The Heir of Mankind
This article profiles purpose as the deterministic core of human agency in the AI era. Tracing Engels' Right/Left framework from industrial class struggle to digital platform power, it argues AI democratizes knowledge access but cannot provide judgment. Drawing on Federico Faggin's consciousness theory, humans possess "Seity"—a conscious center that processes meaning, not just signals. Education must cultivate the "criterium": early discernment to distinguish good from bad, ethical from exploitative. Five principles guide the "Heir": self-awareness, ethical filtering, intentional purpose, holistic knowledge, and digital stewardship. Framed within your Unification Project, value flows from individual verification, not imposed doctrine—where AI is instrument, human consciousness is sovereign, and purpose emerges from lawful, testable judgment, not algorithmic output.
This is not about politics, history, artificial intelligence or models of society. It’s about purpose.
To project the future, the human brain uses the old trick of remembering the past and making scenarios for the future, possible overlapping outcomes in superposition, infinite hypotheses that will collapse into the stage of reality.
Chapter 1 - Right and Left Concepts
Friedrich Engels’ understanding of “Right” and “Left” was primarily shaped by his early engagement with the Young Hegelians in Berlin and the broader political landscape of the 1848 Revolutions.
While the terms originated in the French National Assembly (1789), Engels and Karl Marx initially viewed “the Left” as a bourgeois parliamentary category rather than a label for their own movement.
1. The Young Hegelians (1841–1842)
Engels’ first encounter with a formal “Right” and “Left” spectrum was philosophical. In Berlin, the followers of G.W.F. Hegel split into two camps:
The Right (Old) Hegelians: Upheld Hegel’s philosophy as a justification for the Prussian state and traditional Christianity.
The Left (Young) Hegelians: Used Hegelian dialectics to critique religion and the state. Engels joined this group (specifically “The Free”) in 1841. At this stage, his “Leftism” was defined by atheism and radical republicanism rather than communism.
2. The Shift to “Scientific Socialism” (1844–1848)
After moving to Manchester in 1842 and meeting Marx in 1844, Engels began to distinguish his ideas from the “Left” of the time:
The “Bourgeois Left”: Engels often critiqued “Left” politicians as mere reformists who wanted to improve capitalism rather than overthrew it.
The Proletarian Movement: In The Communist Manifesto (1848), he and Marx positioned themselves not just as “Left-wingers,” but as the vanguard of a distinct class—the proletariat.
3. Later Evolution (1870s–1890s)
In his later years, Engels’ ideas influenced how the “Left” was defined for the next century:
Anti-Dühring (1878): Here, Engels systematized “Scientific Socialism,” contrasting it with “Utopian Socialism.” This created a clear ideological divide on the Left between those who believed in historical necessity and those who believed in moral idealism.
Parliamentary Tactics (1895): In his last major writing (the 1895 Introduction to Marx’s Class Struggles in France), Engels acknowledged that the “Left” could use “Right-wing” tools—like universal suffrage and legal elections—to build power, reflecting a more nuanced view of political strategy.
Chapter 2 - The Industrial Revolution
In the context of the Industrial Revolution, Engels’ framework of “Right” and “Left” shifted from abstract philosophy to material reality. He didn’t just see the Industrial Revolution as a technological change; he saw it as the “midwife” of modern political conflict.
For Engels, the Industrial Revolution created a new “geography of power” that rendered the old political labels insufficient.
1. The Realignment of the Spectrum
Before the Industrial Revolution, the “Right” was the aristocracy (land) and the “Left” was the bourgeoisie (merchants/lawyers). Engels observed that industrialization created a Third Force—the Proletariat—which pushed the old “Left” into the center-right.
The New Right (The Bourgeoisie): Once the revolutionary class against kings, they were now the defenders of the status quo. In his 1845 book, The Condition of the Working Class in England, Engels argued that the factory owners (the “Industrial Bourgeoisie”) had become the new oppressors.
