I'm not surprised.

I get criticism of academics because of its anti-communism. But not criticism of abatractions and research.

But unfortunately most research is wasted because it lacks Marxist insight. And worse, some are attempts at explanations avoiding any insight into dialectical materialism and hence is an attempt at mystification whether the researchers are conscious of that or not. And math is just another tool of these researchers. But I have seen Marxist focus in on criticism of math.

For the situations I am familiar with, such criticisms say that the math both mystifies and gives legitimacy to work to anti-revolutuonary research. Think of political scientists using statistics. The statistics gives the most whack idealist nonsense you find in a political science paper an aura of truth. And I do agree that math serves as a "mask" for bad ideas. But the solution isn't to do away with math because math isn't the cause of this problem. Anti-communism is. Statistics in political science isn't the issue, its the anti-communism of the field itself.

And for an example like voting models, sure studying voting models without an understanding of class power is a huge theoretical mistake. I'd imagine there is a risk of getting people wasting time on finding the perfect bourgeoisie system where we can vote in socialism.

But studying social structures, and how they are or could be organized (including studying voting models) within the context of a class where its material interests ard dentified as well its relations with other classes, groups, etc., is worthwhile I believe. That is using analytics tools to approach a study of the inter-relations (i.e. inner contradictions) of an organization through a Marxist lens.

If such research better informs the Proletariat in our struggle, then it is a proper Marxist science! But it still involves these abatractions

I see what you mean about believing that Israel is independent is not idealism in itself, but calling idealist is shorthand for the fact that such a view, at least the extreme version of Israel having some complete sovereignty from the US empire, entity doesn't seem to correspond with a meaningful analysis rooted in imperialism and how the US supports and props up Israel. Israel does have some degree of "independence" in that they are there own actors, but I'd say based off the US propping up Israel for its purposes, that the game theorist YouTube is making a severe error. And he isn't rooting his analysis in historical materialism, i.e. in an analysis of imperialism, capital accumulation, class power, and value flows. For him, Israel is a nation state hence it is on some independent footing as any other nation state. That is some form of idealism to me. Almost like a mystification of Israel as some independent entity because it is a nation state, instead of focusing on the interrelationships between Israel and the US, and how Israel is both a nation state and an extension of US empire. An analysis starting from material facts on the ground will lead to that vs one that treats Isreal as independent from the start.

But, I may be wrong about the details of this hill I'm standing on. So I won't die on it, but I think its a hill that's close to something worthwhile.

Also, an aside on the aside about math. I don't think math can escape materialism. I think most math people disagree with me on this, Platonism appears very common with mathematician. Even if the abstractions are "ideals" and dont exist in a one-to-one way, I dont see this as invalidating dialectical materialism. Ideas in math are abatractions that, like all abstractions, have their roots in the material world and its historical trajectoey. Every abstractions of ours come from this material world, but this isnt some crude materialist view that says that every abstractions has a direct one-to-one material version of it. But I dont believe even math is some pure idealism, even if it is analysis of abstract, ideal, structures.

But some abstractions are definitely harder to pin down to something real. Utility for example. Maybe it could be a proxy, like fitness in evolutionary systems, for something else more material or having a feedback relationship with something in the material world.

Tldr: skip to the fourth paragraph about Marxism if you do not want to listen to me painstakingly parse through what exactly engineering is.

Most of the insights related to the creation of electronics, or any engineering applications, are generally statistical in nature, rarely deriving purely from mathematics. Some things are mathematically related (acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time) but even then most engineering (not all though) up until the advent of the electronic computer was based in mathematical approximations, compared against rigorous statistical analysis which is then used to create general formulas or find constants that improve those mathematical approximations. However, much of the fine detail engineering, as even engineers will attest, has no real basis in mathematics as the math is far too complex and is purely based off of experience and feel which is then verified by statistical data analytics that tell you if you hit your CTQs (Critical to Quality metrics).

In this way, engineering is quite literally a materialist dialectic, with the empirical metrics needed being the major driving factor of design. And it is more concrete in that it deals with the very literal objects that are being produced, even if it can be more imprecise.

That being said, it can often be at odds with the idealistic dialectic that is finance, as finance dictates that profit and/or growth, which are ultimately abstract measures of 'organizational financial health' (which can be compared to other more social democratic ideas such as 'total societal financial health', where the ball bearing company doesn't necessarily need to be profitable as long as all the other industries that use the ball bearings profits exceed the losses of the ball bearing company, which is why the state subsidizes it) be the fundamental driving force behind product design. These can also work in tandem, depending on if hitting those CTQs is also profitable for the company. You could also argue this is just rhetorical slight-of-hand, with profit and growth being a CTQ in of itself (though I think that is stretching it).

My point is that Marxism is not vulgar materialism, it is about how concepts like the Platonic ideal of a chair become the concrete reality of a chair, and how our experience of that chair then goes on to influence our Platonic ideal of a chair, ad infinitum until our ideal chair looks nothing like the ideal chair of 100 years ago, because it is based primarily in our actual experience of the chair that came before, even though our ideal chair does exist, which is against Hegelian idealist dialectics that says that there is only one platonic ideal chair, and we are constantly seeking to build that one platonic ideal chair, and when we eventually find it no one will build any other kind of chair because everyone who sits in it will instantly know that it is the perfect chair. And if you think I am exaggerating, I am not, Hegel has lengthy passages on aesthetics and how, conveniently, the culture of his time period is the ideal one.

There is a major epistemological difference.

But they won't sell arms to someone threatening to cut them off from gulf states' oil and gas supply, much less openly jump to their defense by providing weapons systems, risking giving the west an excuse to rope them into a larger conflict. The PLA breaking the blockade directly was meant to be me saying something ridiculously unlikely, but that I think it's more likely than Iran shutting Hormuz down and getting air defense hardware in exchange for reopening. They're not in a position to negotiate using that option as leverage.

The actual thing that I believe would happen is that China would turn the screws diplomatically and economically until Iran has to open Hormuz up, because they can't be fighting what by every indication will be an internal war, Israel, and having whatever trade China does with them or it's allies be cut off.