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.

  • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • jungekatz [comrade/them, undecided]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      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 !

    • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.”

      • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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

      • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        People who are ever only good at one subject should be legally sanctioned from publicly speaking about other subjects for at least 10 years after they begin to take interest in it

        just don’t post thats how we do it hel yea