Groucho Marxism

Questions and answers on socialism, Marxism, and related topics

  • Materialism and empirio-criticism

    In 1909, Vladimir Lenin published a book entitled Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, which took aim at the at-the-time fashionable philosophy of ‘empirio-criticism’. Founded by the German philosopher Richard Avenarius and closely associated with the Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach, empirico-criticism sought to rid philosophy of a-priori assumptions and the mind-body dualism that historically separated the inner mental world from the outer physical world. Lenin’s analysis in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism was soon overtaken by the new scientific theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, as a result of which the book is usually overlooked, even by hardened Marxists.

    A core thread running through Materialism and Empirio-Criticism is the distinction between materialism and idealism. Broadly speaking, a materialist believes in the objective existence of a world around us, whereas an idealist doesn’t. Lenin argues that anyone agnostic on this divide will inevitably fall into ‘solipsism’: the belief that nothing outside your own mind can be said with certainty to exist. In setting out his thesis Lenin argues against his fellow Bolshevik Aleksandr Bogdanov, who had adopted the philosophy of empirio-criticism under the label of ‘empirio-monism’ (monism is the view holding that all of reality is fundamentally unified as a single substance). Lenin argues that Bogdanov’s philosophy is simply idealism disguised in Marxist garb.

    Materialism and Empirio-Criticism was recently given some publicity by the Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli in his book Heligoland, published in 2020. In this book Rovelli looks at past philosophical ideas that might help inform debates on the strange nature of quantum physics and concludes that Lenin’s attack on empirio-criticism was misplaced, accusing Lenin of philosophical dogmatism. However Lenin was far from dogmatic when it came to scientific theory, arguing at length that scientific theory can and should change as new evidence emerges. He was writing at a time when new experimental evidence was challenging accepted theories and was well aware of contemporary scientific developments that were taking place.

    Lenin recognized that previously accepted models of science would prove to be correct only within certain limits. The canonical example of this is Newtonian mechanics, which only gives an accurate picture of he world around us at certain scales; describing the world smaller scales require quantum mechanics, whereas describing the world at larger scales requires general relativity. Neither of these theories had been conceived by the time Lenin wrote Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, although they would be developed not long after. However a new finding that Lenin would have been aware of was the discovery of particles we now call electrons, as well as the discovery that the mass of these particles depends on their velocity.

    Lenin was clear that the fact that these new particles were apparently mass-less does not in any way undermine materialism. Rather, he stressed that new theories questioning the existence of matter simply represented another step towards understanding the nature of objective reality. It is the existence of this objective reality that materialists insist upon, not any particular description of it. In Heligoland, Rovelli argues that the distinction between materialism and idealism is irrelevant. But there are many millions – perhaps billions – who adhere to an idealist worldview. The world’s major religions all teach that reality is fundamentally spiritual rather than physical. Although religions are not strictly idealist in the philosophical sense, they share deep metaphysical overlaps with idealism.

    The debate between the Bolsheviks Lenin and Bogdanov on empirio-criticism has similarities with the debate between the physicists Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Bohr was content with abstract mathematical descriptions; Einstein felt these were incomplete. There is still significant debate around this interpretation today. Heligoland was in part written to publicise Rovelli’s own interpretation which he calls ‘Relational Quantum Mechanics’, which says that physical properties exist only as a relationship between the observer and the system, rather than as objective facts. It is open to debate whether this constitutes a form of idealism. I will leave discussing this for a future blog post.

  • Is AI destroying mathematics?

    The equations for describing how fluids flow were first derived around 200 years ago. Since then, understanding the Navier-Stokes equations – named after French mathematician Claude-Louis Navier and English mathematician George Gabriel Stokes – has been a long-running quest for mathematicians. Last month, American corporation OpenAI stunned the mathematics world by announcing that its AI agents had answered a longstanding question regarding these equations, namely: do they sometimes result in infinite solutions? The answer, according to these agents, is: yes. Whilst mathematicians had always suspected that such solutions were possible, nobody had never able to demonstrate this – until now.

    The way this discovery has come about is likely to have a dramatic effect on the mathematics world. OpenAI began working on the problem after discovering that a pair of mathematicians had made progress on it. A few days later, their agents had solved it. This is not an isolated case either: over the past few months, AI has made breakthrough after breakthrough in mathematics. It is not clear at this stage how many other longstanding mathematical problems will fall to AI, but it is likely to be many. Not all mathematicians are excited about this though. Some argue that AI does not really understand mathematics in the way humans do. Others contend that AI tends to produce convoluted, hard-to-follow arguments which give little insight into the underlying problem.

    Where does this leave the world of mathematics? These are unprecedented times, although it should be noted that mathematics has gone through upheaval before. One such upheaval occurred when French mathematician and philosopher René Descartes made a link between geometry and algebra in the 17th century. Mathematicians of the time worried that this discovery would turn them into drones who simply manipulated symbols and came up with no new insights. But 300 years later most would argue that making the link between algebra and geometry was a huge step forward. This suggests that future generations might say the same about AI. I doubt many present-day mathematicians will be convinced by this argument though.

    On the face of it, the reticence of mathematicians to embrace AI-generated proofs of longstanding mathematical problems seems quite strange. You’d think they’d be glad that these problems were finally being solved! In any other scientific field that would indeed be the case. I expect most physicists would be quite happy if AI solved a longstanding mystery about the nature of the universe. And if AI discovered a cure for cancer then I’m sure all medical professionals would be overjoyed. So why are mathematicians apparently so averse to AI solving problems in their field? I think this reticence to embrace AI-generated solutions reveals something interesting about the nature of both mathematics and mathematicians.

    In his 1940 essay A Mathematician’s Apology, the English mathematician G. H. Hardy defended the pursuit of mathematics for its own sake. One of the main themes of the book is the beauty that mathematics possesses, which Hardy compares to painting and poetry. For Hardy, the most beautiful mathematics is that which has no practical applications. He saw real mathematics as essentially a creative activity, rather than an explanatory or expository one. Hardy’s essay came in for a lot of criticism from his fellow mathematicians, many of whom pointed to applications of mathematics to justify their existence. But I think Hardy’s essay represents an honest assessment of what actually drives mathematicians to do what they do.

    For mathematicians, the value of mathematics comes not from the results they derive but from the process by which they derive them. The obvious difference between mathematics and creative pursuits like painting is that whereas a painter’s output can be appreciated by the layperson, fully appreciating a mathematician’s output requires detailed technical knowledge that most laypeople do not possess. In fact the mathematics world has become so fractured now that it is probably fair to say that most new mathematics is not understood by most mathematicians. The process of doing mathematics is better compared to that of creating some obscure avant-garde jazz that only a handful of people in the world are able to appreciate. In which case you rather have to wonder what the point is.

  • Fight for socialist change!

    We are constantly told by those at the top that wealth trickles down, enriching everyone who works and contributes to our economy. We are also told that if we just work hard enough, we can “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps” and become business owners and wealthy entrepreneurs. This individualist attitude implies that we only have ourselves to blame when we can’t afford to heat our homes or buy groceries. However it does not account for the fact that under capitalism, working people only see a fraction of the wealth that their labour produces. This unfair distribution of wealth is the main reason we socialists believe that capitalism is fundamentally unjust and does not benefit working people in any shape or form.

