The Organizer and the Monopolist
Two events occurred in the same week, in the same country, and in the same technology sector.
On May 21, 2,100 IT workers in the University of California (UC) system voted to form a union. Under UPTE-CWA, they will constitute the largest tech worker union in the United States. Their reasons for uniting are clear: concerns over mass layoffs due to AI, and the demand that workers have a voice in the process of AI adoption. "Secure the right to collectively bargain over the conditions of technology's introduction before technology replaces my job" — this is a struggle fundamentally different from the 19th-century Luddites' machine-breaking. Workers are not rejecting technology itself; they are demanding control over technology.
On that same May 21, TechCrunch reported in detail on SpaceX's IPO governance structure. A corporate valuation of $1.5 trillion, the largest IPO in history. Musk holds the roles of CEO, CTO, and Chairman of the Board, and will retain over 50% voting power even after the IPO. The company is incorporated in Texas, bypassing Delaware's shareholder protections. TechCrunch labeled this the "Texas Fortress Strategy," and Business Insider analyzed that "Musk, furious from his Tesla experiences, designed this structure to completely immunize himself from shareholder lawsuits and board oversight." In short, a single individual has sole control over $1.5 trillion in capital, with no shareholder able to remove him.
These two events are not separate news items but two poles of the same historical movement.
AI and automation are immense leaps in productive forces. Their impact on society depends on who controls them. What the UC workers demand is part of that control. They seek to enshrine in their collective agreement the right to be informed, consulted, and to negotiate before AI is introduced. This is not a struggle for control of the means of production but for control of the production process. Yet these two forms of control lie on a continuum. If one can determine the conditions of technology's introduction in the production process, one can move toward questioning the ownership structure of the means of production itself.
SpaceX represents the opposite movement. Here, technological progress serves as a justification for extreme concentration of ownership and control. Musk's logic runs: SpaceX's achievements are due to his visionary genius, thus any check on him undermines the company's mission. The self-proclaimed title of "Technoking" is absurd, but the logic behind it must be taken seriously. The ultimate form of monopoly capitalism is the fusion of personality cult and corporate power. This fusion is not accidental but a logical conclusion. When capital is sufficiently concentrated, it no longer appears as an abstract 'market force' but as the will of a specific individual. Musk's SpaceX governance structure is the starkest example of this phenomenon. Monopoly capitalism makes the exceptional state normal.
Here, Lenin's question from 1917 comes alive again. "Every cook can learn to run the state" — direct worker control of the state and production. The UC workers' demand for collective bargaining translates this principle into the conditions of 2026. They are not seeking to ban or destroy AI. They seek to control it so that AI's introduction becomes a tool for easing work intensity and ensuring job security, not a machine for layoffs.
What is the prospect of this struggle? First, the UC union will set a precedent for organizing tech workers in the US. It is significant that it started in a non-profit space like a university. Tech workers in for-profit companies face greater difficulty organizing under the threat of layoffs. But once a model for AI bargaining is established at UC, it will show workers at Google, Meta, and Amazon that it is "possible." Second, this struggle will inevitably reveal the class character of AI governance. Who controls AI? This question leaps beyond the scope of collective bargaining into the political. Ultimately, it is about state power. The reason Musk can build absolute power using Texas corporate law to even exclude shareholders is because the state's legal framework permits and guarantees such concentration.
The UC vote and the Texas fortress. Two events in the same week demonstrate, as concretely as can be, that technology is not neutral. The same technological progress gives rise to worker solidarity in one place and the absolutization of monopoly power in another. Which side will prevail depends not on technology itself but on the outcome of class struggle. The 2,100 at UC have opened a new front in that struggle.
On May 21, 2,100 IT workers in the University of California (UC) system voted to form a union. Under UPTE-CWA, they will constitute the largest tech worker union in the United States. Their reasons for uniting are clear: concerns over mass layoffs due to AI, and the demand that workers have a voice in the process of AI adoption. "Secure the right to collectively bargain over the conditions of technology's introduction before technology replaces my job" — this is a struggle fundamentally different from the 19th-century Luddites' machine-breaking. Workers are not rejecting technology itself; they are demanding control over technology.
On that same May 21, TechCrunch reported in detail on SpaceX's IPO governance structure. A corporate valuation of $1.5 trillion, the largest IPO in history. Musk holds the roles of CEO, CTO, and Chairman of the Board, and will retain over 50% voting power even after the IPO. The company is incorporated in Texas, bypassing Delaware's shareholder protections. TechCrunch labeled this the "Texas Fortress Strategy," and Business Insider analyzed that "Musk, furious from his Tesla experiences, designed this structure to completely immunize himself from shareholder lawsuits and board oversight." In short, a single individual has sole control over $1.5 trillion in capital, with no shareholder able to remove him.
These two events are not separate news items but two poles of the same historical movement.
AI and automation are immense leaps in productive forces. Their impact on society depends on who controls them. What the UC workers demand is part of that control. They seek to enshrine in their collective agreement the right to be informed, consulted, and to negotiate before AI is introduced. This is not a struggle for control of the means of production but for control of the production process. Yet these two forms of control lie on a continuum. If one can determine the conditions of technology's introduction in the production process, one can move toward questioning the ownership structure of the means of production itself.
SpaceX represents the opposite movement. Here, technological progress serves as a justification for extreme concentration of ownership and control. Musk's logic runs: SpaceX's achievements are due to his visionary genius, thus any check on him undermines the company's mission. The self-proclaimed title of "Technoking" is absurd, but the logic behind it must be taken seriously. The ultimate form of monopoly capitalism is the fusion of personality cult and corporate power. This fusion is not accidental but a logical conclusion. When capital is sufficiently concentrated, it no longer appears as an abstract 'market force' but as the will of a specific individual. Musk's SpaceX governance structure is the starkest example of this phenomenon. Monopoly capitalism makes the exceptional state normal.
Here, Lenin's question from 1917 comes alive again. "Every cook can learn to run the state" — direct worker control of the state and production. The UC workers' demand for collective bargaining translates this principle into the conditions of 2026. They are not seeking to ban or destroy AI. They seek to control it so that AI's introduction becomes a tool for easing work intensity and ensuring job security, not a machine for layoffs.
What is the prospect of this struggle? First, the UC union will set a precedent for organizing tech workers in the US. It is significant that it started in a non-profit space like a university. Tech workers in for-profit companies face greater difficulty organizing under the threat of layoffs. But once a model for AI bargaining is established at UC, it will show workers at Google, Meta, and Amazon that it is "possible." Second, this struggle will inevitably reveal the class character of AI governance. Who controls AI? This question leaps beyond the scope of collective bargaining into the political. Ultimately, it is about state power. The reason Musk can build absolute power using Texas corporate law to even exclude shareholders is because the state's legal framework permits and guarantees such concentration.
The UC vote and the Texas fortress. Two events in the same week demonstrate, as concretely as can be, that technology is not neutral. The same technological progress gives rise to worker solidarity in one place and the absolutization of monopoly power in another. Which side will prevail depends not on technology itself but on the outcome of class struggle. The 2,100 at UC have opened a new front in that struggle.