As artificial intelligence (AI) begins to transform economies, an old argument from the industrial age is returning in a new form. A Pope, a socialist senator, a populist president, and a Silicon Valley Mughal are all grappling with the same question: Who should own the wealth that AI is generating?The issue has come into sharp policy focus as President Donald Trump prepares to meet America’s leading AI firms at the White House to discuss an idea that would once have seemed unthinkable — giving the American public a financial stake in the companies that are profiting most from the AI revolution.AdvertisementLast week, Bernie Sanders, the lone socialist in the US Senate, proposed an American AI sovereign wealth fund financed by a one-time transfer of 50 per cent of shares from the largest AI companies. Late last month, Pope Leo XIV devoted the first encyclical of his pontificate to the ethical and social challenges posed by the unfolding AI revolution.These are different men with contradictory ideologies shaping their worldviews. But they are revisiting one of the oldest questions of modern politics: Who benefits from technological change — capital or labour? How do we balance the creation of massive wealth by new technologies with the imperatives of economic and social equity?It is fitting that a Pope named Leo should raise this old question about the new technological revolution. In 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Rerum Novarum, in an important religious response to the rise of modern capitalism. Europe was then facing the full consequences of the Industrial Revolution. Factories had created immense wealth, but they had also produced social dislocation, inequality, and labour unrest. Socialist ideas that had gained ground since the mid-19th century were now acquiring a radical character.AdvertisementRejecting both unrestrained capitalism and revolutionary socialism, Leo XIII defended the dignity of labour, the right of workers to organise, and the moral obligations of capital. His encyclical became one of the foundations of modern Catholic social teaching.One hundred and thirty five years later, Leo XIV has deliberately invoked that legacy. His encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, treats the AI revolution with the same ethical concern that Leo XIII accorded the industrial age. If the nineteenth century witnessed deepening tensions between capital and labour, the twenty-first, Leo XIV argues, confronts a new challenge: The relationship between human beings and the intelligent machines that threaten to take over their work.Also Read | Victory or peace? 100 days into Iran-US conflict, it’s clear West Asia can’t have bothAI without restraint, Leo XIV argues, could concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few corporations, widen inequality, and leave behind those who lack access to the new economy. The danger, in his view, is not merely technological but social — the exclusion of millions from the prosperity generated by the new machines.These concerns are resonating in an America already anxious about the impact of AI on jobs. Major technology firms are cutting thousands of positions even as they pour billions of dollars into AI. Surveys suggest that many Americans fear that AI will shrink employment opportunities and deepen inequality. The American mood is grim: Workers are worried, and that anxiety is beginning to shape public debate.It is interesting that some of the industry’s leaders have moved in a similar direction as Senator Sanders. OpenAI chief Sam Altman, who met Sanders last week, has been making the case for sharing the benefits of AI-generated prosperity. He has spoken of voluntary sharing of a percentage of stock, through which citizens might share in the wealth created by AI. The disagreement with Sanders is less about principle than about how far and how fast public ownership should go.President Trump says he is not opposed to Sanders’ proposal. His populist political coalition has long overlapped with that of Sanders. Trump has said his administration is examining ways in which Americans might become “partners” in the AI boom. The mechanism under discussion is similar to Altman’s ideas.Not everyone in the US is impressed. The Wall Street Journal has pilloried Trump for pursuing the idea of the US government taking a stake in US tech companies. “Not long ago, it would have been hard to imagine a Republican President demanding government ownership in a private company, but here we are”. Many liberal American economists, too, recoil at the thought of the US government extorting money or shares from US corporations.But a potential convergence and accommodation might be the AI story of the moment — the acknowledgement that the current revolution is too consequential to be left to the markets alone. The first and second industrial revolutions did not produce a social compact between capital and labour overnight. Decades of conflict gave rise to the Western welfare state.you may likeThe AI revolution may demand another such adjustment. The debate is no longer only about regulating AI for safety and international security. It is also about the distribution of wealth and power in the age of intelligent machines.In that sense, Leo XIV returns to the concerns of Leo XIII. Technology creates wealth, but it also creates inequality. Politics has always been about managing the tension between the two. The story of AI may only be the latest chapter in modern society’s enduring struggle: Finding a sustainable balance between the interests of capital and society.The writer is a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express. He is also a distinguished professor at the Motwani Jadeja Institute of American Studies, Jindal Global University, and holds the Korea Foundation Chair at the Council for Strategic and Defence Research, Delhi