this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
134 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15881 readers
553 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago

Imagine discussing nuclear physics with someone who refuses to learn algebra. That’s what this feels like.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago

she's also felt the need to come out bad on trans issues as well. Fuck her and people like her

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 !

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Marx and Ricardo mention Adam Smith too, and not only his anger against landlords who want to reap were they didn't sow.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Someone should ask her why she feels the need to change anyone’s mind if it’s all superdetermined and consciousness don’t real

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Permanently Deleted