Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As well as the vital question about how owns AI (as Musk implies AI will possibly become a crucial element of the means of production) there are a number of other issues.
AI may possibly make use of all human knowledge that is available through computerised sources. Human knowledge goes much further than that.
As a simple example, how much of what is held in our party library? Perhaps, at an optimistic guess, about 25% of it. What about oral and other sources of knowledge, how much lived experience is held on the internet? There are many other examples.
Not only does this lead to huge gaps in terms of AI’s data, it also biases the data it uses due to the fact that what is digitized tends to be information that is useful to the ruling class and is dominated by those who have the financial and technological wherewithal to digitise their information.
Another issue with AI is that it will always give you an answer, even if it has no information. I have never found an AI system that can respond “to be honest mate, I haven’t got a clue”. So, a bit like a Reform Party Spokesperson, AI just makes shit up.
I have a couple of mates who are in the RCP. Got to know them from being in political circles back in the early 80s. They’re fine to meet up with for a couple of pints as long as you talk about music, football, the weather, etc. Like most left wingers they are pretty thoughtful, kind and compassionate people. Whenever you try and talk to them about politics above a base level they can become really doctrinaire, fixed and seem to be only communicate their politics through a series of stock phrases. A lot of research into cults shows that they use fixed terminology and ideas which not only creates group cohesion, they all know the terminology and can only really discuss things with fellow adherents, but also provides a barrier for them to communicate with others who don’t use the proscribed phraseology. I think this happens in left wing groups. I am pretty sure (but cannot be certain) that we do this far less than the leftist groups. The Standard is always very readable and accessible, our leaflets are usually well developed and accessible as is most of our literature. If you read the red topped newspapers of the leftist groups they are usually very simplistic and based on phrase mongering and rabble rousing. They often produce a monthly “Theoretical Journal”, which is badly written as it is impenetrable.
The 1980’s version of the RCP was an even more extreme version of that presentation, even the leftists thought that they were a bunch of headcases. I think the 80s RCP’s place as the complete fruit loops of the left wing spectrum has been taken on by the Revolutionary Communist Group (they publish Fight Racism/Fight Imperialism), which was the party from which the 1980s RCP emerged. The Revolutionary Communist Group was a split from the IS/SWP who left the SWP in the early 70s. Their Guru was David Yaffe, who interestingly recently resigned from the RCG alongside another member saying they had “lost confidence in the current RCG leadership. It is intransigent, dogmatic, formalistic and bureaucratic.” they “had been ignored”.. You would have thought that being in the RCG for 45 years would have got them used to being ignored.
RCP is the rump of the Malignant Tendency who in the 1990s decided that they didn’t want to stop being boring inside the Labour Party. They originally called themselves “Socialist Appeal”. Ted Grant and Alan Woods became their guru. Peter Taffe became the guru for the members of Militant that decided to be openly boring, they became SPEW.
It all happened when Militant had a big party meeting following the expulsion of a couple of hundred members of Militant. The discussion at the meeting was about coming out as a fully independent political party or to remain a clandestine organisation within the Labour Party. The Majority became SPEW. The Minority became Socialist Appeal. (“Those in the Majority”, “Those in the minority”, I’m sure I’ve heard this somewhere before?)
In reality the dispute was between Grant and Taffe about whose turn it was to play Lenin in their ongoing cosplay Russian Revolution historical reenactment society.
Socialist Appeal were eventually expelled from the Labour Party in 2021, but they took their time to take the hint and tried to remain within the Labour Party. In 2024 they decided to start an open “party” and, presumably based on the fact that the original group of Trotskyists in the UK called themselves the RCP, they called themselves the RCP.
This was despite the fact that there was also a 1980-90s group who called themselves the RCP (lots of whom ended up bizarrely became right wing libertarians with their top boy, Frank Furedi appearing to be a devotee of Victor Orban and one of their illustrious “revolutionary leaders” now in the House of Lords) and that there is also another group called the Revolutionary Communist Party (Britain – Marxist Leninist), which was/is a group who are heavily influenced by Hardial Bains. Bains had more political positions than you could shake a stick at, Stalinist, Tankie, Maoist, Hoxharist, Castroist, etc.
I put all of this info as an attempt to provide an explanation as to why:
a) Your poor chatbot, when trying to explain the RCP, doesn’t know whether it’s Pancake Tuesday or Sheffield Wednesday.
b) Why AI is actually a bit shit (As an experiment I asked one AI system why Spider-Man always has a big smile, and I was told it’s because Spider-Man has a happy and cheerful disposition, which is odd, because Spider-Man, hasn’t even got a mouth!!)