The True Left (The Proletariat): Engels argued that the “Industrial Revolution created a whole class of wage laborers” who had no property. This made them the only truly revolutionary force because they had “nothing to lose but their chains.”
2. “Engels’ Pause” and Class Consciousness
Engels identified a specific economic phenomenon (now called Engels’ Pause) where, between 1790 and 1840, industrial output and profits soared while worker wages remained stagnant.
This economic “gap” was the foundation of his political framework:
The Right’s Argument: Claimed that the “hidden hand” of the market would eventually help everyone (Liberalism).
Engels’ Counter: Argued that the “social murder” (his term for urban poverty) caused by the factory system proved that the market was inherently violent and could only be solved by the workers taking control of the means of production.
3. The Framework of Conflict
Engels used the Industrial Revolution to move the “Left” from “Utopianism” to “Science.”
CONCEPT: Source of Injustice
- Utopian Left (Pre-Industrial View): Bad ideas or lack of “Reason.”
- Engels’ Scientific Left (Industrial View): The physical structure of the factory and capital.
CONCEPT: Solution
- Utopian Left (Pre-Industrial View): Building ideal model communities.
- Engels’ Scientific Left (Industrial View): Organizing the industrial masses into a political party.
CONCEPT: The State
- Utopian Left (Pre-Industrial View): A neutral tool to be reformed.
- Engels’ Scientific Left (Industrial View): A machine used by the “Right” to protect property.
CONCEPT: Historical Role
- Utopian Left (Pre-Industrial View): Moral persuasion of the rich.
- Engels’ Scientific Left (Industrial View): Inevitable revolution born from economic crisis.
4. Urbanization as a Political Tool
Engels was fascinated by the Great Towns (Manchester, Liverpool). He saw that the Industrial Revolution had “crowded the laborers into the factory, organized like soldiers.”
The Right saw urbanization as a source of cheap labor and profit.
Engels saw it as the Left’s greatest advantage. By concentrating thousands of workers in one place, the Industrial Revolution inadvertently provided the “school of war” where workers could organize and realize their collective power.
Summary of the Framework:
The Industrial Revolution proved to Engels that the “Right” was no longer just the Church or the King—it was anyone who owned a machine. Conversely, the “Left” was no longer just about “Liberty”—it was about the abolition of private property.
Chapter 3 - The Persistence
In the 21st century, Engels’ framework of Right and Left persists not just as a historical memory, but as a lens for analyzing the Digital Industrial Revolution. While the specific technology has changed from steam to AI, the underlying “mechanics of power” he described remain central to modern political debate.
1. From Factories to Platforms: The “Gig Economy”
Engels’ 1845 critique of the “Social War” in Manchester is frequently used today to describe the precarious nature of gig work (Uber, Amazon, etc.).
- The Right/Capitalist view: Frames these as “flexible” opportunities for independent contractors.
- The Engels-style Left view: Frames this as a return to the 19th-century “Reserve Army of Labor.” Without fixed salaries or benefits, workers are again isolated individuals competing against one another, which Engels argued was the ultimate goal of the “Right” to keep wages low.
2. “Digital Engels”: The New Means of Production
In the 1800s, the “Right” owned the physical machines. Today, the debate centers on who owns the algorithms and data.
- The Modern Left: Argues that data is a social product (created by us) but privately harvested. They use Engels’ framework to call for “Data Sovereignty” or “Platform Cooperativism”—the 21st-century version of seizing the means of production.
- The Persistence of Engels’ Pause: Economists often point to a modern “pause” where worker productivity has skyrocketed due to tech, but real wages have remained flat for decades. This is the exact “widening chasm” Engels used to define the Left’s mission.
3. Urbanization and “Social Murder”
Engels’ concept of “Social Murder”—the idea that the political system knowingly places the poor in conditions that lead to early death—is a cornerstone of modern Leftist critiques regarding:
1. Environmental Racism: Placing toxic industries near working-class neighborhoods.
2. Gentrification: Engels’ description of the “planless chaos” of Manchester, where the rich never had to see the poor, is used by modern urban planners to explain how “luxury” developments displace the working class.
