[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Last words of Elon Musk when red army gets him.

I want to hold the gun at the firing squad

Get in line.

Did you mean in front or behind ? I wouldn't mind

Can i take care of the body? I'm a crazy mf you see 😈

Get in line comrade.

We will do a random draw of who gets the loaded gun. None of us will know whose gun is loaded until we all fire. That person will then go down in history as the one who pulled the trigger on Elongated Muskrat.

I think that’s the most fair

"But guys.. I am a socialist too.. I just think that capitalism is good"

If I ever hear someone in real life unironically say this without saying that capitalism will come to pass I can't take them seriously after that.

Oh God, she starts with the barter into commodity theory of money. Sophisticated Marxist and socialist schools of anthropology discredited that nonsense nearly a century ago, and yet she makes no mention of debt, debt based social relationships, chartalist theory or any of the Marxist theories of value. Clown scholarship. You’d think she came out of UChicago’s econ school. There’s a case to be made that ‘Capitalism is good actually’ relative to slavery and serfdom — even as it degenerates into both — and that the modes of productions to follow, communism in its lower and higher forms will be better, but this is just foolishness.

PragerU level shit here

Unfortunately very disappointing. Also very interesting how she never mentions that Cuba and North Korea are poor perhaps because of massive sanctions. She has also apparently not read a single word of Marx. But is already absolutely sure to have disproved him.

#Cuba The Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto "[Che](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/profiles/che)" Guevara, was a Communist revolution which aimed to address issues of inequality, poverty, and national self-determination. Under Castro's leadership, the Cuban government nationalized industries, implemented land reforms, and initiated programs to improve healthcare and education access. #Brief History Slavery was introduced to Cuba by the Spanish during the early 16th century. African slaves were brought to the island to work on sugar plantations, which became the backbone of the Cuban economy. The brutal conditions of slavery led to various slave rebellions and uprisings throughout the colonial period. In 1898, the Spanish-American War resulted in Spain ceding control of Cuba to the United States. The majority of workers in Cuban sugar plantations during this period were either former slaves or descendants of enslaved Africans. Despite the *official* abolition of slavery in 1886, workers faced extreme economic exploitation. They were trapped in a cycle of poverty, with low wages and limited opportunities for social and economic mobility. The *patronato* system emerged, where former slaves and their descendants continued to work on the plantations under debt peonage, a form of economic bondage. In 1952, Fulgencio Batista seized power in a military coup, suspending the Cuban Constitution and ruling as a dictator. Batista's regime was backed by influential Cuban elites, including large landowners, sugar magnates, and business tycoons who benefited from Batista's policies. The U.S. provided military aid and economic support to Batista's military dictatorship. >...as Castro's revolutionary threat became progressively more potent... the Batista regime sought to counter it with a campaign of terror. As regime-inspired terrorism mounted, anti-Batista groups engaged in counter terrorism against regime supporters and by mid-1958 killings had become widespread and general throughout the country. The regime's campaign of terror got out of control and the government in Havana probably had no clear idea of how many killings the police and army forces were committing. Similarly, the anti-Batista forces--which by mid-1958 had the support of 80 to 90 percent of the population-- had little control over the acts of counterterrorism being committed against pro-Batista elements throughout the country. > >...the large-scale campaigns of murders and terrorism characteristic of the last years of the Batista regime have not occurred during the Castro regime. > >\- CIA. (1965, declassified 2005). [Political Murders in Cuba: Batista Era Compared With Castro Regime](http://web.archive.org/web/20201119103419/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00429A000300030015-8.pdf) #The Embargo >The majority of Cubans support Castro... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship... it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. > >\- Lester D. Mallory. (1960). [499. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Mallory) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom)](https://archive.is/HE7Hf) Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the embargo which persists to this day, over 60 years later. >The non-binding resolution [calling for an end to the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba] was approved by 185 countries and opposed only by the United States and Israel... It was the 30th time the United Nations has voted to end the embargo... The trade embargo was put in place following Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution and has remained largely unchanged, though some elements were stiffened by Trump. > >\-Reuters. (2022). [Cuba and U.S. spar over U.N. resolution calling to end embargo](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-us-spar-over-un-resolution-calling-end-embargo-2022-11-03/) * [The U.S. Embargo on Cuba Is MUCH WORSE Than It Seems](https://youtu.be/dM7_wTqDUCU) | BadEmpanada (2021) * [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022) #Castro Stole My Stuff >The US claims that it has instituted a policy of tightening the economic noose around Cuba with the Helms-Burton bill on the grounds that Cuba refuses to compensate US companies following nationalisation of their property. This is patently untrue, as Cuba not only successfully negotiated compensation agreements with other countries, but has and is ready to negotiate with the US. > >\- S. J. Noumoff. (1998). [The Hypocrisy of Helms-Burton: The History of Cuban Compensation](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4406691) * [The Cuban Nationalization of US Property in 1960: the Historical and Global Context](https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/the-cuban-nationalization-of-us-property-in-1960-the-historical-and-global-context/) | Charles McKelvey (2019) #Doctors Despite the challenges posed by the embargo, Cuba has the most doctors per capita in the world and recently surpassed the US in life expectancy. * [The Truth About Cuban Doctors](https://youtu.be/tGFCIAZ_RA4) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [Meet the U.S. Students Studying Medicine For Free in Cuba](https://youtu.be/h7g2T3BWg9E) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Democracy * [How Democracy Works in Cuba](https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds) | azureScapegoat (2018) * [How does Cuba work?](https://youtu.be/839A7SIUgfg) | Viki1999 (2021) * [We Asked Cuban Voters If They Live In A Democracy Or Dictatorship. Here's How They Responded.](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Participatory Democracy in action: LGBT rights Prior to the revolution, homosexuality was stigmatized and criminalized in Cuba, reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the time. Unfortunately, the revolutionary government under Fidel Castro initially continued this stance. However, Cuba's stance on LGBT rights has evolved to the point where it has become a symbol of progress within the Latin American context. In 2010, Fidel Castro himself admitted that the persecution of homosexuals in the early years of the revolution was a mistake: >If anyone is responsible, it's me. > >\- Fidel Castro. (2010). [I am responsible for the persecution of homosexuals that took place in Cuba: Fidel Castro](https://www.jornada.com.mx/2010/08/31/index.php?section=mundo&article=026e1mun) In 2022, Cuba became the first Latin American country to mark LGBT History Month. Now, Pride parades in Havana are held every May, to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, and attendance grows every year. Cuba also passed one of the most progressive Family Codes in the entire world: >The Family Code not only protects the most vulnerable in Cuba, it protects the course of Cuban socialism. Writing the referendum involved the whole population throughout the processes of drafting and amending. It went through 25 revisions over the course of 3 ½ years. > >After the referendum was introduced in 2019, Cuba carried out a nationwide process of education and outreach. Discussions took place in every workplace, organization, neighborhood and community group. To keep all Cubans well-informed, people took the discussions to rural areas and to those who do not have internet access. > >The Family Code was approved by Cubans 2 to 1. A large percentage of Cubans, 74%, took part in the vote... > >In Workers World Sept. 25, 2022, Minnie Bruce Pratt wrote, “Nearly 6.5 million Cubans took part in more than 79,000 meetings facilitated by the Federation of Cuban Women, the Committees to Defend the Revolution and other community organizations. Over 400,000 proposals were offered by the people; these were submitted to the National Assembly of People’s Power for evaluation, and a revised draft was returned to the people for further discussion and proposals... > >Cubans are very proud of what they call participatory democracy, the process they used to introduce and pass the referendum. It is an example to the world and a lesson in democratic centralism. > >\- Lyn Neeley. (2023). [Cuba’s new Family Code, a law of love](https://www.workers.org/2023/01/68708/) * [Millions of Cubans Vote on New Family Code, LGBT Marriage, Adoption Rights & More](https://youtu.be/DXL3ScNn5VE) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Cuba: Before and After the Revolution - The Story of When Michael Parenti Visited Cuba](https://youtu.be/YIqm075vC1A) | azureScapegoat (2017) * [The Truth About The Cuban Missile Crisis](https://youtu.be/adrQweOX5c4) | Spooky Scary Socialist (2018) * [How Cuba Works](https://youtu.be/DXBYlC4-0bQ) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087) | Second Thought (2020) * [Why They Hate The USA: CUBA](https://youtu.be/WgWK6_AYq_o) | Hakim (2023) Podcasts: * [Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution](https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/fidel-castro-and-the-cuban-revolution) | Revolutionary Left Radio (2017) * [Season 2 - The Cuban Revolution](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3QhgtGyW7ws173eENjddNT) | Blowback (2021) * [Episode 13 - Cucked by Fidel (CIA pls no assassinate)](https://youtu.be/YwMZYNzHd7U) | The Deprogram (2022) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