    Unfair distribution of wealth is not the only consequence of a system that values profit over people. Capitalism is also directly responsible for climate change and the destruction of the world’s habitats. Under capitalism, corporations are incentivised to pursue growth at any cost, which inevitably leads to them plundering the world’s resources. Oil extraction and its burning for energy is one of the worst contributors to the climate crisis, yet the global economy relies on it. Access to this most precious commodity has motivated many imperialist wars in the Middle East. Meanwhile renewable alternatives aren’t profitable so investment is nowhere to be found. Mitigating the damage already done to the environment requires investing money and resources too – but what’s in it for the capitalists?

    Exploitation of workers, particularly in poorer countries, is a key feature of capitalism. For example, Amnesty International reports that in the production of smart phones, companies such as Apple and Samsung have sourced the cobalt used in their phone batteries from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where an estimated 40,000 children work for next to nothing in cobalt mines. The conditions in these mines are widely considered a human rights violation, with workers subject to extremely unsafe conditions and sometimes made to work for 24 hours at a time. This dirt-cheap labour supply from the global South allows the billionaire class to rake in ever-increasing profits at the expense of human lives.

    To cover up their crimes, capitalists attempt to redirect our attention to anyone but themselves. Asylum seekers and migrants have become key scapegoats for the elite, who claim that they are stealing jobs from white British people. In fact asylum seekers have a limited ability to work, whereas other migrants are treated as an expendable resource. A working week of 80 hours or more has been reported to UNISON, the largest trade union in Britain, by some migrant care workers. Others have been made to do 19-hour shifts without a break and forced to be always available for work. They also face the threat of deportation when a care company goes bust because there is no safety net to protect them financially or help to find a new employer.

    Capitalists would have have you believe that the reason people struggle is that they are lazy and workshy. This criticism often gets levelled at young people in particular. The truth is that most young people want to work or study, but are facing a crisis. One million young people in Britain are currently not in education, employment or training (NEET for short) and youth unemployment is at its highest level in over ten years. Young people have been hit hard by years of austerity which has left public services understaffed, cut to the bone, and in many cases on the verge of collapse. Most young people today will have only ever experienced a world blighted by needless cuts and austerity. Is it any wonder that many fear for their futures?

    It is clear that capitalism has many systemic flaws: wealth inequality, environmental destruction, worker exploitation, and lack of opportunity, to name just a few. The first of these – wealth inequality – could be addressed with common or worker ownership of the means of production, which would result in wealth being distributed more fairly. Worker-managed cooperatives would allow employees to democratically decide pay scales, leadership, and policies. Public control over key sectors like healthcare, utilities, and finance, would enable us to prioritize human needs over profit margins, leading to reduced environmental destruction and worker exploitation. Properly funded public services would lead to more opportunities for young people.

    None of these changes will occur under our current system because the rulers of this system are incentivized to make sure they don’t happen, as an exploited and immiserated working class is easier for them to control. If we want to see these changes we have to fight for them. Thankfully there are signs that this is fight is already beginning to take place. A wave of student protests is currently sweeping across Europe, the likes of which has not been seen since 1960s. And on 20th November there will be an international day of walkouts and protests to build momentum for a new socialist youth movement. With every major party is promising more austerity we know that change is not going to come from within our capitalist system. We demand better.

  • Indo-European velars after *u

    In a previous blog post I argued that the highly skewed distribution of velars after *s in Proto-Indo-European (PIE), with plain velars occurring far more frequently here than palatovelars and labiovelars, can be explained by positing that the opposition between the velar series was neutralized in this position. Another position where the distribution of velars is highly skewed is after *u. In Pokorny’s 1959 Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (IEW), there 103 entries with a plain velar after *u, as opposed to 16 with a palatovelar and 6 with a labiovelar. And in Rix et al.’s 2001 Lexikon der Indomanischen Verben (LIV2) and Wodtko et al.’s 2008 Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon (NIL), there are 32 entries with plain velar after *u, as opposed to 5 with a palatovelar and 0 with a labiovelar.

    The obvious explanation that the opposition between the velar series was also neutralized after *u in PIE runs into the problem that we find all three types of velar occurring in this position. However a closer inspection of the data suggests that this might not be the case. One of the entries in IEW where a palatovelar occurs after *u – *peug’- ‘stab’ – only has reflexes in the Centum languages and therefore cannot be securely reconstructed with a palatovelar. Two more entries – *bhreuk’- ‘stroke’ and *ghreug’- ‘rub’ –  only have reflexes in Balto-Slavic and therefore cannot be securely reconstructed for PIE, particularly as the first violates a known root structure constraint whereby voiceless and voiced aspirate stops cannot co-occur in the same root.

    Of the 15 remaining entries, three should be reconstructed with a medial laryngeal – as *bhuHg’- ‘goat’, *gheuHg’h- ‘hide’, and *gʷreuHg’h- ‘grind’ – to account for the long vowel reflexes, so the palatovelar would not have been in contact with *u in these roots. Two more entries should be reconstructed with a plain velar after *u – as *k’euk- ‘mix’ and *reug- ‘roar’ – to account for the Balto-Slavic reflexes. The entry *leug’- ‘break’ shows divergent reflexes in the satem languages, with plain velar reflexes in Indo-Iranian and Albanian and palatovelar reflexes in Baltic (the Armenian reflexes are not probative as all velars were palatalized after *u in Armenian). This root is reconstructed with a plain velar in LIV2, which creates a connection with the root *leug- ‘bend’ and suggests the proposed Baltic reflexes are unrelated.

    Similarly, the entry *leuk’- ‘light’ has divergent reflexes in the satem languages, with plain velar and palatovelar reflexes in both in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. The acute tone in the Baltic reflexes points to a variant with a medial laryngeal, *leuHk’-, where the palatovelar would not have been in contact with the *u. That leaves us with 6 entries where a palatovelar occurs after *u: *gneug’- ‘knot’, *ieug’- ‘excite’ *meuk’- ‘scratch’, *peuk’- ‘stab’, *puk’- ‘press’, and *(s)leug’- ‘slide’. To this list we may add *seuk’- ‘suck’ from LIV2, although again this has divergent reflexes in the satem languages, with plain velar reflexes in Baltic and palatovelar reflexes in Slavic. Thus it seems that palatovelars do occur after *u, although they are rare in this position.

    Four of the entries in IEW where a labiovelar occurs after *u – *bhleugʷ- ‘overflow’, *bhoukʷ- ‘hum’, *H₂eukʷ- ‘cooking pot’, and *ugʷ- ‘damp’  – were shown not to require the reconstruction of a labiovalar by the Australian linguist Robert Woodhouse in a 2017 article. Another entry, *H₁ugʷh- ‘speak’, is a zero-grade variant of the root *H₁uegʷh- where the labiovelar would not have occurred after *u, and indeed the reflexes of the zero-grade form show the expected delabialization. The final entry, *ugʷsen- ‘bull’, contains no evidence for a labiovelar whatsoever; the labiovelar in this word is reconstructed based entirely on a speculative connection with the root *uegʷ- ‘damp’. Thus it seems safe to conclude that labiovelars do not occur after *u.

    To sum up then, there is evidence for only two types of velar occurring after *u: palatovelars and plain velars. In a series of previous blog posts I have hypothesized that PIE only contained two types of velar consonant: plain velars and labiovelars. This hypothesis is consistent with the evidence if we assume that plain velars palatalized after *u in the satem languages and labiovelars delabialized after *u in the centum languages. This would imply that the delabialization after *u occurred separately in the individual centum languages and cannot be traced back to PIE. This is not problematic however as there is independent evidence of delabialization occurring in this position in all of the individual centum languages, and the assumption that it occurred in PIE itself is therefore superfluous.