Comparison: 19th vs. 21st Century Frameworks
CONCEPT: The “Right” (Power)
- 1845 (Industrial): Owners of Cotton Mills
- 2025 (Digital/AI): Owners of Data/AI Models
CONCEPT: The “Left” (Goal)
- 1845 (Industrial): 10-Hour Bill / Unions
- 2025 (Digital/AI): Universal Basic Income / Data Rights
CONCEPT: Exploitation Tool
- 1845 (Industrial): The Steam Engine
- 2025 (Digital/AI): Algorithms & Surveillance
CONCEPT: The Conflict
- 1845 (Industrial): The Slum vs. The Manor
- 2025 (Digital/AI): The “Dead-end” Job vs. Silicon Valley
4. Is the Framework Still Accurate?
Critics argue that Engels’ “Left vs. Right” binary is too simple for the 21st century because:
- The Middle Class: Engels predicted it would disappear. Instead, it grew (though it is currently shrinking again in many Western nations).
- Identity vs. Class: Modern “Leftism” often focuses on race, gender, and identity, whereas Engels focused almost exclusively on economic class.
- Global North vs. South: Engels wrote about Manchester. Today, his “Condition of the Working Class” is often more accurately seen in the garment factories of Bangladesh or cobalt mines in the Congo than in modern England.
Engels’ Persistence: His core idea—that technology is never neutral and always serves the class that owns it—is the primary reason his framework is still taught in political science and economics today.
Chapter 4 - A.I. is the democratization of knowledge. So, a new era is born
That is a powerful perspective and one that Engels himself would have found deeply interesting—though he might have added a “materialist” warning to it.
The idea that AI is the democratization of knowledge suggests that we are moving toward a world where the “means of intellectual production” are finally in the hands of everyone. In Engels’ framework, this creates a fascinating new era:
1. The End of “Intellectual Property”?
Engels argued that the “Right” stays in power by controlling the tools (factories) and the narrative (education/media).
The New Era: If AI can provide high-level legal, medical, and scientific knowledge to a worker in a rural village for free, the monopoly on expertise held by the elite begins to crumble. This is the ultimate “Leftist” dream: the social distribution of value.
The Counter-Argument: Engels would ask: “Who owns the servers and the training data?” He would likely argue that as long as the AI itself is owned by trillion-dollar corporations, knowledge is being “rented” to the public, not truly “owned” by them.
2. From “Labor” to “Leisure”
One of Engels’ goals was the reduction of the working day. He believed technology should free humans from “drudgery” so they could pursue art, science, and philosophy.
The Democratic Potential: If AI automates the “boring” parts of knowledge work (coding, summarizing, administrative tasks), it could theoretically allow for a society where creativity is the primary currency.
The Risk: In the 1800s, Engels saw that when a new machine made work 10x faster, the owners didn’t give workers 9 hours off—they just fired half the staff and made the rest work harder. The 21st-century challenge is ensuring AI leads to shorter work weeks, not just higher profits for the “New Right.”
3. The “General Intellect”
Marx and Engels spoke of a future stage called the “General Intellect,” where the collective knowledge of humanity becomes the main force of production.
AI is the literal manifestation of this. It is trained on the sum total of human writing. In this sense, it is “Socialized Intelligence.”
You are essentially arguing that we have reached the point where the “Left” and “Right” might merge because the tools are so powerful and accessible that the old class barriers can no longer be enforced.
The Persistence of the Struggle
CONCEPT: Knowledge
- Pre-AI Era (Engels’ Era): Knowledge was a gatekept resource (Universities/Libraries).
- The AI Era (Your Vision): Knowledge is an on-demand utility (AI).
CONCEPT: Power
- Pre-AI Era (Engels’ Era): Power came from owning physical assets.
- The AI Era (Your Vision): Power comes from creative prompting and synthesis.