Presumably the coalition will also be campaigning to ensure that the Local Authority Pension Schemes also refrain from investing in non ethical funds. So perhaps that includes anything associated with the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund, anything associated with the Arms Industry, the South American meat production industry which is destroying the rain forest, cocoa production (heavily implicated in child and slave labour), Social Media industry that are involved in child sexual exploitation, big Pharm, mining companies involved in mining for rare earth currently destroying and polluting huge tracts of land, agricultural conglomerates that are buying up and destroying countless ecosystems, Amazon and similar on line sales companies that are creating environmental destruction on an incredible scale, the garment industry which is polluting rivers amd killing workers across the world, shipping companies that pollute our rivers and seas, fishing conglomerates that are taping the natural environment for the profit of the few. Maybe they can even try to use the Local Authority pension scheme to persuade Elon Musk and his cronies to stop using massive amounts of the earth’s resources so that him and his buddies can have a little trip into outer space
Perhaps they can move all of the pension fund monies into ethical investments, bloody good luck with that!
Apparently we should listen to these clowns. We should understand that our problem is that we are too unrealistic, we should recognise that they are the practical people, and sadly we’re the dreamers. We have to invest our energy in small steps, short term goals.
We should concentrate on the symptoms not the cause. We should be realists. Capitalism can be ethical, politicians can be principled, billionaires can use their wealth for the greater good, unicorns can run playfully on lush meadows, rainbows actually do have pots of gold at their end, Newcastle United can win the Premier league and Mayo certainly can win the All Ireland Football Championship.
As if
Article on RTE news re the mineral wealth of Venezuela. The Irish state broadcasters some how manage to spot facts and occurrences that the BBC inadvertently overlook. If I was a cynic I could even think the BBC were deliberately ignoring things, heaven forbid!
https://www.rte.ie/news/2026/0105/1551529-venezuela-oil-industry/
The stock market gangsters are starting to discuss sharing out the spoils.
BRIAN JACOBSEN, CHIEF ECONOMIC STRATEGIST, ANNEX WEALTH MANAGEMENT, BROOKFIELD, WISCONSIN:
“This was a matter of when, not if. I’m sure people will debate the political and legal angles, but from an investing perspective, this could unlock massive quantities of oil reserves over time.”You don’t need to quote an “authoritative source” when using a word in a common way…
Says who? Where I teach there is an expectation that all sources are authoritatively referenced. As you yourself have already stated, “contemporary”, clearly you feel there is a difference between contemporary definitions and other definitions, it follows therefore that this “contemporary” definition is not the way it is used commonly.
It’s strange that you seek out authority “Well that source is definitely not a well-respected political science journal” when it suits you.
“That you are unfamiliar with this seems self-evident.”
I didn’t say I was unfamiliar with it, you are moving from assertion to fact. You have stated this yourself “the only conclusion I can draw” (assertion), which you’ve now changed to “you are unfamiliar with this” (fact).
What I was pointing out that throughout the piece Vexler attempts to turn a foundation of assertion into a presentation of fact. It looks like that is a process you are familiar with, as you are using the same process yourself.
“A quick example, he states from 4.08 onward, that ideologies are “a collection of beliefs and images which sit in us and facilitate the negotiation of the political landscape“, this is not support by any definition of ideology and is a very questionable definition”
As I say, the definition is not supported by any definition, to spell it out more clearly for you, it doesn’t provide an authoritative source for his definition. As it lacks academic authority, lacks any reference to its source, it is by definition clearly “Questionable”.
“The only conclusion I can draw from this is you have not read *any* contemporary literature on “ideology” – the one he gives is a pretty standard.”
That this is the only conclusion that you can draw demonstrates only the weakness of your imagination, not which books I have been reading.
First time I’ve heard anything from Vlad Vexler, had a listen through the second video linked and I have got to say I am very unimpressed. He makes a series of unsupported suppositions and then presents them as logical argument and fact.
A quick example, he states from 4.08 onward, that ideologies are “a collection of beliefs and images which sit in us and facilitate the negotiation of the political landscape“, this is not support by any definition of ideology and is a very questionable definition, for instance he mentions beliefs but no mention of ideas, how ideas have been formed, there are also other problems with his definition.
He then goes on to make the analogy that reducing ideologies to a set of propositions is “no more bearable than reducing than reducing your experience of a walk in the forest to the physical properties of the trees“. It’s not a particularly helpful or accurate analogy, but I’ll go with it. The point being made is that the world of ideologies (the forest) is made up of lots of trees, many different, the trees have physical aspects, you can look at the trees, but you can’t see the forest, but the other argument also applies, you can look at the forest and you don’t see the individual tree.