  • Can socialism solve the climate crisis?

    I recently finished reading a book entitled Planning for the planet: How socialism could save the environment, by Pete Dickenson. In this book Dickenson puts forward two inter-related claims, namely: (1) capitalism cannot solve the climate crisis; and (2) socialism can. I have argued for the first of these claims in a series of recent blog posts so I won’t rehash those arguments again here. In this blog post I will focus instead on Dickenson’s second claim, that socialism can solve the climate crisis. Of course it does not automatically follow that socialism can solve the climate crisis from the fact that capitalism can’t. Indeed, there are many historical examples that could be used to argue that socialism cannot solve the climate crisis either.

    Perhaps the most obvious case studies that could be put forward here are the Soviet Union and China. Both countries went through a period of rapid industrialization in the mid-20th century, the environmental impacts of which were catastrophic. And today China, a nominally socialist country, produces more CO2 per head of population than many capitalist nations due to its heavy reliance on coal for energy. The obvious rebuttal is that the Soviet Union and China were never really socialist countries. Many socialists would refer to the former as a deformed workers state and the latter as state capitalist. However both countries had planned economies, which in theory should have enabled them to develop industrially without destroying the environment in the process.

    The reason the Soviet Union and China created such immense environmental devastation lies in their desperation to catch up with the industrialized West. It must be remembered that both countries were backwards agrarian societies when socialism took hold and felt they needed to rapidly industrialize in order to compete with more advanced Western nations. This highlights how competition between nations is the main impediment to successfully tackling the climate crisis. That the Soviet Union and China were so desperate to compete with other nations demonstrates that although they had planned economies, they were not truly internationalist and therefore were not truly socialist. Thus I don’t think they can be held up as examples of socialism’s inability so tackle climate change.

    Again, though, it does not automatically follow that socialism can solve the climate crisis. Socialism may be necessary for this but that does not mean it is sufficient. In order to effectively solve the climate crisis we also need a plan. What should such a plan involve? Obviously it must involve a rapid move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources, as Dickenson argues at length in his book. However Dickenson argues against the widespread adoption of nuclear power, for three reasons. First, it creates a security risk, as nuclear power plants inevitably become a single point of failure that can be targeted by nefarious actors. Second, we can never rule out the possibility of accidents occurring. And third, we have not yet come up with a way to effectively deal with radioactive nuclear waste.

    Those in favour of nuclear power argue that although nuclear accidents have caused several thousand deaths, these pale into insignificance when compared to the millions of deaths that have already been caused by burning fossil fuels, and the millions more that are likely to result from climate change. In my view, however, this is argument is an example of ‘lesser-evilism’. Instead of comparing nuclear power with what is clearly the worst energy generation method we have available to us – burning fossil fuels – we should compare it with generating power from renewable sources. Although it should be noted that moving to renewable energy sources will also inevitably result in some accidental deaths, such as maintenance workers falling off wind turbines and so on.

    Rather than getting into the weeds of a debate on whether we should or should not adopt nuclear power, I think it is better to view nuclear power as one of a range of clean power generation options that also includes renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, and so on. The decision on whether or not to adopt nuclear power should then be made as part of a wider decision on what mix of energy sources to use. The actual mix used in practice would depend on a range of environmental, technological, economic, and social factors. But the point is that this is a decision that should be made democratically by the people rather than imposed from above. It is only under socialism that such democratic decision-making could effectively be carried out.

  • The dictatorship of the proletariat

    The State and Revolution is a book written by Vladimir Lenin and published in 1918, just after the Russian Revolution, considered by many to be his greatest contribution to political theory. Lenin defines the bourgeois state as “a special organisation of force” and “an organisation of violence for the suppression of some social class”. Drawing on earlier work of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, Lenin investigates theoretical questions about the existence of the state after the proletarian revolution. Lenin also defends Marx’s theory of communism, and Marxism generally. The State and Revolution describes the inherent nature of the state as a tool for class oppression. Whether a dictatorship or a democracy, according to Lenin the state is always the social-control means of the ruling class.

    In The State and Revolution Lenin makes extensive reference to the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. This term was coined by Karl Max and Friedrich Engels and refers to a situation after the revolution in which the working class holds political power. The term ‘dictatorship’ is derived from the Latin dictatura, a constitutionally sanctioned office for a magistrate in the Roman Republic. It is important to note that the term carried a somewhat different meaning 150 years ago. Whereas today we associate the term ‘dictatorship’ with authoritarianism, Marx and Engels used it to mean something closer to what we would refer to today as a centralized government. Thus ‘government of the proletariat’ is perhaps a better rendering of what Marx and Engels were actually referring to.

    The Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917 transformed the interpretation of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ concept from a theoretical debate into a practical political question. Lenin defined ‘dictatorship’ as power won and maintained by force, unrestricted by any law. This interpretation, and the reality of the Soviet regime, fixed the term’s modern meaning as a one-party state and triggered a final, decisive split in the international Marxist movement. The sharpest conflict over the term broke out between Lenin and the German Marxist Karl Kautsky in 1918, with the latter condemning the Bolshevik regime for suppressing other socialist parties, abolishing the Russian Constituent Assembly, and ruling by force without a democratic mandate.

    Lenin responded by defending the Bolsheviks’ actions as necessary, and deriding Kautsky’s democracy as “bourgeois democracy” and a betrayal of the revolution. The German Marxist Rosa Luxembourg offered a third perspective, defending the Bolsheviks’ revolutionary actions whilst criticizing their dictatorial policies. In response, Lenin doubled down on his position, stating that the dictatorship of the proletariat was impossible “through an organisation embracing the whole of that class” and could, therefore, “be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class”. By the end of the Russian civil war in 1920, the dictatorship of the proletariat had been transformed, in both theory and practice, into dictatorship of the party.

    It is open to debate whether Lenin’s definition of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ represented sharp break between, or a development of, Marx and Engel’s conception. According to the American social activist Hal Draper, a dictatorship of the party was the exact opposite of what Marx and Engels had envisaged. And the British philosopher Robert Ware contrasts Marx and Engels’ conception of a dictatorship by the proletariat with Lenin’s view of a state that acts for the proletariat in a dictatorial manner. On the other hand, the American political scientist John Ehrenberg contends that for all three thinkers, the concept described the political power required to lead a comprehensive social revolution and break the old bourgeois state in favour of a new, more democratic form.

    I do not feel sufficiently qualified to pick a side in this debate. In any case, a more pertinent question to ask is what impact Lenin’s interpretation had on the material conditions of the working class. Proponents of Lenin’s conception might point to the fact that he led a successful proletarian revolution in Russia, whereas his detractors – Kautsky and Luxembourg – did not do the same in their home nation of Germany, despite the fact that the German revolutionary movement was arguably stronger in 1918 than the Russian movement had been in 1917. But it could also be argued that Lenin’s interpretation paved the way for Stalinism and all the horrors that unleashed. I will return to this question in a future blog post.

  • The never-ending war in Ukraine

    The US and Israel’s war on Iran has been a blessing for Russia, as disruption to global oil supplies has sent the price of oil soaring. In response, the Ukrainian military has been targeting Russian oil infrastructure with an increased intensity. The Ukrainian military’s targets have also recently expanded to include the warehouses and distribution hubs of the massive online retailers Wildberries and Ozon, which between them control nearly 70% of the online retail market in Russia. This shift in targets is an attempt to transform the political stakes by disrupting day-to-day civilian life across Russia to a degree not yet seen. The Russian military has responded in turn by increasing the intensity of its aerial bombardments of Kyiv and other cities.