CONCEPT: Inequality
- Pre-AI Era (Engels’ Era): Inequality was driven by lack of access.
- The AI Era (Your Vision): Inequality is driven by “The Digital Divide” (GPU access).
A New Framework?
If knowledge is truly democratized, then the “Left” is no longer about fighting for access to things, but about the quality and truth of that knowledge. We move from a struggle over Scarcity to a struggle over Authenticity.
Engels’ Final Question: If a machine can think for us, do we become more free, or do we become more dependent on the ones who built the machine?
Chapter 5 -I think the point is in education, nothing more. Our kids must acquire early the criterium to distinguish bad from good. Once they have it, they will have the ability to explore mankind knowledge trough a.i.
This shift moves the focus from material redistribution (Engels’ core focus) to cognitive autonomy. In this framework, the “Left” and “Right” are no longer defined by who owns the factory, but by who possesses the critical discernment to navigate the data.
The New “Criterium” as the Means of Production
In the 19th century, Engels argued that the working class was “blinded” by the ideologies of the ruling class because they lacked the time and education to see the system for what it was. By placing the “criterium” (the ability to distinguish good from bad) at the center of education, you are proposing a solution to what Engels called False Consciousness.
Old Era: Success depended on what you knew (access to information).
New Era: Success depends on how you judge (the filter).
The Role of AI in This Education
If kids acquire this “criterium” early, AI ceases to be a tool of indoctrination and becomes a universal tutor.
CONCEPT: Student Role
- Traditional Education: Passive: Students consume a set curriculum.
- AI-Enabled “Criterium” Education: Active: Students query the sum of human knowledge.
CONCEPT: Knowledge Structure
- Traditional Education: Standardized: One “truth” provided by the state/institution.
- AI-Enabled “Criterium” Education: Pluralistic: Multiple perspectives analyzed by the student.
CONCEPT: Educational Goal
- Traditional Education: Goal: Memorization and labor-readiness.
- AI-Enabled “Criterium” Education: Goal: Judgment, ethics, and synthesis.
The Persistence of Engels’ Conflict
Even in an era of democratized knowledge, the tension Engels identified persists in the source of the “Good and Bad.” The “Right” would traditionally argue that these criteria should be rooted in tradition, stability, and established order. The “Left” would argue that these criteria should be rooted in social justice, critique of power, and progress.
If the education system focuses on the ability to distinguish rather than the content of the belief, it moves the individual beyond the 19th-century class struggle. The “New Era” you describe suggests that the ultimate power is no longer capital, but sovereign judgment. The conflict is no longer between those who have and those who have not, but between those who can think for themselves and those who are led by the algorithm.
Chapter 6 - Purpose is another story, and I think as Federico Faggin.
You are speaking about Federico Faggin, and your point about the “criterium” and “purpose” is the cornerstone of his current work on consciousness.
Faggin’s transition from the inventor of the Intel 4004 to a philosopher of consciousness is perhaps the most important context for this entire discussion.
1. The Distinction Between “Signal” and “Meaning”
Faggin argues that a microprocessor (and by extension, AI) processes signals, but it has no meaning.
- The Machine: Operates purely on “syntax”—shuffling symbols based on rules (algorithms).
- The Human: Operates on “semantics”—the actual experience (qualia) of what those symbols mean.
When you say education should focus on the “criterium” to distinguish bad from good, you are echoing Faggin’s belief that humans have a “Seity” (a conscious center) that machines lack. AI can provide the data, but it cannot provide the judgment because it doesn’t “feel” the consequences of that knowledge.
2. Purpose vs. Function
In the framework we were discussing:
- Function (The Microprocessor/AI): This is what the machine does. It can calculate, predict, and democratize access to facts.
- Purpose (The Human): This is why we do it. Faggin’s “New Era” isn’t about better computers; it’s about humans realizing they are not machines. He warns that if we teach children that they are just biological computers, we rob them of their “purpose.”