Reducing a walk in the forest to the physical properties of the trees, is not a particularly unbearable thing, however, by starting his statement that reducing ideologies to a set of propositions is “no more bearable” he introduces a pejorative note, which is neither helpful or supportive to his later points. Analysing the trees is as helpful to understanding the forest as analysing the forest is to understanding the trees. So what? Ideologies aren’t trees and a collection of ideologies is not a forest. The forest is a collection of trees, the trees are individual trees. He is looking at Fascism, a single, or possibly a collection of very similar trees (using his analogy), analysing them individually will be useful, as will analysing them alongside other ideologies (the forest)
However, problematically, he then uses this to support his point that “The borders of ideology are muddied“. Not only does he give no supporting evidence that his assertion, the analogy he has used are opposite to the view he is trying to use to support his assertion. The borders of the trees are not muddied, the border of what is an oak tree is not muddied by a Scots pine that lives on the other side of a vast forest.
He then states that “what’s inside an ideology is going to be sometimes closely, but sometimes distantly related, related by a relation of family resemblances“. So,for example, other than the fact that they are the opposite of each other, how is a democratic ideology relate to an antidemocratic ideology, related? Another assertion, dressed up with a series of sophisms, which are clearly mistaken.
He then makes further unsupported assertions (based on the false reasoning of his earlier very poor and limited analogy) by concluding “it’s going to mean that nobody is going to be zero on any major ideology”. As his foundational arguments are clearly mistaken, his conclusions are, as a result, equally shaky. Wrapping this part of his argument up by saying that “if you despise socialism, you’re a little bit socialist, if you despise conservatism, you’re a little bit conservative” adds to the confusion. Taking his assertion to the logical conclusion, does he mean that everyone who is an atheist is a little bit religious, and that the Pope is a little bit of an atheist?
This is just a small analysis of his work. Speaking slowly and deliberately, whilst occasionally rubbing your chin, does not disguise the weakness of an argument.
Every month workers take risk by lending their labour to capitalists, on the promise that they will be paid at the end of the month. When companies go tits up, its their wages that don’t get paid. The share holders have taken their dividends over the years, based on the surplus value that workers have had legally stolen from them. In 2024 there were 23,874 company insolvencies. Companies can take the profit and then walk away from their liabilities, due to Limited Liability legislation.
As an example Trump has filed for six bankruptcies
Trump Taj Mahal Associates (Atlantic City casino) in 1991.
Trump Castle Hotel & Casino (Atlantic City casino) in 1992.
Trump Plaza Associates (Atlantic City casino) in 1992.
Plaza Operating Partners (Manhattan hotel) in 1992.
Trump Casino Holdings (Atlantic City casinos) in 2004.
Trump Entertainment Resorts (Atlantic City casinos) in 2009.Trump consistently points out that he never filed for personal bankruptcy, which would have put his personal assets at greater risk. By using corporate entities with limited liability, he was generally able to protect his personal fortune
Apparently the assassination attempt on Trump was thwarted by divine intervention. When the attempt on Trump’s life was made the Republican politician and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy said this: “I personally believe that God intervened today, not just on behalf of President Trump but on behalf of our country.” Texas Governor Greg Abbott, also a Republican, made these remarks “Trump is truly blessed by the hand of God — being able to evade being assassinated.”.
Sen. Tim Scott, a republican said after the attempt on Trump’s life
“If you didn’t believe in miracles before Saturday, you better be believing right now, thank God Almighty that we live in a country that still believes in the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega. Our God still saves. He still delivers and he still sets free. Because on Saturday, the devil came to Pennsylvania holding a rifle. But an American lion got back up on his feet.”Presumably the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega, decided that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was part of the divine plan?
It looks like the American Lion decided to have a little nap.
If the fundamentalist Christians are consistent in their beliefs, surely celebrating Trump being spared should be celebrated with the same vigour as Kirk’s assassination, after all it’s all part of the “great plan”.
The only other explanations seem to be that the King of Kings wasn’t able to stop the assassination (and therefore not all powerful) or that the whole basis of their pro capitalist “ideology” has more holes than a bucket full of spaghetti hoops.
I know I’m preaching to the converted, and I’m not expecting the leaders of the Republican Party are going to turn around and concede that they’re talking complete self serving horseshit, but surely any logical worker would be able to start to question the logic of the evangelical crap these fuckers come out with.
It’s been 24 hours since Corbyn announced his party and there hasn’t been a Trotskyist group splitting out from his new party yet. Is this a new world record?
“He went on to say that a Reform government in Cardiff would reopen coal-mines in the South Wales valleys…”
Doesn’t mention that he was a cheerleader for the Thatcher government that closed them down.
Also doesn’t explain how he thinks it will be possible to magic up the hundreds of skilled mining engineers, pit electricians, pit deputies, drillers, blasters, pit joiners, linesmen, geologists and it’s going to be possible to recruit hundreds of pit workers (a skilled job itself) to risk their lives to go back underground for the pittance they would be offered to do it.
Another Faragist pipe dream.