    The war in Ukraine has now dragged on longer than WWI with no end in sight. On both sides there is a growing gulf between the triumphalist rhetoric of the ruling elite and the reality of living in a country engaged in long-term conflict. Fearing for their survival, these ruling elites have invariably resorted to escalating the war, or threatening escalation, in the hope of diverting attention from the day-to-day misery civilians are facing and restoring their authority. The result is that any peace proposals get rejected out of hand. The attempt in November 2025 by president Trump to impose a peace plan was dead before the year’s end as the Zelenskyy regime, backed and encouraged by the pro-war European powers (especially Britain, France and Germany), refused to even consider it.

    The Trump administration spending its first months in office calling into question the US’s commitment to NATO prepared the ground for the European powers’ later refusal to cooperate. For the ruling classes of Europe, the war is being fought to decide who will be able to exploit the people and resources of Ukraine, as well as commanding a geostrategic advantage in the region. The real reason the pro-war European powers urged Zelenskyy to reject Trump’s proposed peace plan is that it agreeing to it would have limited their ability to do achieve these aims. For it’s part, the US has not in practice changed its position on the Ukraine war since Biden was president. The US’s industrial, technological, and military muscle remains firmly behind continuation of the war.

    US imperialism seems to be stuck in a kind of death-spiral, whereby every attempt it makes to reinforce its position on the global stage makes it look even weaker. The Trump administration’s policy toward NATO has forced European nations to re-emerge as more independent powers. Trump’s failure to make good on his boast to end the Ukraine war “in a day” upon entering office has shattered any lingering pretence that the US can unilaterally force other capitalist powers to toe the line. And that’s not to mention the mess the US has gotten itself into in Iran. The longer these conflicts continue the more clear it becomes that the US can no longer play the role of unchallengeable global policeman. Once again we are witnessing the American empire collapse in real time.

    Given the imperialist character of the war, any peace will be an imperialist peace without the independent intervention of the working class. However there are signs of a working-class fight back in Ukraine. In 2025, protests in multiple Ukrainian cities forced the Zelenskyy government to shelve reforms that would weaken anti-corruption safeguards. And National Police figures recorded 341 attacks on army recruiters in 2025, compared with just five in 2022, with 620 attacks were recorded in the first four months of 2026. This is probably a reflection of the fact that in order to keep the war going, the Ukrainian army has had to resort to forcibly conscripting men of fighting age by kidnapping them off the street.

    The European powers’ militarization policies will inevitably be used to justify attacks on working-class living standards via cuts to public services and jobs. The role of us socialists in this situation is to make clear the link between the imperialist war in Ukraine and the decline in peoples’ living standards. We must also campaign on a program that includes: an immediate end to the fighting on all fronts; rejection of imperialist ‘peace’ plans negotiated behind the backs of working people; the immediate withdrawal of the Russian military from Ukraine; the immediate end of arms shipments to Ukraine from the US, European and other powers; and democratic, unhindered self-determination for Crimea and the Donbas region.

  • Was Orwell a socialist?

    Eric Arthur Blair was an English novelist, poet, essayist, journalist, and critic who wrote under the pen name of George Orwell. He is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), and his work remains influential in both popular and political culture. One reason for this is that people from across the political spectrum believe they can use Orwell’s work to demonstrate their position is the correct one. In particular, many on the right interpret works like Nineteen Eighty-Four as a warning against moving away from capitalism. “Socialism doesn’t work – just read Animal Farm!” as one right-wing acquaintance once put it to me. But what did Orwell himself think?

    Orwell was born on 25 June 1903 in Motihari, Bengal Presidency (now Bihar), British India, into what he described as a “lower-upper-middle class” family. His mother wanted him to have a public school education, and although his family could not afford the fees, he succeeded in winning a scholarship to Eton. Orwell was unhappy at Eton and performance reports suggest he neglected his studies. His parents could not afford to send him to university without another scholarship and concluded from his poor results he would not be able to win one, so decided instead that Orwell should join the Imperial Police, the precursor of the Indian Police Service. He chose a posting in Burma, then still a province of British India.

    Working as an imperial police officer gave Orwell considerable responsibility while most of his contemporaries were still at university in England. He drew on his experiences in the Burma police for the novel Burmese Days (1934), and the essays A Hanging (1931) and Shooting an Elephant (1936). The latter describes the experience of the English narrator, probably Orwell himself, called upon to shoot an aggressive elephant whilst working as a police officer in Burma. Because the locals expect him to do the job, he does so against his better judgment, his anguish increased by the elephant’s slow and painful death. The story is regarded as a metaphor for colonialism as a whole, and for Orwell’s view that “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys”.

    In 1927, Orwell moved to London and started to explore the poorer parts of the city. For a while he lived as a tramp; he recorded his experiences for use in The Spike, his first published essay in English, and in the second half of his first book, Down and Out in Paris and London (1933). The first part of this book was based on his experience living and working as a kitchen hand in Paris, where he had moved to in 1928. In 1929, after nearly two years in Paris, Orwell returned to England where his explorations of poverty continued with regular tramping expeditions and time spent doing various menial jobs. He even went as far as deliberately getting himself arrested in 1932 so that he could experience Christmas in prison.

    In 1936, concerned by Francisco Franco’s military uprising, Orwell went to Spain to fight in the Spanish Civil War. He was at first exasperated by the “kaleidoscope” of political parties and trade unions that made up the Republican government but soon joined the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). Orwell was also shocked by the lack of munitions, food, and firewood, as well as other extreme deprivations. The subsequent campaign of lies and distortion carried out by the Stalinist press, in which the POUM was accused of collaborating with the fascists, had a dramatic effect on Orwell. During his time on the front he was wounded in the throat by a sniper’s bullet, and was then forced to escape from hospital after being charged with “rabid Trotskyism” and being an agent of the POUM.

    Orwell returned to England in 1937 where his health deteriorated. He was declared “unfit for any kind of military service” by the Medical Board, and although he joined the Home Guard he eventually had to retire on medical grounds. In 1941 he began to write for the American Partisan Review which linked Orwell with the New York Intellectuals who were also anti-Stalinist. He began work on Animal Farm in 1943 and by 1944 the book was ready for publication. However publication would have to wait until the end of WWII as the book was an obvious attack on the Stalin and the Soviet Union, Britain’s allies at that time. Animal Farm had particular resonance in the post-war climate and its worldwide success made Orwell a sought-after figure.

    In 1947, Orwell set off to live on the Scottish Island of Jura in an abandoned farmhouse without outbuildings, where he worked on Nineteen Eighty-Four. Around this time he began collaborating with a Foreign Office unit, the Information Research Department (IRD), set up by the Labour government to publish anti-communist propaganda. Orwell provided them a list of people he considered to be unsuitable as IRD authors because of their pro-communist leanings, now referred to as “Orwell’s list”. In 1949, Nineteen Eighty-Four was published to critical acclaim. However, Orwell’s health continued to decline, and in 1950 he suffered a pulmonary artery rupture due to complications of tuberculosis and died. He was just 46 years old.

