism.

Everbecomingism is not an economic system or a promise of a perfect society. It is the idea that humanity’s development may be an open-ended journey, continually overcoming limitations and discovering possibilities beyond those we can currently imagine.

This vision begins to connect the individual and humanity. People shape the technologies and institutions around them; those technologies and institutions reshape what individuals can become. Existence continues through change, transformation alters relationships, and relationships open some possibilities while closing others. We will explore these connections more fully through four interconnected dimensions later in the book.

Agriculture changed how humans survived.

Industrialization changed how humans worked.

The internet changed how humans connected.

AI and robots may change how humans think, work and organize civilization.

What comes afterward may change what it means to be human.

Everbecomingism does not guarantee progress. Humanity may advance, retreat, struggle, fail and begin again.

The human spirit may awaken, fall asleep and be rekindled.

There may never be a perfect humanity or a final, perfect society—unless we can overcome the darker side of our own nature.

But that does not mean the journey must end.

Marx explored the possibility of a radically different human society.

I imagine a journey for humanity that may have no final destination.

I believe AI may open another stage of human development that we cannot yet comprehend.

I do not know what AI will ultimately bring. Its consequences depend on technical limits, human choices, institutions, and risks we have not yet understood. But uncertainty is a reason to explore—not a reason to declare the journey complete.

I once ended an English poem called Boundary with these lines:

If it meant to be,
It will be.

There is no destination.
Only destiny.

There is no destination. Only destiny!