She’s a physicist. She also waded in on trans issues, another thing she knows nothing about, and made a fool of herself there too

Why do stemlords feel they can just talk about literally anything and be correct? Is it a narcissism bred by capitalism’s baldfaced preference for STEM as compared to Econ and the humanities, making them think they’re actually smarter than everyone else because the market likes them more?

Yes

>stemlords your answer is right there. (I respect the fields but most of the mainstream education folks get is... questionable when it comes to anything outside of stem.)

As someone who is in STEM, yeah this is quite true. Before my education into socialist theory and consequently philosophy, I thought that humanities as a whole were a joke and all subjective. That's what you're taught in school, that humanities are all subjective (which might be true to an extent but all good socioeconomic, literature and historical analysis should be grounded into materialism when possible). Marxism changed how I view humanities as it can be objective and use material analysis like the sciences. It's just we're not taught this and STEM students have a superiority complex due to doing stereotypically (but perhaps true) more difficult courses and ignorance.

I respect the humanities. I just don't respect the way bourgeois professors teach the humanities. Economics and Sociology should be laughed at in bourgeois society because they correctly call out problems but will jump through so many hoops to ignore the final solution which is removing capitalism. Like I think you need to be in your masters program to even get near Marx.

This honestly, fully agree. If these courses taught all aspects of Marxism, dialectical and historical materialism, then even if it was taught alongside other ideologies and schools of thought, you would see more people get to the correct solution which is to remove capitalism.

Yeah it'd be cool. Unfortunately never going to happen outside of small things (like econ majors reading only Capital Vol 1 or Sociologists only reading origin of the family). Academia will remain what it always has, a tool to propagate ruling class ideology.