    So, was Orwell a socialist? He certainly claimed to be one. Orwell famously summarized his political stance in his 1946 essay Why I Write, stating: “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” His views were clearly shaped by his experience and solidified after witnessing poverty first-hand in England and fighting alongside the POUM. Orwell strongly opposed Soviet-style communism and Stalinism, which he saw as a betrayal of true socialist values. Most socialists today would agree. The confusion of right-wingers over the central message of Animal Farm mad Nineteen Eighty-Four ultimately stems from a mistaken identification of socialism with Stalinism.

    More generally, Orwell believed in a classless society, public ownership or control of the means of production, and the preservation of fundamental democratic liberties and free speech. If that isn’t a socialist, then what is?

  • Why I joined the Socialist Party

    Two years ago, almost to the day, I became a member of the Socialist Party of England and Wales. I had found out about the party when searching online for socialist groups in my local area and discovered that not only was there a branch of the Socialist Party in my local town, but they held meetings there every Wednesday. So I decided to go along to the next meeting. And I’m glad I did because looking back, it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Up until then I had been feeling increasingly despondent about the way the world was heading. Israel’s genocide in Gaza had been going on for almost two years by that point, and the barrage of news and images coming from that beleaguered strip of land had sent my mental health into what felt like a terminal decline.

    The reason this news was causing me such anguish was that the UK government was so obviously complicit in the slaughter. In a representative democracy, a government supposedly represents the will of the people, so technically that meant I was complicit in the slaughter too. Yet I also felt that I was powerless to do anything to stop it. It was only after I joined the Socialist Party that I began to understand that whereas I as an individual might be powerless, the class of people to which I belong – the working class – has enormous power. The working class has the power to stop the genocide in Gaza. It also has the power to completely transform society. It just needs to harness that power in the right way.

    I have always been on the left of the political spectrum, but it was the financial crisis of 2008 – or more specifically, our government’s response to it – that turned me into a socialist. It was clear to me that ordinary people were being punished for a crisis they did nothing to create, whereas those who had created the crisis were getting away scot-free. This was socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else. So naturally I was heartened when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party in 2015. Sadly, many of the people I associated with at that time, whom I assumed had similar political views to me, did not share my enthusiasm for the new Labour leader. It seems some people actually want Labour to be controlled opposition to the Tories rather than a genuine left-wing party.

    Fast forward four years and by the end of 2019 Labour had lost two general elections under Corbyn, who was then forced to resign. Many commentators at the time claimed that this demonstrated socialism would never be popular in Britain, but anyone paying attention could see right through this rhetoric. The truth is that Corbyn had been treated as a pariah and was eventually brought down by a completely confected ‘antisemitism crisis’ which everyone in the media-political class had gone along with. The lesson of the Corbyn era is not that socialism is unpopular; on the contrary, it is that socialists would win every election if the capitalist class and their media lackeys did not intervene to stop it from happening.

    What’s particularly striking looking back at this period is that the media-political class threw everything it had at Corbyn even though he is a reformist social democrat, not a true socialist. What he was offering was basically a watered-down version of capitalism, but even that was too much for these ghouls apparently. Imagine how they would react if a genuine socialist ever got close to the levers of power! I realized that, paradoxically, the hysterical overreaction of the capitalist class to this mild-mannered reformist politician demonstrated just how tenuous its grip on power actually is. I was already convinced of the need to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism, but now I started to believe it might actually be possible.

    The problem was that the election of the right-wing Keir Starmer as leader of the Labour party in 2020 had left me politically homeless. I had been member of the Labour Party but left almost immediately after Starmer’s election as I could see the way the party was going. Thankfully, four years later I joined the Socialist Party – and the rest, as they say, is history. Reflecting back on my two years in the party, I am struck by how much I have learned in such a short space of time. I may have already been a socialist when I joined the party but I had little experience of political activism. Since then I have taken part in countless paper sales, several demonstrations, and I even represented the party in the recent local elections.

    The thing I like most about being in the Socialist Party is the sense of camaraderie. It is so refreshing being around people who not only understand the problems with capitalism but are actually motivated to do something about them. Many people complain about the existing system but few seem willing to do anything about it. I think this stems from the widely-held view that nothing can, in fact, be done about it. Not only is this view mistaken; it is a gift to the ruling class. As already noted, the working class has the power to completely transform society. However, as Lenin argued in his 1902 work What is to be Done?, it might need some guidance to enable it to do that. The role of the Socialist Party is to provide this guidance, raise class consciousness, and unlock the full potential of the working class.

  • P vs. NP

    A Turing machine is a mathematical model of computation describing an imaginary machine that manipulates symbols according to a table of rules. The machine uses a head to draw on an infinite memory tape divided into discrete cells, each of which can hold a single symbol drawn from a finite set of symbols called the alphabet. The idea was conceived in 1936 by the British mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing. By providing a mathematical description of a very simple device capable of arbitrary computations, Turing was able to prove properties of computation in general. In particular, Turing was able to give a negative answer to the so-called ‘decision problem’: the question of whether every mathematical statement is either provable or disprovable by an algorithm.

    Formally, a Turing machine is a tuple M = (S,A,s0,f) which consists of: a finite set of states S; a finite alphabet A; an initial state s0; and a transition function f() which maps the set Sx(A∪{∅}) to the set (S∪{∅})xAx{-1,+1}, where x denotes the Cartesian product. The transition function f() specifies the next state transitioned to from the current state, which symbol to write in the cell pointed at by the head, and the next head movement, with -1 being a movement to the left +1 being a movement to the right. Note that the second argument of the transition function f() is taken from the set A∪{∅} rather than the set A to take into account the fact that the head may be pointing at a blank cell, denoted here by ∅.

    Note also that the first output of the transition function is taken from the set S∪{∅} to take into account the fact that the machine may reach a terminal state at the next time step; the terminal state is again denoted here by ∅. An input string for the Turing machine M is a finite sequence (a1,a2,…,an) of elements of A which represents the initial configuration of the memory tape. Each input string (a1,a2,…,an) induces a (possibly infinite) sequence (s1,s2,…,st) of elements of S. The input string (a1,a2,…,an) is said to be accepted by M if the induced sequence (s1,s2,…,st) is finite; that is, if the machine reaches the terminal state. Let A* denote the set of all input strings for the Turing machine M. A language L over A is then defined as a subset of A*.

    The language accepted by the Turing machine M is defined by L(M) = {a*∈ A* | M accepts a*}. If M accepts a* then let t(M,a*) denote the number of time steps until the Turing machine M terminates with input string a*, and if M does not accept a* then let t(M,a*) = ∞. Furthermore, given a natural number n let An denote the set of all input strings of length n and let T(M,n) denote the worst case run-time for M, defined by T(M,n) = max{t(M,an) | an∈ An}. Then we say that M runs in polynomial time if: (1) M accepts all input strings a* ∈ A*, and (2) there exists a constant c ≥ 0 and a positive integer k such that for all n, T(M,n) ≤ cnk; or equivalently, T(M,n) ∈ O(nk) using the so-called ‘big O’ notation.

    We can then define the set P as the set of languages L such that L = L(M) for some Turing machine M which runs in polynomial time, in which case we say that the Turing machine M decides L in polynomial time. We further define the set NP as the set of languages L where there exists a binary relation R ⊂ A*xA* and a positive integer k such that: (1) for all input strings a* ∈ A*, a* is in the language L if and only if there exists b* ∈ A* such that (a*,b*) ∈ R and |b*| ∈ O(|a*|), and (2) the language L(R) over A∪{#} defined by L(R) = {a*#b* | (a*,b*) ∈ R} is in the set P. A Turing machine that decides L(R) is referred to as a verifier for the language L. In words, NP is the set of languages that can be verified in polynomial time.

