Dude, you missed highlighting Einstein? He was one of us too!
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
85 points (98.9% liked)
GenZedong
4235 readers
221 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
That's true although he's partially responsible for the creation of the atomic bomb. He warned FDR of the possibility.
That’s not really his fault though, physics is physics, and he wasn’t really pushing for its creation as much as he was terrified that Heisenberg and the Nazis were going to get to it first.
That's fair. It really was a no win scenario for him.
I can't fault him for theorizing the atomic bomb. Its a weapon that can be used by anyone, and if it wasn't Einstein, its only a matter of time until someone else does it. Its better to get a jumpstart and protect the information, resources and weapons than to stick your fingers in your ears and do nothing, rather than let the capitalists and nazis get ahold of it first and maintain a monopoly.
Perhaps, though that was sent 10 years before he wrote his article on socialism, alot can happen in that time.
Also, regarding that letter, he seems to have written it not to promote building the bomb, but rather to emphasise precaution and 'watchfullness' in its inevitable development and subsequent use.
Oh I didn't know that the letter came first. Yeah I get that it was done out of fear of the Nazis developing an atomic weapon. It just sucks that it was the USA who ended up getting there first and then preceded to be the only state to actually use them against a foreign adversary.
That’s true, though at the time you really do have to remember that the United States (with assistance from Canada, the UK, and Mexico), was truly the only allied nation (and probably any nation at all) at the time which could successfully pool together the resources, manpower, and scientific genius to accomplish the feat of unlocking nuclear fission and nuclear weapons.
Britain was under constant air attack, threatened with invasion, and most of its manpower was drawn to the war effort, and the Soviet Union was all hands on deck for the war effort with the vast majority of the country devastated.
Plus allied physicists can no idea how far along the German or Japanese programs were or what they would do if they reached the bomb first.
Those physicists by extension had no idea how or when their efforts would be used. They simply did their job and accomplished one of the largest breakthroughs in human technology. I doubt very many expected that their efforts would be thrown at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially since they anticipated using the bombs on Germany and Japan wasn’t even a second thought.
So is Marx, and Adam Smith.
I would pay to see a cage fight between the two.
There wouldnt be a fight tho lol, much of Marx work is a continuation to Adam Smith and other classical economists.
Uhhhhh, there would most definitely be a fight. I don’t think Smith would be to friendly with Marx seeing as how Smith’s writings created the literal foundation of classical liberalism and capitalism. Rational self interest, competition leads to progress, free hand of the market, all of those are concepts that Marx explicitly denies and are directly in opposition to dialectical materialism.
Smith might be interested in hearing Marx out, but he would have disagreed with the vast majority of Marx’s points and economic theories.
Both would bond over their shared hatred for landlords.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure there were things they'd disagree with each other about. However, Marx had the benefit of living in an age with hindsight. Adam Smith didn't live to see the full effects and economic crises that came from the Industrial Revolution or even encounter Hegelian thought.
wait, no George Washington? Do the libs know about this?
view more: next ›