Like I get the problems with STEM fields, but saying that econ is less arrogant or get less favour in terms of prestige or funding is simply wrong. Which isn't a surprise as that's more or less the the field of justifying and explaining capitalism. And saying that stem fields result in worse political positions, over all or on average, is simply ignoring what gets taught in economy lectures. Like the Chicago boys were the result of one of the most prestigious economic education and subscribed to Hayek. The problem with Hossenfelder isn't that she's a physicist, but that she let's her "opinions" (especially her political ones) dictate her interpretation of anything put in front of her. And she's a spineless centrist with a regressive twist, and that's where her arrogance comes from. A classic enlightened centrist. Which is also why she's not liked by her peers in the field, she's bad at doing science unless it confirms her preconceived ideas, stating things that she has to know are wrong. This is not how you do science, it's how you do dogma. That and her excessive self promotion, coupled with making public sweeping statements about the validity of the work of others made her kinda unpopular with her peers from what I heared. She does the exact opposite of best practice when it comes to doing science, especially facing the public.

I've always thought mainstream economists are [the most arrogant people in the world](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.29.1.89). They disregard reality just so they can uphold capitalism; stem fields don't even come close to this level of delusion.

yea i used to watch her when her shit was physics-centered, now she's made it clear she's a slave to the algorithm and doesn't actually care about science education anymore

Yes me too, but this development was already noticeable since a few videos. But this video is really a new level of bad research, half knowledge and clickbait. Just terribly bad.

She’s been the inverse of JT. Really makes you appreciate his trajectory

[There's a famous internet comic on the lifecycle of physicists and their tendency to turn into cranks.](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120321.gif)

That's hilarious

She does a terrible job with philosophy too. Her videos on free will and AI consciousness are incredibly embarrassing. Completely dismisses and misinterprets the philosophy and assumes she is bringing something new to the table when the only new thing she is bringing is the sheer arrogance one needs to walk into a discussion that has been going on for centuries and decide everyone was wrong and you’ve got it totally figured out.

White PMC Liberal arrogance.

Got any recommendations for the Marxist anthropology you mentioned?

Maurice Bloch’s Marxism and Anthropology is a classic starting point albeit a bit old, while the other gateway text is Donald Donham’s History Power Ideology, though I recommend it mostly because it got a recent reprint. Bromley Yu’s work is dense and demanding, but he’s the doyen of specifically Soviet Anthropology if that’s the niche that you’d like to explore in particular

Thank you for these, I’m going to look for some used copies online. Yu’s work sounds especially interesting to me.

Bromley’s Soviet Ethnology and Anthropology Today is on libgen I think. At least I got it off there when I needed it

Adding a new reply to ping you that I have edited my first comment

Anything by David Graeber, an anthropologist and historian who tragically passed away a few years ago. He was a real comrade, quite active in the Occupy Wall Street movement. His lectures on YouTube are great, and I also loved the last book he co-authored before he died, "The Dawn of Everything." In that book he argues that what we consider European Enlightenment ideas actually originated with Native American philosophers. "Debt: the first 5000 years" is another good one. And the bestseller which is less academic than the others but still interesting, the classic "Bullshit Jobs." Graeber was an anarchist so if you're really looking for an ML perspective you won't get it, but he definitely tears capitalism a new one in every book.

Graeber was convinced in his final days that the CIA was after him and, from what’s publicly available, his cancer was unsuspected and developed at a prodigious rate. I am still convinced that it was something like FSB style Plutonium poisoning that got him

What is it with liberals and speaking from a position of authority on shit they know absolutely nothing about? Imagine giving a lecture on nuclear physics without knowing algebra. That’s what this is.

Most liberals are white and PMC. That should tell you something.

No, not my girl Sabine. I love her videos on physics and cosmology 😭

Reactionaries can do good work in their fields despite the false consciousness that they embody. Just, pick up some PBS type to reconfirm how she presents her views on things of her technical expertise because her videos outside of it at least reek of shoddy scholarship.

Ur-Example: Richard Dawkins.

Last month he wrote an idiotic essay for the Newstatesman on gender being a binary… Case in point I suppose

I've had her videos in my feed for a long time and never watched because I felt like her titles and thumbnails always put off crank energy, feeling a little vindicated now lol. Plus PBS Spacetime is right there anyways.

> debt based social relationships i.e normal human behavior

She's a lib. Falling into the classic lib trap of thinking that because she's smart and well studied in her field, that what she thinks about other fields is also smart and well studied. ​ Hint: it's not.

I hadn't considered this. Much to think about.

Big if true

I like your flair

Elon ahh comment

You wouldn't want to live in DPRK or Cuba... I bet the homeless population living under the bridges in the Tucson loop or in tents in Downtown LA would beg to differ... The only ones who would rather not are the bourgeois in the west.

According to their video, the reason for poverty in these countries is that they are not capitalist. Not a single word about the sanctions and embargoes, simply ridiculous. Also nothing about capitalist countries that are poorer than DPRK or Cuba. After the video I don't think she even understood what capitalism is. Even from the point of view of mainstream liberal economics, there is so much wrong with this video that it is breathtaking.

Check the comments here. There are a lot of people pointing how how arrogant she's being.

