You? I'd never guess you had a favorite trot!
shit, my fav trot is back
As usual, you fail to understand the analogy. Of course dialectical materialism isn't popular among philosophers; the ruling class has an interest in advancing science to a certain extent, but none in advancing our understanding of society. Marxist economics is also very unpopular, unlike all sorts of theories that are obviously false but which serve as an ideological justification for capitalism. Both are a crucial part of Marxism, which certain "Marxists" seek under bourgeois pressure to discredit so as to not scare away "workers," as if too much DM is the problem with the SWP's or anyone else's politics. No, the comparison is between the sloppy mathematics and faulty logic employed by crackpot "physicists" and the same faulty logic employed by some anti-dialecticians. Not to say that all of the anti-dialectics writers are crackpots; some are interesting and engaging, despite being wrong. However, that is not the case with your friend.
man comparing rejection of muddled language in thought (dialectics) to rejection of QM is hella ridiculous! although tbh, atleast theres been a few odd papers written against general relativity from people with astrophysics phds of yale so its not only homegrown "scientists" btw
Einstein, yes, I think he was attracted to Marxism in his earlier life but was disillusioned because of the rise of fascism in Europe and of conservatives after the war. From "Why Socialism?" I gather he ended some sort of social-democrat. As for me, I've studied physics as part of my B. Sc. I don't teach it now, but would hope to do so some day. These days I mostly deal with it out of personal interest. I think it's a misconception that leftists are naturally inclined towards more artistic subjects. All the classical Marxists took interest in science for the same reason that they perfected their theories: to better understand the world, in order to change it.
physics is in your interests. do you study physics on college or are you some sort of physicist or physics teacherl? idk, its just that i am studying astrophysics at college and its always interesting to find theres quite a few physicists who are interested in marxism - atleast in my experience. i dont think albert einstein was a communist, for example, but he flirted with marxism for a while
But what you don't understand that it's not lesser evilism. We do believe that every victory for the third world is good and progressive for the working class, and therefore we support it fully, not just as better than the victory of the imperialists. So as for your question, I'd say that yes, you would be avoiding your duty as a revolutionary. Regarding fronts, your conception is simply not true. You have merely brought two cases of popular fronts by the Stalinists. In China it wasn't a military front - the Kuomintang was made part of the Comintern and Chaing Kai-shek was praised as a revolutionary. A military front was what the Bolsheviks had with the Kerensky government against Kornilov - they fought against the greater threat and afterwards disposed of the lesser threat. I think that in your last comment, that we might not 'manage' to stop shooting at each other without a political accord, you show the rule that an ultra-left is an opportunist scared of his own opportunism. We know that we won't succumb to the political pressures of the bourgeoisie. Why are you so afraid?
I think military fronts generally translate to popular fronts - you cannot stop shooting each other without some sort of political accord. There is a reason why the Kuomitang shot down workers in Shanghai and Mao was praising it. Same with the Spanish popular front, the anti-fascist front - same old class collaboration that always ends with real communists up against the wall. I disagree with Lenin on national self-determination, and therefore disagree with you on the question of anti-imperialism. Let's try another hypothesis. Suppose american bombs fall on mexican territory and I get my ass drafted (although that would never happen because I am flat feeted and near sighted). I somehow manage to desert the army because I don't want to turn into cannon fodder of my bosses. Am I doing wrong for not confronting the "imperialist menace"? You said once "socialists" that back capitalist candidates are not really socialists because they don't have any confidence on the working class. Can't we say the same about people who support workers dying for the interests of their national bosses - all in the name of lesser evilism?
That's exactly what you don't get - a military front is nothing like a political front. It is a temporary front where the working class, understanding that the greater danger to it is imperialism, not the bourgeois regime which rests on it, agrees to shoot in the same direction as the ruling class until the threat has subsided. It is the only revolutionary position, taken straight out of Lenin and Trotsky. As for your hypothetical situation, I would support not ending the strike, but making exceptions with regard to supplies to the front. Like Trotsky explained: "Let us assume that rebellion breaks out tomorrow in the French colony of Algeria under the banner of national independence and that the Italian government, motivated by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send weapons to the rebels. What should the attitude of the Italian workers be in this case? I have purposely taken an example of rebellion against a democratic imperialism with intervention on the side of the rebels from a fascist imperialism. Should the Italian workers prevent the shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any ultra-leftists dare answer this question in the affirmative. Every revolutionist, together with the Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians, would spurn such an answer with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike broke out in fascist Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an exception in favor of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists – not proletarian revolutionists."
You are right I don't support "opressed peoples", I support working class movements. Communism is not christianity painted in red, where the people who suffer more are the most "righteous" and the ones that are correct. The only revolutionary class is the working class. Anyway, forming military fronts with the national bourgeosie its exactly the same thing as the popular fronts the "centrist" parties of the 30s formed with the democratic and anti-fascist bourgeois factions. Why do you oppose popular frontism but not what you call "military frontism"? I'll give you an example. Suppose Tehran is being bombed by american imperialists. However, at the same time, there is a strike sabotaging the supplies flowing to the anti-imperialist front. Who do you support?
