I just started The Three-Body Problem and have really been enjoying so far. That being said, the first chapter takes place during a struggle session at a university, where a professor is accused of reactionary thought by teaching Einstein’s theory of relativity and the Big Bang Theory by his own accord in an intro physics class.

Is there any historical truth to this sort of backlash, and if so, why? I’m no physicist, but I don’t understand how ToR/BBT contradict dialectical materialism.

  • @knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    I had actually totally forgot about that element in the book, but I also wasn’t as deep into ML thought and Chinese history when I read it about two years ago.

    Criticism of relativity and Einstein himself was a big theme in China, from the founding of the PRC all the way through Deng’s reform period.

    If I remember correctly these flashback moments in Three Body Problem take place during the Cultural Revolution, puts it right in the middle of this large cultural and academic debate over the theories of relativity.

    I just read the abstract of this academic paper but you may be interested in making a Jstor account and skimming the whole paper.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/hsps.2004.34.2.311

    • ps1_leninOP
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      Ooo thank you for the link. Luckily I have Jstor access through my job so I’ll give it a read later.

      • Muad'Dibber
        link
        fedilink
        16
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s also perfectly alright for the author to criticize the cultural revolution / reign of the gang of four, and it’s idealist / anti-science and anti-materialist ultra-leftism. iirc the book later brings that scientist back. The modern CPC also decries that period as a great mistake.

        With Deng, science and it’s development became a huge emphasis again.

          • @Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            151 year ago

            That’s a misconception. It was actually something we discussed with our group, one of the first topics we had actually.

            USSR was not against genetics in general, in fact it has pioneered some of the research. The issue was with biological determinism - the notion (that was peddled by genetists themselves at times) that the sum of one’s genes determine everything. That what you have in your DNA is exactly what you will be. That, rather obviously, goes against dialectic materialism, and as it turned out - against reality of life (who would have thought). However, the idea of “USSR was against genetics” got cemented.

          • Muad'Dibber
            link
            fedilink
            8
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yup. This is partially why the CPC embraces technological innovation as having a mostly apolitical character that socialist States should learn from, just applying it differently, to benefit the whole people. Strange that the USSR had a ultraleft turn for a few years, despite Lenin and the bolsheviks’ embrace of science and art, which lead to an explosion of innovation in the 1920s.

          • @ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            81 year ago

            Yes, but not for that long. In the 20’s and 30’s, a fraud uneducated “biologist” named Lysenko convinced the Soviet leadership that Mendelian genetics were anti-proletariat in order to boost his political, social, and financial standing. He managed to centralize almost the entirety of Soviet biology around him and squashed any and all researchers that were trying to use actual, real, scientific models of biology and genetics.

            Lysenko’s power began to slowly wane, however with the Nazi’s fervent devotion to genetics, the topic once again became taboo and almost all genetics research stalled. Not to mention that during the war, most funds allocated to scientific research went to practical applications that could be used in the short term for war, like metallurgy and physics.

            However, by the early 50’s the atmosphere was already changing in regards to genetics, and among the few good reforms of the Khrushchev era, Khrushchev removed the bans on genetical research. However due to nearly 2 decades of bans, underfunding, and negligence, Soviet genetical research was severely stunted. Despite which the program rebounded miraculously and discovered several major foundations still used today in modern biology.

            • Arsen6331 ☭
              link
              fedilink
              61 year ago

              However due to nearly 2 decades of bans, underfunding, and negligence, Soviet genetical research was severely stunted. Despite which the program rebounded miraculously and discovered several major foundations still used today in modern biology.

              Tell that to the libs that keep saying socialism = no innovation.

          • @illume@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            71 year ago

            I won’t claim to be an expert on the history of soviet science, but learning about it through a project definitely was a contributing factor in my radicalization.

            The soviet union also had issues with marxist philosophers criticizing relativity. chief among them was Aleksandr Maksimov, but unlike in biology, where charlatans like Lysenko managed to lead a vast majority of soviet scientists against genetics, soviet physicist Vladimir Fock who was also keenly interested in Marxism tied the two together and defended it from critics who tried to exploit anti-idealism to attack real science.

            I learned about this through the book Stalin’s Great Science. It’s written by someone who does admittedly fill the book with libshit(the word “Stalinist” is a must in any Western book about the USSR between 1924 and 1953) but also lived in the USSR and learned physics there, and does seem to have a vague nostalgia for it. It casts a relatively positive view of the role of the USSR in promoting science and provides examples of scientists very contrary to the usual western view of “scientist that didn’t like socialism >:(” which is what happens when the only soviet scientist they know is sakharov(which is exactly who my history teacher told me to write more about - I refused). There are a good number of books by relatively western historians like this(for example, this book was published by “Imperial College Press”) that actually at least partially serve to disprove many Western myths about the USSR. Another example is Mark Tauger on the topic of the so-called “Holodomor”. I really think these are good ways to ease libs into radicalization - just looking at history from a less biased perspective worked wonders for me.

  • @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The first book beginning is worded like this for two reasons:

    1. China currently taken a way too harsh condemnation of entirety of Cultural Revolution, so author probably wrote that to not only be recieved well by the offical chinese reviews but also the western ones (even fucking Obama praised that book) - i mean he is pioneer and pathfinder who paves the way for chinese sci-fi to move outside of China, which by itself is something to applaud.

    2. Read further. At some point later he do a nearly 180 and justifies CR

    3. (not reason, just warning) Book 3 unfortunately sucks, not for political level but the narration is completely coming apart. There is also official book 4 by different author which is so so, but at least it’s organizing the book 3 mess somewhat and give some ending and closure to entirety.

    • ps1_leninOP
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Point one makes sense. The Obama blurb on the back definitely surprised me but so far I’ve enjoyed the book. Haven’t gotten too far into it yet but it’ll be interesting to see what happens with regard to point 2.