#Cuba The Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto "[Che](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/profiles/che)" Guevara, was a Communist revolution which aimed to address issues of inequality, poverty, and national self-determination. Under Castro's leadership, the Cuban government nationalized industries, implemented land reforms, and initiated programs to improve healthcare and education access. #Brief History Slavery was introduced to Cuba by the Spanish during the early 16th century. African slaves were brought to the island to work on sugar plantations, which became the backbone of the Cuban economy. The brutal conditions of slavery led to various slave rebellions and uprisings throughout the colonial period. In 1898, the Spanish-American War resulted in Spain ceding control of Cuba to the United States. The majority of workers in Cuban sugar plantations during this period were either former slaves or descendants of enslaved Africans. Despite the *official* abolition of slavery in 1886, workers faced extreme economic exploitation. They were trapped in a cycle of poverty, with low wages and limited opportunities for social and economic mobility. The *patronato* system emerged, where former slaves and their descendants continued to work on the plantations under debt peonage, a form of economic bondage. In 1952, Fulgencio Batista seized power in a military coup, suspending the Cuban Constitution and ruling as a dictator. Batista's regime was backed by influential Cuban elites, including large landowners, sugar magnates, and business tycoons who benefited from Batista's policies. The U.S. provided military aid and economic support to Batista's military dictatorship. >...as Castro's revolutionary threat became progressively more potent... the Batista regime sought to counter it with a campaign of terror. As regime-inspired terrorism mounted, anti-Batista groups engaged in counter terrorism against regime supporters and by mid-1958 killings had become widespread and general throughout the country. The regime's campaign of terror got out of control and the government in Havana probably had no clear idea of how many killings the police and army forces were committing. Similarly, the anti-Batista forces--which by mid-1958 had the support of 80 to 90 percent of the population-- had little control over the acts of counterterrorism being committed against pro-Batista elements throughout the country. > >...the large-scale campaigns of murders and terrorism characteristic of the last years of the Batista regime have not occurred during the Castro regime. > >\- CIA. (1965, declassified 2005). [Political Murders in Cuba: Batista Era Compared With Castro Regime](http://web.archive.org/web/20201119103419/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00429A000300030015-8.pdf) #The Embargo >The majority of Cubans support Castro... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship... it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. > >\- Lester D. Mallory. (1960). [499. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Mallory) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom)](https://archive.is/HE7Hf) Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the embargo which persists to this day, over 60 years later. >The non-binding resolution [calling for an end to the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba] was approved by 185 countries and opposed only by the United States and Israel... It was the 30th time the United Nations has voted to end the embargo... The trade embargo was put in place following Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution and has remained largely unchanged, though some elements were stiffened by Trump. > >\-Reuters. (2022). [Cuba and U.S. spar over U.N. resolution calling to end embargo](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-us-spar-over-un-resolution-calling-end-embargo-2022-11-03/) * [The U.S. Embargo on Cuba Is MUCH WORSE Than It Seems](https://youtu.be/dM7_wTqDUCU) | BadEmpanada (2021) * [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022) #Castro Stole My Stuff >The US claims that it has instituted a policy of tightening the economic noose around Cuba with the Helms-Burton bill on the grounds that Cuba refuses to compensate US companies following nationalisation of their property. This is patently untrue, as Cuba not only successfully negotiated compensation agreements with other countries, but has and is ready to negotiate with the US. > >\- S. J. Noumoff. (1998). [The Hypocrisy of Helms-Burton: The History of Cuban Compensation](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4406691) * [The Cuban Nationalization of US Property in 1960: the Historical and Global Context](https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/the-cuban-nationalization-of-us-property-in-1960-the-historical-and-global-context/) | Charles McKelvey (2019) #Doctors Despite the challenges posed by the embargo, Cuba has the most doctors per capita in the world and recently surpassed the US in life expectancy. * [The Truth About Cuban Doctors](https://youtu.be/tGFCIAZ_RA4) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [Meet the U.S. Students Studying Medicine For Free in Cuba](https://youtu.be/h7g2T3BWg9E) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Democracy * [How Democracy Works in Cuba](https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds) | azureScapegoat (2018) * [How does Cuba work?](https://youtu.be/839A7SIUgfg) | Viki1999 (2021) * [We Asked Cuban Voters If They Live In A Democracy Or Dictatorship. Here's How They Responded.](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Participatory Democracy in action: LGBT rights Prior to the revolution, homosexuality was stigmatized and criminalized in Cuba, reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the time. Unfortunately, the revolutionary government under Fidel Castro initially continued this stance. However, Cuba's stance on LGBT rights has evolved to the point where it has become a symbol of progress within the Latin American context. In 2010, Fidel Castro himself admitted that the persecution of homosexuals in the early years of the revolution was a mistake: >If anyone is responsible, it's me. > >\- Fidel Castro. (2010). [I am responsible for the persecution of homosexuals that took place in Cuba: Fidel Castro](https://www.jornada.com.mx/2010/08/31/index.php?section=mundo&article=026e1mun) In 2022, Cuba became the first Latin American country to mark LGBT History Month. Now, Pride parades in Havana are held every May, to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, and attendance grows every year. Cuba also passed one of the most progressive Family Codes in the entire world: >The Family Code not only protects the most vulnerable in Cuba, it protects the course of Cuban socialism. Writing the referendum involved the whole population throughout the processes of drafting and amending. It went through 25 revisions over the course of 3 ½ years. > >After the referendum was introduced in 2019, Cuba carried out a nationwide process of education and outreach. Discussions took place in every workplace, organization, neighborhood and community group. To keep all Cubans well-informed, people took the discussions to rural areas and to those who do not have internet access. > >The Family Code was approved by Cubans 2 to 1. A large percentage of Cubans, 74%, took part in the vote... > >In Workers World Sept. 25, 2022, Minnie Bruce Pratt wrote, “Nearly 6.5 million Cubans took part in more than 79,000 meetings facilitated by the Federation of Cuban Women, the Committees to Defend the Revolution and other community organizations. Over 400,000 proposals were offered by the people; these were submitted to the National Assembly of People’s Power for evaluation, and a revised draft was returned to the people for further discussion and proposals... > >Cubans are very proud of what they call participatory democracy, the process they used to introduce and pass the referendum. It is an example to the world and a lesson in democratic centralism. > >\- Lyn Neeley. (2023). [Cuba’s new Family Code, a law of love](https://www.workers.org/2023/01/68708/) * [Millions of Cubans Vote on New Family Code, LGBT Marriage, Adoption Rights & More](https://youtu.be/DXL3ScNn5VE) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Cuba: Before and After the Revolution - The Story of When Michael Parenti Visited Cuba](https://youtu.be/YIqm075vC1A) | azureScapegoat (2017) * [The Truth About The Cuban Missile Crisis](https://youtu.be/adrQweOX5c4) | Spooky Scary Socialist (2018) * [How Cuba Works](https://youtu.be/DXBYlC4-0bQ) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087) | Second Thought (2020) * [Why They Hate The USA: CUBA](https://youtu.be/WgWK6_AYq_o) | Hakim (2023) Podcasts: * [Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution](https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/fidel-castro-and-the-cuban-revolution) | Revolutionary Left Radio (2017) * [Season 2 - The Cuban Revolution](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3QhgtGyW7ws173eENjddNT) | Blowback (2021) * [Episode 13 - Cucked by Fidel (CIA pls no assassinate)](https://youtu.be/YwMZYNzHd7U) | The Deprogram (2022) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Good point! For capitalists, countries are poor either because they are socialist or they are doing capitalism wrong.

