U.S.-China AI Geopolitics and the Korean Working Class's Response to the AI Era: A Class Analysis (2026)

Markdown

1. U.S.-China AI Geopolitical Competition

1.1 Trump Administration’s AI Export Controls (Ruling Class Technology Monopoly)

  • Executive Order 14320 (July 2025): Strengthening U.S. capital’s technological dominance by expanding global exports of the U.S. AI technology stack.
  • NVIDIA/AMD Global Licensing System: Granting the U.S. government sweeping control authority over exports of advanced AI chips.
  • Strengthened Sanctions on China: Physical constraints on China’s AI development by blocking exports of advanced AI chips such as the H200.

Class essence: A strategy of the U.S. capitalist ruling class to maximize global profits through AI technology monopoly. Technology is turned into a “defense asset” and degenerates into a tool for capital’s borderless domination.

1.2 China’s AI Self-Reliance Strategy (Anti-Colonial Struggle?)

  • 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030): Strengthening technological self-reliance, breaking away from U.S. dependency.
  • Self-developed AI models such as DeepSeek: Seeking Chinese alternatives amid the U.S. technology blockade.
  • Accelerating domestic semiconductor production: Efforts to reduce dependence on TSMC.

Class limitations: The Chinese Communist Party leadership professes to overcome technological dependency, but in reality it cannot seize the means of production held by U.S. capital and technology. As a result, in both the U.S. and China, technology functions as a monopoly asset of capital.

1.3 Semiconductor Chain: A Struggle of Power and Capital

  • TSMC: Essential for the survival of both the U.S. and China due to the Taiwan Strait risk.
  • NVIDIA: Core hub of the U.S. AI infrastructure, dominating the global market.
  • South Korea: Simultaneously dependent on U.S. AI technology (NVIDIA chips) and Chinese labor (Foxconn, etc.).

Conclusion: The semiconductor chain is not merely a supply chain but a frontline where U.S. imperialism and Chinese anti-imperialism collide. South Korea is located at the forefront of this fight, yet cannot possess its own technological sovereignty.

2. South Korea’s Labor Crisis in the AI Era

2.1 Lee Jae-myung Government’s Proposal for Robot Tax/Basic Income and Backlash

  • Lee Jae-myung (Democratic Party of Korea): Proposed a robot tax and basic income in response to the expansion of AI robot adoption.
  • Ruling Party (People Power Party): Strongly opposed, citing “hindrance to economic growth” and “weakening corporate competitiveness.”
  • Business Community: Called for delaying robot adoption, blocking productivity gains through automation.

Class analysis: This reveals a split within the ruling class while also showing capital resisting the working class’s struggle for survival. The robot tax reflects the working class’s demand to “limit capital’s profit extraction,” but capital strongly rejects it.

2.2 AI Threat to Manufacturing: Ulsan, Automobile Industry

  • Hyundai Motor: Announced plans for mass production of Atlas humanoid robots at its U.S. plant in 2028.
  • South Korean Automobile Industry: Crisis as traditional manufacturing is replaced by AI robots.
  • Ulsan Region: A center of automobile manufacturing facing a sharp decline in labor demand due to AI automation.

Class analysis: Capital attempts to neutralize worker resistance by claiming “automation is inevitable.” But this is not simply technological adoption; it is a shift to a new form of labor exploitation (machines replacing humans).

2.3 Union Responses: Progressive Struggle vs. Realism

  • KCTU (Korean Confederation of Trade Unions): Formed a joint consultative body with the government, demanding a “human-centered” AI transition.
  • Korean Metal Workers’ Union: Protested Hyundai Motor’s robot adoption, demanding protection for human workers.
  • Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union: Opposed automation in education, emphasizing the role of human teachers.

Class limitations: Unions oppose robot adoption by individual firms but fail to resist national-level AI promotion policies. This shows the working class unable to adequately confront capital and the state’s technology policies.

2.4 Yoon Suk Yeol Government’s Technology Policy: AI Promotion vs. Job Protection

  • Yoon Suk Yeol Government: Expanded investment in AI technology, aiming to build a global AI hub.
  • People Power Party: Attempted to legislate an AI job protection law (negligible practical effect).
  • Reality: Worker protection is treated as a secondary value under the pretext of technological progress.

Class analysis: The conservative government uses “technological progress” as a pretext to make worker protection a subsidiary goal. This discourse justifies capital’s technology monopoly.

2.5 Technological Dependency: U.S. AI, Chinese Labor

  • United States: NVIDIA chips, AI models, cloud infrastructure.
  • China: Assembly plants like Foxconn, low-wage labor.
  • South Korea: Role as a “technology intermediary” dependent on both sides.

Class conclusion: The South Korean working class is subordinate to both U.S. technology capital and Chinese production capital. This reflects the structural position of South Korean capitalism in the imperialist world system.

3. Outlook Analysis: A New Front of Class Struggle

3.1 Technology Is Power

  • AI is not simply a “tool” but a key means of expanding capital’s domination.
  • Both the U.S. and China use AI technology to strengthen capital’s cross-border domination.
  • South Korea is at the frontline of this struggle but cannot possess independent technological sovereignty.

3.2 Working Class Response: Individual Struggles vs. Collective Strategy

  • Current: Opposition to robot adoption at individual firms, participation in government consultative bodies.
  • Limitations: Inability to properly confront the technology policies of capital and the state.
  • Needed: Recognition that AI technology itself is an instrument of capital’s domination, and a strategy in which the working class leads the direction of technological development.

3.3 Tasks for the South Korean Working Class

  1. Technological Sovereignty: Build an independent AI ecosystem that breaks dependency on U.S. and Chinese technology.
  2. Labor Sovereignty: Develop AI technology to strengthen workers, not replace them.
  3. International Solidarity: The South Korean working class, subordinate to both U.S. and Chinese capital, needs solidarity with the global labor movement.

4. Conclusion: A New Front of Class Struggle

The AI era is not about technological competition but a new front of class struggle.

  • U.S. Capital: Strengthens global domination through AI technology monopoly.
  • Chinese Capital: Seeks an anti-imperialist alternative through self-developed technology amid the U.S. technology blockade.
  • South Korean Working Class: In a situation of subordination to both capitals, a struggle is needed for workers themselves to determine the direction of technological development.

Key message: AI technology will function as a tool to maximize capital’s profits. Unless the working class seizes control and sets its direction, technological progress will only deepen the exploitation of workers.