You can’t “debunk” Marxism by skimming the Wikipedia page. You can’t expound on your infantile “critique” from a position of total ignorance.
Every time a liberal “debunks” Marxism it is, without fail, not a single exception, the exact same shit that was discredited 150 years ago. A lot of “Marx didn’t consider”s that he’s written entire essays on. They can’t come up with literally anything new, spewing the same shit over and over again like a broken record.
Are liberals allergic to academic honesty?
And no I am not German I stole the screenshot.
The video is just dumb. She mentions Marx, and fails to even understand that the whole academic concept of Capitalism actually derives from his work and instead acts like Capitalism is just a basic term for an economic system that uses an exchange medium.
She’s good with physics, but holy shit does this make her look bad. She needs to actually read something about this topic before opening her mouth.
The whole video is just capitalism == money and buying a banana with money is easier than buying it with the products of your labor. Which again just comes off as incredibly uninformed because that whole argument is addressed and picked apart in the first chapter of Capital.
Exactly , her physics videos are radical AF , but this was pathetic video , I though the title was a clickbait and she will talk of how bad capitalism is , but ugh she mentions adam smith and and what not !
She’s not good at physics. She has some crank theories and puts them out there like they have merits https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-fantasy-behind-sabine-hossenfelders-superdeterminism/reading/
I recommend PBS spacetime. That show is more likely to present the general scientific consensus, rather than unfalsifiable pet theories.
The whole video is just capitalism == money and buying a banana with money is easier than buying it with the products of your labor. Which again just comes off as incredibly uninformed because that whole argument is addressed and picked apart in the first chapter of Capital.
Also the second chapter is Marx’s comparison of barter (incidental direct exchange of goods) with commodity exchange (generalized exchange mediated by money) and says the distinction between these forms of exchange is intrinsically related to the separation of exchange value and use value. But exchange is either absent or a secondary aspect in societies with ownership in common (e.g. past communal societies but importantly also future communist societies of which this woman has no theoretical knowledge):
”Objects in themselves are external to man, and consequently alienable by him. In order that this alienation may be reciprocal, it is only necessary for men, by a tacit understanding, to treat each other as private owners of those alienable objects, and by implication as independent individuals. But such a state of reciprocal independence has no existence in a primitive society based on property in common, whether such a society takes the form of a patriarchal family, an ancient Indian community, or a Peruvian Inca State.”
You’re gonna confuse the anti communists with your theory and analysis (they will never read) instead of witty one-liner quips. You have to jangle some keys in front of them to keep their attention.
Expecting an anticommunist to understand Marxism or even try to understand it is a bit much
“Capitalism is good actually!” I scream at a homeless cancer sufferer living in a tent because the medical system took all their money.
That happens basically only in the USA. Do you think Finland is capitalist? Or the rest of the EU? Because that’s not a thing there and has nothing to do with capitalism.
TIL for-profit healthcare isn’t a product of capitalism
Yes, there are homeless people in Finland and the public medical systems of capitalist countries are constantly undergoing cuts by capitalist-run insurance companies doing everything they can to fully privatize the healthcare systems of places with Medicare, NHS whatever you want to call it.
The NHS in the UK is being dismantled as we speak and in my own country, Australia, our once decent Medicare system is a shell of what it once was, with very little being free anymore and more people being forced onto expensive insurance or left to rot if they can’t afford it. These systems will always be under attack by capitalism and are the exception, not the rule.
The same Finland that has had multiple complaints from European committee of social rights about too low social security? And another one from the human rights centre for not implementing the decisions of the ECSR and judgements of European court of human rights? The one where the current government is planning to limit the workers right to strike and cut social services even further?
if anyone on the left has to root for Marx’s infidelity, do all capitalists have to root for Perdue pharma’s intent to fatally supply Oxy? Or slavery?
The idea is absurd, and yet…
For one thing Marx’s infidelity isn’t actually very well proven also we’re saying listen to his economic philosphy you don’t have to let him marry your sister
I guess libertarians are lucky it’s not called Hayekism or something because then they’d be subject to a bunch of inane comments about adultery, infidelity, and “how can you support someone who married his cousin?”
Though on second thought that would be kind of fun and funny.
This is like the fifth hot take of hers. Sabine Hossenfelder, you have lost subscriber
Any other recommendations for science news roundups?
i like Anton Petrov
i haven’t seen all his stuff, but when I do, he’s usually pretty good at separating hard facts from speculation and pointing out wishful thinking in headlines https://www.youtube.com/@whatdamath/videos
Her views in physics are radical tho! That most classical science channels dont offer ugh ! Just her last video do ur own research taught how to do research of our own and she comes up with this shit lmao !
I know right, her videos on quantum physics, especially the delayed choice quantum eraser debunked, resolved a lot of confusion for me, since in physics we don’t do a lot of interpretation and in phil of physics, there’s too much waffling and jargon. She’s contrarian on purpose, for sure, but this is just hardcore stemlord game-theory idealist nonsense.
Are liberals allergic to academic honesty?
of course. if they were intellectually serious, they’d be leftists
Death to America