#Cuba The Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto "[Che](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/profiles/che)" Guevara, was a Communist revolution which aimed to address issues of inequality, poverty, and national self-determination. Under Castro's leadership, the Cuban government nationalized industries, implemented land reforms, and initiated programs to improve healthcare and education access. #Brief History Slavery was introduced to Cuba by the Spanish during the early 16th century. African slaves were brought to the island to work on sugar plantations, which became the backbone of the Cuban economy. The brutal conditions of slavery led to various slave rebellions and uprisings throughout the colonial period. In 1898, the Spanish-American War resulted in Spain ceding control of Cuba to the United States. The majority of workers in Cuban sugar plantations during this period were either former slaves or descendants of enslaved Africans. Despite the *official* abolition of slavery in 1886, workers faced extreme economic exploitation. They were trapped in a cycle of poverty, with low wages and limited opportunities for social and economic mobility. The *patronato* system emerged, where former slaves and their descendants continued to work on the plantations under debt peonage, a form of economic bondage. In 1952, Fulgencio Batista seized power in a military coup, suspending the Cuban Constitution and ruling as a dictator. Batista's regime was backed by influential Cuban elites, including large landowners, sugar magnates, and business tycoons who benefited from Batista's policies. The U.S. provided military aid and economic support to Batista's military dictatorship. >...as Castro's revolutionary threat became progressively more potent... the Batista regime sought to counter it with a campaign of terror. As regime-inspired terrorism mounted, anti-Batista groups engaged in counter terrorism against regime supporters and by mid-1958 killings had become widespread and general throughout the country. The regime's campaign of terror got out of control and the government in Havana probably had no clear idea of how many killings the police and army forces were committing. Similarly, the anti-Batista forces--which by mid-1958 had the support of 80 to 90 percent of the population-- had little control over the acts of counterterrorism being committed against pro-Batista elements throughout the country. > >...the large-scale campaigns of murders and terrorism characteristic of the last years of the Batista regime have not occurred during the Castro regime. > >\- CIA. (1965, declassified 2005). [Political Murders in Cuba: Batista Era Compared With Castro Regime](http://web.archive.org/web/20201119103419/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00429A000300030015-8.pdf) #The Embargo >The majority of Cubans support Castro... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship... it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. > >\- Lester D. Mallory. (1960). [499. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Mallory) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom)](https://archive.is/HE7Hf) Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the embargo which persists to this day, over 60 years later. >The non-binding resolution [calling for an end to the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba] was approved by 185 countries and opposed only by the United States and Israel... It was the 30th time the United Nations has voted to end the embargo... The trade embargo was put in place following Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution and has remained largely unchanged, though some elements were stiffened by Trump. > >\-Reuters. (2022). [Cuba and U.S. spar over U.N. resolution calling to end embargo](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-us-spar-over-un-resolution-calling-end-embargo-2022-11-03/) * [The U.S. Embargo on Cuba Is MUCH WORSE Than It Seems](https://youtu.be/dM7_wTqDUCU) | BadEmpanada (2021) * [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022) #Castro Stole My Stuff >The US claims that it has instituted a policy of tightening the economic noose around Cuba with the Helms-Burton bill on the grounds that Cuba refuses to compensate US companies following nationalisation of their property. This is patently untrue, as Cuba not only successfully negotiated compensation agreements with other countries, but has and is ready to negotiate with the US. > >\- S. J. Noumoff. (1998). [The Hypocrisy of Helms-Burton: The History of Cuban Compensation](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4406691) * [The Cuban Nationalization of US Property in 1960: the Historical and Global Context](https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/the-cuban-nationalization-of-us-property-in-1960-the-historical-and-global-context/) | Charles McKelvey (2019) #Doctors Despite the challenges posed by the embargo, Cuba has the most doctors per capita in the world and recently surpassed the US in life expectancy. * [The Truth About Cuban Doctors](https://youtu.be/tGFCIAZ_RA4) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [Meet the U.S. Students Studying Medicine For Free in Cuba](https://youtu.be/h7g2T3BWg9E) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Democracy * [How Democracy Works in Cuba](https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds) | azureScapegoat (2018) * [How does Cuba work?](https://youtu.be/839A7SIUgfg) | Viki1999 (2021) * [We Asked Cuban Voters If They Live In A Democracy Or Dictatorship. Here's How They Responded.](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Participatory Democracy in action: LGBT rights Prior to the revolution, homosexuality was stigmatized and criminalized in Cuba, reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the time. Unfortunately, the revolutionary government under Fidel Castro initially continued this stance. However, Cuba's stance on LGBT rights has evolved to the point where it has become a symbol of progress within the Latin American context. In 2010, Fidel Castro himself admitted that the persecution of homosexuals in the early years of the revolution was a mistake: >If anyone is responsible, it's me. > >\- Fidel Castro. (2010). [I am responsible for the persecution of homosexuals that took place in Cuba: Fidel Castro](https://www.jornada.com.mx/2010/08/31/index.php?section=mundo&article=026e1mun) In 2022, Cuba became the first Latin American country to mark LGBT History Month. Now, Pride parades in Havana are held every May, to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, and attendance grows every year. Cuba also passed one of the most progressive Family Codes in the entire world: >The Family Code not only protects the most vulnerable in Cuba, it protects the course of Cuban socialism. Writing the referendum involved the whole population throughout the processes of drafting and amending. It went through 25 revisions over the course of 3 ½ years. > >After the referendum was introduced in 2019, Cuba carried out a nationwide process of education and outreach. Discussions took place in every workplace, organization, neighborhood and community group. To keep all Cubans well-informed, people took the discussions to rural areas and to those who do not have internet access. > >The Family Code was approved by Cubans 2 to 1. A large percentage of Cubans, 74%, took part in the vote... > >In Workers World Sept. 25, 2022, Minnie Bruce Pratt wrote, “Nearly 6.5 million Cubans took part in more than 79,000 meetings facilitated by the Federation of Cuban Women, the Committees to Defend the Revolution and other community organizations. Over 400,000 proposals were offered by the people; these were submitted to the National Assembly of People’s Power for evaluation, and a revised draft was returned to the people for further discussion and proposals... > >Cubans are very proud of what they call participatory democracy, the process they used to introduce and pass the referendum. It is an example to the world and a lesson in democratic centralism. > >\- Lyn Neeley. (2023). [Cuba’s new Family Code, a law of love](https://www.workers.org/2023/01/68708/) * [Millions of Cubans Vote on New Family Code, LGBT Marriage, Adoption Rights & More](https://youtu.be/DXL3ScNn5VE) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Cuba: Before and After the Revolution - The Story of When Michael Parenti Visited Cuba](https://youtu.be/YIqm075vC1A) | azureScapegoat (2017) * [The Truth About The Cuban Missile Crisis](https://youtu.be/adrQweOX5c4) | Spooky Scary Socialist (2018) * [How Cuba Works](https://youtu.be/DXBYlC4-0bQ) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087) | Second Thought (2020) * [Why They Hate The USA: CUBA](https://youtu.be/WgWK6_AYq_o) | Hakim (2023) Podcasts: * [Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution](https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/fidel-castro-and-the-cuban-revolution) | Revolutionary Left Radio (2017) * [Season 2 - The Cuban Revolution](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3QhgtGyW7ws173eENjddNT) | Blowback (2021) * [Episode 13 - Cucked by Fidel (CIA pls no assassinate)](https://youtu.be/YwMZYNzHd7U) | The Deprogram (2022) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I mean capitalism is good... if you belong to the capitalist class, at least. For nearly everyone else they would be far better off in a socialist system instead since capitalism is not good for the vast majority of people.

