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.
Imagine discussing nuclear physics with someone who refuses to learn algebra. That’s what this feels like.
she's also felt the need to come out bad on trans issues as well. Fuck her and people like her
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 !
Marx and Ricardo mention Adam Smith too, and not only his anger against landlords who want to reap were they didn't sow.
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.
Someone should ask her why she feels the need to change anyone’s mind if it’s all superdetermined and consciousness don’t real
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
People
who are ever only good at one subjectshould be legally sanctioned from publicly speakingabout other subjects for at least 10 years after they begin to take interest in itjust don't post thats how we do it hel yea
"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.
Do you think Finland is capitalist? Or the rest of the EU?
Are you trying to imply that Finland or the EU is socialist?
Because if so
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?
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 !
Other physicists I've talked to her have called her a wingnut at best, and a crank at worst, and that's my impression is the same.
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.
PBS spacetime if you want to focus on physics. Good overview, and if they cover a fringe theory they will tell you so.
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
Also, like....who fucking cares, this shit was 200 years ago. All that's left of Marx is his works, you're not gonna have to put up with him at your next party.
you don't have to let him marry your sister
actually, all of our sisters have to marry marx
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.
Libertarians always were the shelbyville of ideologies with the whole thing being predicated on a false mythos of the development of commerce based on just-so stories.
Doesn't stop them from worshiping him. Hero worship among marxists is bad, but it's not a tenth of the dickriding that right libertarians do with their Favorite Guys.
Of course liberals are terrible at understanding and engaging with Marxism. They don't need to be good at it, because they're hegemonic and can forcibly suppress it through means ranging from social ostracism all the way to mass murder. The video isn't a good-faith attempt to analyze and critique economic systems, it's social signaling: "Hey everyone, I'm on the Good Team!"
Are liberals allergic to academic honesty?
of course. if they were intellectually serious, they’d be leftists
Death to America
A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any individual, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.
been thinkin bout him lately
alright, i'm going to make this a proper dunk and try to watch the video. My prediction is "capitalism made the iphone" and "communism killed 1,000,000,0000,00000000" will take center stage, but she is a scientist, so maybe the rationalized mysticism of Friedman and Pinker will pop up.
-
Weird dunk on Greta Thunberg. Okay I guess we're goin full boomer in this one.
-
Right off the bat we're explaining money with the barter myth. It's of course only natural that people, friends even, would require a trade of equal value to give their friend something. If you would simply give your friend a banana without expecting immediate payment, you're probably not even human. Starting a countdown now to how long before any real historical account of economic activity shows up.
-
"...the US dollar would collapse -- so don't do it"
-
"Many economists" have argued that money is the most efficient way to distribute resources, but the only economist she names is Adam Smith, and she doesn't actually say what his arguments were. There's no obvious reason why it would be efficient, or what efficiency even means, which is a much harder question than "what is money?" although I suspect that the intended audience here is children.
-
Glances off the problem of overproduction but can't actually recognize it. So far all our imaginary characters have been capitalists buying and selling commodities which accrue magically. Also running a clock for how long until labor is explicitly mentioned.
-
Puts the beginning of capitalism "with the industrial revolution, 150 years ago." I know this is the grade school account, but it's a ridiculous oversimplification that only arises because liberals identify capitalism with technological advancement so strongly.
-
Her big example here is the story of the discovery of penicillin but she doesn't even really make clear how capitalism enabled it, except to point out that capitalists owned the pill factories? Why exactly does the technology of mass production necessitate that someone profit off of it? The University of Oxford isn't a capitalist institution! It's over a thousand years old!
-
Marx was apparently the first critic of capitalism, and there was "an element of truth to his fears... but that's another story." If your full-throated defense of capitalism has to simply ignore its most famous detractor, then you're barely even trying!
-
Woah big Western Lib moment out of nowhere: capitalism is good because of progress. places without capitalism like North Korea, Cuba, and Laos are places "you don't want to live." No explanation about why this is or how that happened, but the way it's said sounds like a threat.
-
Lol I'm jackin myself off with this "invisible hand" fuck you
-
Microeconomics works fine because it's won nobel prizes. Counting that as an oblique Friedman mention.
-
Global warming is happening because people don't pay enough attention to (certain) economists. Why do you think that is Sabine? Do you think it's sometimes not profitable to pay attention to economists?
-
It's bizarre that the central account of capitalism here is that it works, but only with sufficient regulation, yet she gives zero thought to how capital can purchase political power, that this has happened immediately and overwhelmingly in every new liberal "democracy," and that attempts to legally restrict capital have been laughably ineffective.
-
Cap and trade. Abloo abloo ablooo bloo. Good fucking luck. This was the real point of the video, the defense of capitalism is really half-assed and the first 10 minutes of the video are just clickbait.
At least she's getting torn apart in the comments. Good responses there for once.
She's probably the first non-communist I've seen mention that Laos is socialist which is surprising.
-
'Hard' science nerd doesn't understand classical economics, philosophy and social sciences because they are definitely too easy to actually read the primary documents about, more at eleven.
I'm pretty sure I can sum up this entire video:
"Inane rambling with fancy graphics and stock videos in the background while she describes things that happen capitalistly in capitalist nations and then says that is socialism. Followed up by vague gesturing in the direction of authoritarianism before smugly stating how it only works in theory. Doesn't actually tackle a single socialist claim or argument except deliberately cherry picked examples plucked from their context and deliberately misrepresented. Presents communism as a "failure" due to not being instantly perfect. Reiterates the point about how it never works and encourages viewers to like and subscribe and leave a comment."
Actually lol no I'm sad to say you're far off, it was basically an extremely shitty anecdote about penicillin, she was literally recycling the microwave argument, i.e capitalism is successful because it allowed for mass production of things, and it just so happens some of these things were good.
She somehow avoided bad mouthing socialism, I guess because then it would obviously become a political argument who knows. But she did say "Capitalism got a bad rap because Marx said something about the industrial revolution but that is another story." I kid you not.
capitalism is successful because it allowed for mass production of things, and it just so happens some of these things were good
to which the response is yes and socialism would allow for mass production to be done better and in more humane conditions
Ah yes, I probably should've figured a defence of capitalism would probably focus more on that sort of stuff. I can't believe I was so wrong. Clearly communism has lead me astray, after all, under communism we would never had ifone or socks with Hogwarts houses on them. I can't believe we've all missed this vital point that capitalism is good actually because stuff people need to survive is produced under it. Really a major flaw in communist theory really.
i.e capitalism is successful because it allowed for mass production of things
Marx famously upheld the power of the bourgeois class in shifting production to modernity away from outdated feudal systems.
I wouldn’t trust someone this academically dishonest and lazy to say anything about anything.
Yeah, always makes me suspicious of any "science" channels that talk about areas I don't know about. If they shit the bed on the stuff I do know about, how wrong might they be on other topics? Pop history channels are the worst for this though, a physicists might still be good at explaining physics even if their politics is dogshit.
Hossenfelder is a crank even within her field, no surprise that she's aggressively wrong on completely different fields.
well if they were going to actually debunk Marx they would have to read Marx which they are afraid to do