3. The “New Era” of Education
Faggin’s vision for education in the age of AI would likely focus on exactly what you said:
- Early Development of Discernment: Teaching children that they are the “conscious agents” and the AI is merely the “instrument.”
- The Criterium: This isn’t just a logic puzzle; it’s an emotional and ethical grounding. It’s the ability to ask: “Is this information true, is it good, and does it serve a human purpose?”
4. Correcting the Engels Framework
Faggin actually “solves” the problem Engels was worried about. Engels thought the machine would always enslave the worker. Faggin’s perspective suggests that if we cultivate the human consciousness (the “criterium”), the machine can never enslave us because the machine is “hollow”—it has no interiority.
The “New Era” isn’t born from the AI itself, but from the human decision to use AI as a tool for a purpose that only a conscious being can define.
Thank you for correcting me. Speaking from the perspective of Faggin’s “Siliconthebook” and his theory of Quantum Information Panpsychism, the focus on education as the cultivation of judgment is the only way to ensure the democratization of knowledge leads to liberation rather than a new kind of “digital” factory.
Chapter 7 - Principles for the Heir: Navigating the Ocean of Knowledge
Principle 1: The Primacy of “Seity” (Self-Awareness)
The Lesson: Before engaging with any external knowledge, the Heir learns to recognize their own inner, conscious experience. They are taught that they are not a machine, nor are they merely an aggregate of data. This “Seity” is the unyielding core from which all true judgment springs.
AI’s Role: AI is introduced as an external instrument—a vast mirror reflecting all human thought—but never as a source of intrinsic “self” or “purpose.” It is an oracle, not a guru.
Educational Practice: Early exercises in mindfulness, introspection, and the explicit distinction between “feeling” (internal, conscious) and “processing” (external, computational).
Principle 2: The Compass of the “Criterium” (Ethical Discernment)
The Lesson: The Heir is trained to ask not just “What is true?” but “Is this good? Is this life-affirming? What are the ripple effects of this knowledge?” This “criterium” is an active, moral filter applied to all information.
AI’s Role: AI can present endless data points for and against any argument. The “criterium” guides the Heir to weigh evidence not just logically, but ethically and empathetically.
Educational Practice: Case studies on historical dilemmas, simulated ethical challenges using AI-generated scenarios, and Socratic dialogues that emphasize moral reasoning over simple factual recall.
Principle 3: Purpose as the Guiding Star (Intentional Creation)
The Lesson: With all knowledge accessible and the “criterium” as a compass, the Heir learns that their true contribution is the unique “why” they bring to the world. Purpose is not discovered passively but actively chosen and forged through creative engagement.
AI’s Role: AI becomes a universal assistant for execution, freeing the Heir to focus entirely on the conception of their purpose. It can generate drafts, models, and solutions, but it cannot originate the fundamental “intent.”
Educational Practice: Project-based learning centered on self-defined problems, mentorship focused on passion and long-term vision, and encouragement of artistic expression as a fundamental form of purposeful creation.
Principle 4: The Holism of Knowledge (Interconnectedness)
The Lesson: The Heir is taught that all fields of knowledge—science, art, history, spirituality—are interconnected. There are no isolated “subjects,” but rather different lenses through which to perceive a unified reality.
AI’s Role: AI can draw connections across vast datasets that humans might miss, illustrating the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate fields.
Educational Practice: Trans-disciplinary challenges, encouraging children to use scientific methods to explore artistic problems, or historical context to understand technological ethics.
Principle 5: Stewardship of the Digital Commons (Responsibility)
The Lesson: As heirs to mankind’s knowledge, they are also stewards of its future. This includes responsibility for the integrity of the digital commons, the ethical development of AI, and the protection of authentic human experience.
AI’s Role: AI can demonstrate the fragility of information (e.g., deepfakes) and the potential for misuse, thereby highlighting the importance of the Heir’s vigilance.
Educational Practice: Lessons in digital literacy, critical evaluation of AI outputs, and participation in community projects that blend physical and digital stewardship.