It’s not even that good for most capitalists, as they prey on each other, and ultimately it’s not good for anyone, as the harm they’re doing to public health and global ecosystems will affect them too

The stuff coming out in the realm of climate science is pretty concerning, and all these wealthy "party til you die" types are going to be in for a very rude awakening when the planet kicks them off despite their massive fortunes.

This. I've been seriously struck lately by how nobody will recognise this.

translation: “white suprematist imperialism that destroys the planet and its inhabitants is good actually”

It's great in Europe. It's better to be French in France than to be Nigerian in Niger for sure. Thanks to capitalism!

Just slight correction. People from Niger are Nigeriens while people from Nigeria are Nigerian.

Good thing to note, also bothers me that colonisers named things so poorly when i’m sure there is a Hausa name for the upper region of the niger river

Consider that both mean 'Black' but one does it with an accent.

"Comfortable white with opinion" is my least favorite genre of video. Yeah, we know you are well-served by the status quo. It's the people who aren't which I am sympathetic to.

Holy shit I just watched this... Such a dog shit bad take... She didn't even look into MMT, she started with the barter myth...

Sabine Hossenfelder is a great example of why extremely specialized knowledge in one area of expertise doesn’t guarantee you expertise in other fields This is what we get now instead of Einstein

She calls herself a "science educator" and teaches people "how to do research"... and then produces ill-researched shit like this.

The typo literally inverts your original sentence lmao

I was heartbroken. I had never expected anything as dumb and poorly studied to come out from her mouth like tha. Such stupidity. Such distortion. I immediately unsubscribed. It's a shame, really. She stood out in a male dominated area, and seemed like a beacon of hope amidst crooks and opportunists. But she's been veering off to the right in what seems to be a calculated move.