    It can be shown that P ⊆ NP. However it is not currently known whether P = NP or P ⊂ NP. This is a major unsolved problem in mathematics and computer science. It is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute, each of which carries a US$1,000,000 prize for the first correct solution. Informally, the problem is to determine whether every decision problem for which a proposed positive answer can be quickly verified can also be quickly solved. Here, ‘quickly’ means an algorithm exists that solves the task and runs in polynomial time. If P ≠ NP, which is widely believed, there are problems in NP that are harder to compute than to verify: they could not be solved in polynomial time, but the answer could be verified in polynomial time.

    Aside from being an important problem in computational theory, it is claimed that a proof either way would have profound implications for cryptography, algorithm research, artificial intelligence, and other fields. Personally, though, I am skeptical of this claim. We have seen that a Turing machine is an idealized conception of a computer which assumes the existence of an infinite memory tape. Obviously in the real world no computer has an infinite memory. Can result about such idealized machines really tell us anything about the real world of finite-memory computers? I don’t think so. Moreover, I suspect the reason a solution to the problem has proven so elusive is directly related to this infinite-memory assumption. I shall return to this point in a future blog post.

  • Why aren’t we investing in renewables?

    The urgency of the task we face in combating climate change should now be clear to everyone. In one sense, implementing the measures required to achieve this is straightforward. The key element required is a rapid conversion to renewable energy across all sectors of the economy. We could begin this immediately as the technology already exists. Indeed, if you listened to our politicians you would be forgiven for thinking this task is already well underway, as they have a habit of exaggerating their achievements when it comes to combating climate change. For example, in 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (remember him?!) claimed that Britain had the best record in the world for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But is that really true?

    The short answer is: no. Britain has been effectively ‘exporting’ its emissions, mainly to China, for the past 30 years. If the greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacture of imported products are included – as they really should be – the figures look very different, as many of the most polluting industries have moved offshore from Britain in recent decades. The result is that overseas emissions increased from 200 million tonnes CO2 equivalent in 1990 to 400 million tonnes CO2 equivalent in 2020. All major Western countries have followed a similar strategy in off-shoring emissions. Even taking overseas emissions into account, however, Britain has still reduced its overall greenhouse gas emissions over the past 30 years. So shouldn’t our politicians get some credit for that at least?

    Again, the short answer is: no. The main driver for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions was the switch from coal-fired to gas-fired power stations. This was done for a political reason – namely, smashing the miners’ unions – rather than an environmental one. And of course natural gas is a fossil fuel so the burning of natural gas still emits greenhouse gases, just not to quite the same extent as coal. Another driver in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has been the widespread installation of wind farms, with Britain now deriving around 30% of its power from wind. But this figure is a lot lower than it could be. The equivalent figure for Denmark is 60%, which undercuts the frequently-made claim that there is no point in investing further in wind power due to its intermittency.

    A recent study by Ernst & Young found that Britain has huge potential for future offshore wind energy generation, possibly as much as 1000 TWh per year, equivalent to several times our average energy consumption. And that’s just offshore generation. Other options are onshore wind farms and micro-generation, whereby wind turbines are installed on the roofs of buildings. The problem with the latter option is that it is less efficient than grouping turbines into wind farms because economies of scale are lost. Plus many people would not want to have a big wind turbine sticking out of their roof. But even if we discount micro-generation completely, it is clear that a combination of offshore and onshore wind farms would be more than sufficient to meet our energy needs.

    The fact that many wind farms are already operational shows that there are no major technical barriers to connecting them with the national grid. The intermittency problem can be addressed by developing ways to store large quantities of energy. Fitting each wind turbine with a lithium-based battery would help even out energy availability. There are other possibilities too, such as storing excess energy by hauling rail wagons uphill, then releasing the energy when there is an energy deficit by allowing them to roll back downhill. Another solution is to deploy back-up sources such as hydro-power or green hydrogen (nuclear power is often mentioned as a potential back-up source too, although I argued against that in a previous blog post). AI can also be used to help balance supply and demand.

    One reason often given by the government to explain why more onshore wind farms have not been built is objections from local residents. But this obviously does not apply to offshore wind farms. In short, all the excuses made by politicians for not building more wind farms, or investing in renewable energy more generally, are just that: excuses. These excuses make little sense when renewables provide a cheap, clean source of energy that can easily meet our energy needs. So what’s really going on here? The real reason the government is so reluctant to invest in renewable energy sources is not that they aren’t effective: on the contrary, it is that they are too effective! To understand why this is, we need to understand something fundamental about how capitalism works.

    In order to make money under capitalism, you need to control something that other people need but which is in short supply. This explains why it is so easy for capitalists to make money out of fossil fuels. Capitalist society has been set up in such a way that everyone needs access to these fuels, but they are difficult to get hold of as they are buried deep underground. If a cheap source of energy became freely available it would be much more difficult for capitalists to control the supply and thereby make money out of it. This explains why capitalists and their politician lackeys are so reluctant to invest in renewable energy. Instead, they resort to lying about their achievements in cutting emissions to deflect attention away from their lack of action. We will never solve the climate crisis until we get rid of capitalism.

  • ADHD is not a myth

    Channel 4 courted controversy recently by airing a documentary entitled The Great ADHD Myth?, which centres on the struggles of a stereotypically hyperactive schoolboy named Mason. The show went to great lengths to stress that many people exhibit similar behaviour and questioned the wisdom of diagnosing such people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD. The program is presented as being concerned only with uncovering the facts. In reality, however, it sets out to demonstrate that ADHD is not a genuine neurological disorder but is instead an invented social construct. Much of the program is taken up with ‘experiments’ designed to prove this conclusion which was clearly arrived at in advance.

    It has since transpired that the words of one of the experts interviewed were, in her words, “cherry picked… and presented… out of context to make them fit into their narrative”. At one point the presenter, Max Pemberton, even resorts to taking ADHD medication himself. Quite what he was trying to prove with this little stunt is not entirely clear. Despite these obvious defects I suspect that the show’s central thesis would have been music to the ears of many. There seems to be a perception amongst a significant proportion of the population that neurological disorders like ADHD are essentially made up. This view was recently epitomized by ‘comedian’ Ricky Gervais, who went viral for mocking current trends around diagnoses for ADHD.

    What does the science say? A comment in a recent edition of New Scientist helpfully debunks many of the claims put forward in the show. One claim made is that ADHD is a new condition, which if true would suggest that it is in fact a social construct. But documented descriptions of what we would now call ADHD can be found back as far as 1798, and the condition has been medically described many times since then under various different names. Whilst it is true that rates of diagnosis have increased rapidly in recent years, just 1% of the population of England is currently diagnosed with ADHD. Another claim made is that ADHD cannot be a real phenomenon as it cannot be diagnosed using a brain scan. But this is true of most, if not all, psychiatric and neurological conditions.

    Pemberton seeks out a diagnosis for ADHD via an online assessment, presumably to demonstrate how easy it is to be diagnosed (Pemberton does not actually have ADHD). But in reality, ADHD is diagnosed via a lengthy process that includes multiple questionnaires and an interview. Having apparently been diagnosed, Pemberton is then handed a prescription for medication, the implication being that it is far too easy for people to get hold of ADHD medication even if they do not actually have the condition. There is certainly an argument that we need more data on the effects of long-term medication use. But what we do have is evidence that ADHD treatments – drug-based or otherwise – improve quality of life for those suffering with the condition.