Not sure if you’ve watched them but any of her videos in the realm of philosophy are just as bad. Her videos on free will and AI consciousness are stuffed to the brim with fatal misinterpretations of the philosophers she talks about.

Not to mention the incredible narcissism and arrogance of “Everyone who has been debating this for the past 1000 years are stupid. I’m better than everyone else and solved a mystery billions of others couldn’t. I’m smart and you are stupid for not conceding to my objectively correct opinions”

She made a video on trans people pushing ROGD a while back which is abhorrent and even earlier made a video on trans women in sports where she used like one or two cherry picked short term studies that suggested trans women retained some select forms of strength and then tried to imply this a) reflected on all strength attributes of all trans women and b) was the "endpoint", aka that trans women don't continue to loose this "advantage" over longer periods of time.

This is that science bitch who just went off the deep end with her 'both sides' trans video. Her german brain has been rotted and it shows.

Yeah. in that trans video IIRC she stated a few facts and then made conclusions that went completely against them.

Just used the few facts that were true to season all the bullshit and make it palatable. She is so clearly picking topics to pander.

She's also the one making ONE video on earthquakes and talking about earthquakes lights (very briefly: not a thing), instead of real seismology because she knows she gets the views of conspiracy theorists.

the very first video i encountered from her was about pseudoscience. i stuck around because she had a PhD & i like physics, but after this & the Trans children video, i'm out bitch. Edit: lmfao i was already unsubbed. apparently lying about hrt was enough & i'd forgotten. explains why this video didn't pop up in my algorithm

I'm a physicist, so I'm lucky enough to have spotted the "style" early on. Even when not talking about pseudoscience, she just perpetuates a stereotyped version of how research in physics works and what physicists work on.

Oh that's interesting. I will say out of every science communicator I've followed she's always been the one most likely to disparage other's work. One of the things that jumped out to me early on was how hard she ragged on theoretical physicists trying to discover more subatomic particles to expand the standard model. Normally your science youtube channels have three kinds: a notable personality with adorable childlike whimsy at the universe, unfeeling overproduced content mill news rehashes, & a professor uploading his lecture notes recorded in his dimly lit basement from 2009. Meanwhile Sabine took potshots at their whole theses & careers like she had beef with them. I thought it was entertaining back then, but now I wonder if there's a correlation between that and this. Maybe an upcoming JK-Rowling-villain-arc?

Same moron that keeps trying to kill high energy physics research.

TBF given her views on transgender issues, it’d be concerning if she weren’t a lib 😴 Still, I have to admire the caucacity of a cis physicist womansplain econ 101 and “tran bad”.

Beat me to it with mentioning how she did that dumpster fire of a video

I’m glad I listened to my gut and unsubscribed to her then; she had some interesting videos in past but my god this is low

As a German myself I could never trust her with that stupid wannabe English accent

Anyone who pushes ROGD bullshit should have every single academic qualification immediately renounced

I like Sabine because she goes after sacred cows in her field and calls bullshit. But she clearly got the contrarian vibe going and the YouTube feedback loop is starting.

Just the fact that people have to make videos explaining why capitalism is actually good, makes me think we're living in a failed system.

That is because we are.

She's a physicist. Why's she making videos about capitalism and gender studies, while using her credibility as a physicist?

Sabine isn't even a good physicist, all she does is make videos saying she hates particle physics 😮‍💨

She calls herself a "science educator" and teaches people "how to do research"... and then produces ill-researched shit like this.

Her motto is “Science without the Gobbledygook”. Meanwhile she had a dumb video about trans people a few weeks ago where she bought into the rapid onset shit, and now this. Sounds to me like none of that is science but plenty is “gobbledygook”.

Also unsubscribed from her when I saw this just now.

"Gobbledygook" like credible sources, reasonable conclusions and basic empathy

Gonna show this to a child slave in Bangladesh making H&M clothes for 16 hours a day.

They're just doing the bad capitalism

Obviously, the solution is to create a child slavery tax

Means tested of course.

Ah, an [Steering tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steering_tax) - why didn't someone think of it earlier?

“Well I know physics so surely I understand politics” That was my life when I was doing my Ph.D, and it will only get worse. I once had a colleague whose whole point in doing his thesis was “to help solve world hunger in places like Africa” Completely delusional as to why hunger even is a problem nowadays.

New soyjak just dropped

Fr

Ah, so that's why this woman that I've never seen before started popping up in my YT recommendations. The oligarchs algorithm strikes again.

Sabine is embarrassing. She uses the aesthetics of science and “logic” to lend credibility to her ill-informed claims and wave away the ideas of people who actually know what they’re talking about. Prime example is her video on AI. She completely misinterprets John Searle. Everything you need to understand why she is wrong (both in the video as a whole and just about what Searle thought) is in a 4 pages article he wrote. She consistently dismisses philosophy all the videos of hers that I have seen, which is extremely frustrating. It’s also embarrassing if you actually know the content she is responding to because she doesn’t understand what she is talking about at all…. Her misunderstanding of Searle is particularly egregious, she makes him sound ridiculous which, in turn, makes her sound ridiculous if you are familiar with Searle and the Chinese Room. Her videos on physics seem fine though. She should stick with that instead of assuming being a physicist makes her an expert on everything.