    The program in fact demonstrates this by taking Mason off his medication, only to find that his schoolwork and behaviour decline to the point that his parents are forced to put him back on the treatment. This effectively blows a hole right through the show’s central argument (they don’t mention that of course). It seems that in making this program, Channel 4 chose shock tactics over scientifically accurate reporting, presumably because they thought it would boost their ratings. They must have known that the show would strike a cord with a certain section of the population. Why are some people so unwilling to accept the reality ADHD? I think it is because its core traits look like personal choices rather than a medical condition.

    Western capitalist society places a high value on hard work and self-control. When people succeed or fail, others tend to blame only personal effort. But as I have pointed out in previous blog posts, this idea is based on the fallacy that we have free will. In truth, all of our choices and actions are ultimately predetermined by physical processes. Nonetheless, societal emphasis on productivity, individual willpower, and self-sufficiency significantly hinders the acceptance of ADHD as a legitimate disability. Of course everyone gets distracted or feels restless at times. The problem is that sceptics will tend to use their own mild experiences to dismiss the disorder, ignoring the fact that ADHD is the result of hidden differences inside the brain.

    Because people cannot physically see an external wound, they often misinterpret real neurological struggles as bad behaviour. Forgetfulness is judged as disrespect; fidgeting is viewed as rudeness; procrastination is labelled as laziness. We humans are often quick to judge others. The reason for that, I think, stems from our egos, which are always trying to exert their superiority over others’ egos. This makes it easy for us to pass judgement; conversely, displaying compassion and understanding requires overcoming your ego, which takes effort. It also requires giving up pre-existing beliefs, which can feel jarring. Some people clearly find it easier to reject ADHD rather than give up long-held beliefs on fairness and opportunity.

    The strange thing is that many of those who reject ADHD as a real neurological phenomenon would consider themselves rational thinkers. Ricky Gervais, for example, is always going on about the superiority of science over religion, yet when it comes to ADHD his love for science apparently goes out of the window. As I have pointed out in a previous blog post, Gervais is clearly a man with an overly inflated sense of his own intelligence and importance. He is also a man with an unfortunate habit of ‘punching down’ with his comedy. Gervais’ recent statements on ADHD have nothing to do with science or rationality and instead serve as an object lesson on what can happen if you allow your ego to take control.

  • Linear and dynamic programming

    Linear programming, also called linear optimization, is a method to achieve the best outcome (such as maximum profit or lowest cost) in a mathematical model whose requirements and objective are represented by linear relationships. It is widely used in mathematics and, to a lesser extent, in business, economics, and engineering. More formally, linear programming is a technique for the optimization of a linear objective function, subject to linear equality and linear inequality constraints. The canonical linear programming problem can be expressed as: find y ≥ 0 that maximizes the quantity bTy subject to the constraints Cy ≤ a, where y is an n by 1 vector, b is a known n by 1 vector, C is a known m by n matrix, and a is a known m by 1 vector.

    Every linear programming problem can be converted into a so-called dual problem, which can be expressed as: find x ≥ 0 that minimizes the quantity xTa subject to the constraints xC ≥ b, where x is an m by 1 vector, and a, b, and C are defined as above. The strong duality theorem of linear programming states that if y* is a solution to the original (primal) problem and x* is a solution to the dual problem, then bTy* = x*Ta. This result can be used to prove the well-known minimax theorem from game theory, which states that if C is an m by n matrix then maxp minq pTCq = minq maxp pTCq, where maxp is taken over m by 1 vectors p ≥ 0 satisfying  ∑i p(i) = 1 and minq over n by 1 vectors q ≥ 0 satisfying  ∑j q(j) = 1.

    Dynamic programming, also called dynamic optimization, is a method to achieve the best outcome (such as maximum profit or lowest cost) in a mathematical model which can be broken down into stages or time steps. The simplest dynamic programming problem can be expressed as: find the sequence (u0,u1,u2,…) which minimizes v(i0) = ∑k g(ik,uk) subject to the constraints ik+1 = f(ik,uk) for each k, where f and g are known functions. The interpretation is that ik represents the state of some system at time step k which is can be controlled using the inputs (u0,u1,u2,…). Let v* be such that v*(i) attains the minimum for each i. Then it can be shown that v* satisfies the so-called Bellman equation, named after the American mathematician Richard Bellman: v*(i) = minu {g(i,u)+ v*[f(i,u)]}.

    This formulation can easily to be extended to stochastic systems, where instead of a transition function f we have a transition probability distribution P. In this extended formulation, P(i,u,j) represents the probability that the next state of the system is j given that the current state is i and the control input is u. The Bellman equation then becomes v*(i) = minu{g(i,u)+ ∑j P(i,u,j)v*(j)}, which can be written in a more compact notation as v* = Tv*, where Tv(i) = minu{g(i,u)+ ∑j P(i,u,j)v(j)}. It is straightforward to show that for all vectors v, if v ≤ Tv then v ≤ v*. It follows that if v is the maximum vector satisfying v ≤ Tv then v = v*. Thus the dynamic programming problem just described can be reformulated as the problem of maximizing v subject to the constraints v ≤ Tv.

    This reformulated problem is not a linear program as the operator T is nonlinear, but we can turn it into a linear program by rewriting v ≤ Tv as v ≤ g(u)+P(u)v for each u, where g(u) is the vector whose ith component is g(i,u) and P(u) is the matrix whose (i,j)th component is P(i,u,j). This may be rewritten as [I-P(u)]v ≤ g(u) for all u, where I is the identity matrix. To convert this into the canonical linear programming form described above, we can define n to be number of possible states, m to be the total number of states multiplied by the total number of possible control inputs, a to be the m by 1 vector whose [i+n(u-1)]th element is g(i,u), b to be an n by 1 vector of 1s, and C to be the m by n matrix whose [i+n(u-1),j]th element is P(i,u,j).

    This demonstrates that a dynamic programming problem can be reformulated as a linear programming problem, thereby providing a link between two seemingly unconnected types of mathematical optimization.

  • AI is coming for your job

    The term ‘AI apocalypse’ is used to describe any of a number of hypothetical futures where artificial intelligence causes catastrophic harm to the human race. These futures can be broadly classified into four scenarios. The first involves mass automation replacing vast portions of the global workforce, leading to severe economic instability. The second involves large-scale automated cyber attacks targeting critical infrastructure like water and hospitals. The third involves the proliferation of autonomous weapons.And the fourth involves super intelligent machines developing goals that do not align with human survival or well-being. In this blog post I will go through the first of these scenarios and assess how worried we should be about it (I will leave the other scenarios for a future blog post).

    AI is not developed enough to take over entire jobs right now, but it is already automating routine tasks and drastically reshaping how people work. Companies are increasingly using AI to handle repetitive tasks, leading to hiring freezes and fewer entry-level openings. This means that young people are being hit hardest by the AI boom and explains why there are so many NEETs: young people aged 16 to 24 who are not in education, employment, or training. The jobs most immediately at risk are customer support, entry-level coding, and administrative roles. Other jobs will be at risk in the medium-term as AI becomes more developed. Conversely, those least at risk are skilled trades, those involving human empathy, and those involving complex strategy.

    In theory, AI should free humans up from routine tasks and allow us to focus on higher-level work. Indeed many commentators argue that this is precisely what will happen. Work published recently by Boston Consulting Group, for example, argues that AI will “reshape more jobs than it replaces”. Dig a bit deeper though and things don’t seem quite so rosy. Despite the optimistic headline, the research suggests that 15% of jobs in the US could be eliminated in the next five years, a pattern that will presumably be replicated across the Western world. Will sufficiently many jobs be created in the meantime to compensate for this decline? It seems unlikely to me. And that’s just in the next 5 years. It’s very difficult to predict what will happen beyond that, other than that even more jobs will be replaced.

    It is clear therefore that in the not-too-distant future, AI will eliminate a significant proportion of jobs that are currently being done by human beings. So what are governments doing to prepare for this? Sadly the short answer is: very little. This is despite the fact that existing safety nets are woefully ill-equipped to cope with what is coming. Traditional unemployment insurance programs often require a specific work history, which can exclude new graduates and entry-level workers most vulnerable to early AI displacement. Unfortunately our politicians are asleep at the wheel and it is left to tech moguls like Bill Gates to sound the alarm. In a recent essay, Gates has warned that there is no plan for the upheaval AI will create.

    So what should governments be doing to prepare? The two obvious solutions are a Universal Basic Income (UBI) and a Job Guarantee (JG). A UBI is a social welfare model where every citizen regularly receives a set, unconditional amount of cash from the government, regardless of their work status or personal wealth. A JG, on the other hand, is an economic policy proposal that aims to create full employment and by having the state promise to hire unemployed workers as an employer of last resort. There are arguments for and against both of these policy options which I won’t go into here (I will leave that to a future blog post too). But either would be better than the alternative: mass unemployment with no safety net. Unfortunately no politicians seem willing to even discuss these proposals at present.

    Thus we find ourselves in the absurd situation where we are on the cusp of developing a technology that could completely free us from drudgery and allow us to focus on higher-level tasks; but instead of feeling excited about this, the overall feeling people have is one of fear and trepidation about the job losses that will result. If there is anything that demonstrates what a perverse system capitalism is this, it is this. Defenders of the status quo would argue that if it wasn’t for capitalism AI would not have been developed in the first place. That may or may not be true (personally I think it would have been developed sooner under socialism). But even if you accept this premise, you have to ask what the point of developing this technology is if it just ends up making peoples’ lives worse.

  • Zionism and racism

    Sacha Baron-Cohen is facing growing outrage over his new Ali G film, with some alleging that the pro-Israel actor and ‘comedian’ has built his career on racist mockery of Muslims and other marginalized groups. Many have taken to social media to accuse Ali G, who in the trailer is seen wearing dreadlocks and a Rastafarian hat, of being an outdated and racist caricature. Anti-racism activists have apparently sent over 37,000 emails to cinemas urging them not to screen the film. Much of the outrage has focussed on concern over a white comedian engaging in a modern form of ‘blackface’: dark makeup worn to mimic and caricature black people, historically used by white entertainers to promote racist stereotypes.

    It is not the first time that a prominent British pro-Israel celebrity has engaged in such behaviour. Back in the 1990s, ‘comedian’ David Baddiel infamously wore blackface to mock Black footballer Jason Lee in the television show Fantasy Football League. Baddiel and his sidekick Frank Skinner repeatedly targeted the Nottingham Forest striker across several episodes of the show, with Baddiel often wearing a pineapple on his head to mimic Lee’s dreadlocks. Lee later stated that the racist caricature made him feel violated and added a severe layer of trauma to the abuse he already faced. Some 25 years after the show aired, Baddiel met Lee in person to make a long overdue apology, admitting that the sketches constituted a targeted bullying campaign.

    Whilst Baddiel’s apology was a positive step, the suspicion among many was that he had only made it in order to help sell his book Jews Don’t Count, which was released around the same time. The book’s core thesis is that progressive anti-racists frequently overlook, downplay, or ignore judaeophobia, treating it as a second-class racism. (I use the term ‘judaeophobia’ rather than the more commonly used ‘antisemitism’ to refer to bigotry against Jews, for reasons outlined in a previous blog post.) In order to put forward this thesis, Baddiel had to position himself as a kind of authority on racism; but it is difficult to do that when you have a history racist bullying. This, I think, is the real reason behind Baddiel’s attempt to clear the air with Lee.

    As disturbing as Baddiel’s racism may have been, it almost pales into insignificance when compared to the bigotry of Baron-Cohen, whose ‘comedy’ invariably involves a privileged, Cambridge-educated man performing caricatures of marginalized groups. First there was Ali G, a caricature of Black street culture. Then came Borat, a fictional and grotesquely exaggerated television reporter from Muslim-majority Kazakhstan. After that came Brüno, a gay fashion designer through which Baron-Cohen demonstrated that he is equally happy mocking LGBTQ+ people. Then finally came the film The Dictator, which stars Baron-Cohen as Admiral General Aladeen, the absurdly brutal ruler of the fictional North African state of Wadiya.

    Baron-Cohen claims to oppose racism, but this makes little sense when his entire shtick involves giving mainstream audiences permission to laugh at characters constructed from the very stereotypes he supposedly opposes. Thankfully it seems that Baron-Cohen is finally facing some push-back – not just because everyone has realized that Ali G is just him doing blackface, but also because of his support for Israel. The trailer for the Ali G film even features an Israeli government talking point, which is that the only state actor currently standing up to Israel – namely, Iran – is ‘dangerous’. (Dangerous to whom?) Baron-Cohen has apparently failed to noticed that the zeitgeist has moved on since Ali G first aired and nobody finds it funny any more. Many are wondering how we ever found it funny in the first place.

    It is notable that both Baron-Cohen and Baddiel are graduates of Habronim Dror, the Zionist youth movement. (Israeli politician Mark Regev is another graduate.) It seems that Zionism and racism invariably go hand-in-hand. Further evidence for this can be seen in the actions of American pro-Israel ‘academic’ Nathan Cofnas, the self-described race realist who was instrumental in the character assassination of the British academic Jason Arday which ultimately led to Arday’s tragic death just a few weeks ago. It is beginning to emerge that, far from being an isolated actor, Cofnas is in fact part of a network of race scientists and eugenicists that has infiltrated top-tier universities. Cambridge University apparently knew about this network as far back as 2021.

    We ought to be extremely concerned about this. Universities play a key role in educating our young people, and it seems they are increasingly becoming centres of racist pseudo-science and propaganda. Or perhaps it has always been this way and we are only just noticing. It is remarkable that in the wake of Arday’s untimely death, many academics have appeared to side with Cofnas, with hundreds signing an open letter defending Cofnas’s ‘academic freedom’ following his suspension by Ghent University. The letter was co-authored by prominent Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, who claims not to be a Zionist but has defended several Zionist talking points, such as the claim that those who accuse Israel of genocide are committing a blood libel.

    It is no surprise that Zionism and racism go hand-in-hand, as Zionism is a racist, supremacist ideology. I don’t see how it is possible to be a Zionist and not be racist. Of course I am not in any way suggesting that Zionism is the source of all racism in society. Racism has been around a lot longer than Zionism has. But it is certainly a significant source of racism which gets amplified through the words and deeds of a number of prominent pro-Israel public figures. This demonstrates that we will never fully rid ourselves of racism until we defeat Zionism for good.