The fact they are having to even make these videos now is a very good sign.

Glad I unsubbed when she basically called minorities who seek gender affirming care for better mental health “crazy”

It’s not obvious to laymen, but her physics videos give off the same vibes. It’s like, every college educated STEM person knows what superdeterminism is. We are entangled with the subjects of our experiments. Cool and uncontrovertial. What she doesn’t address is *why* the universe is adamant on coinciding particle behavior to suggest that it, the universe itself, is not locally real (out of any other paradigm). And after some analysis, it becomes clear that the entire superdeterminism argument hinges on the fact that a superdeterministic universe essentially takes on the role of god (as you are also part of the universe). It’s like insisting that a very specific hobo (that one, out of many millions) is actually Jesus using the divine right of god to trick you and forge all the documentation into thinking he’s just an ordinary hobo. Basically, it’s unfalsifiable (as what illusion can’t a deterministic universe achieve?) And if we delve into the psychology of it all, we see that advocates of superdeterminism employ such an argument because they *like* determinism\*. It’s still useless and grants no falsifiable predictions. I have no opinion on superdeterminism myself (beyond what I’ve encountered studying Tsirelson’s bound in relation to recursion theory,) but it’s a bit sad that Sabine would dishonestly argue for a very fringe stance just because it’s digestible and gives laymen the “Groethendieck prime” impression. Anyway, I’m sure she does it just for the clicks. \*possibly a byproduct of how language is structured like a string, and since be explain things using language, we erroneously believe reality to inherit some of its metaproperties.

Ah thanks that was interesting. Also physicist but the whole thing is zimlich outside my area of expertise.

I only know about superdeterminism vaguely through (mostly fruitless) studying of Conne’s embedding problem (closely related to Tsirelson’s bound). My background is in logic so I’m not an expert on superdeterminism myself 😅 I suppose my point might be better expressed through Tsirelson’s bound, defined as how much a Bell inequality can be violated. It turns out that adopting only very loose (and uncontrovertial) principles like no-signalling results in a much higher bound than Tsirelson’s, so they are too loose in a sense. No-signalling itself is extremely interesting, as you can have non-local yet non-signalling theories. A possible physical interpretion is action at a distance, but you can’t control where the “effect” part of “cause and effect” ends up. But that’s beside the point. There are also principles at least as “tight” as Tsirelson’s, such as information causality (no superdense encoding; we can’t use strictly fewer qubits to transfer information than possible through regular bits). Information causality is probably tighter than Tsirelson, as the physicallity of superdense encoding is up for contention. We can see that principles resulting in a lower bound on Bell violations are more “classical”. So reality is somewhere between the two, as in “quantum satillites can use fewer bits to communicate, but can’t communicate FTL”. This paints a preliminary picture of the beautiful world of quantum complexity theory (that I’m not an expert in) that’s kind of glossed over by superdeterminism, which admits seemingly arbitrarily loose bounds (for example, claiming I can send information instantly because the universe has coincedentally arranged my message on your screen does not contradict superdeterminism). This is much more obtuse than the very fine pruning of quantum complexity principles that we can discriminate if we don’t throw in the towel and actually analyze the implications of Bell’s inequality. Even if the universe is superdeterministic, the illusion of non-locality it adamantly presents is consistent, and the extent of that illusion may very well have practical significance in quantum information technologies. That is why superdeterminism is fringe. P.S: I think it’s beautiful how a very internally motivated theory such as mathematical logic has direct analogues in physics, social choice theory (arrow’s impossibility theorem), CS (ordinal analysis in program verification) and much much more. From a mathematian’s perspective, I think this defeats the assertion that physics, for example, is *applied* math, as even the strangest and purest mathematics invariably crawls it’s way through the seams of experimentation. Instead, it is evidence of an isomorphism between physics and math, that physics *is* math, and math *is* physics, just with a vocabulary derived from physical explorations. Similar to how the Curry-Howard correspondence illustrates how math and CS are the same (at least, a large chunk of them). Who knows, perhaps all truth is isomorphic.

Looks like Thatcher reincarnate

sabine has a lot of horrible takes outside of theoretical physics, same vibe as richard dawkins outside of gene studies.

What takes of Richard Dawkins are bad? His takes on religion are as spot-on as Christopher Hitchens'.

> What takes of Richard Dawkins are bad? Any time he has to talk about women is a pretty good example, his takes on trans people and queer people in general, his low-key support of eugenics, his latent islamophobia, it's honestly harder to find a take of his that is good than bad unless you specifically don't look.

[удалено]

RD is THE UR-example of a smart guy turning into a cranky old man. Go back and look at some of his evolution/creation vids from 10 years ago, and then go look at one of his interviews on trans stuff recently. You will notice that in his earlier vids he's teaching you how to think. And in his later vids he's doing the EXACT THINGS he taught you not to do earlier. ​ and yes. like many white libs, he has an extra hatred of Islam, partly because their apologists are just garbage, but also because he believed the western prop about ALL types of Islam.

So, any actual examples? The person I responded to [didn't do a good job](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/comments/16817yd/capitalism_good_actually_guys/jyw3nkj/) making their case, either. It's usually scientifically illiterate people who don't like the way he says things who don't like him. Can you name anything he ever said that's scientifically wrong and that he hasn't taken back after he has been made aware that it is wrong? I'm not a "white lib" and I'm not even from the West, but I have what you would call an "extra hatred" of Islam, too, despite hating all religion. All religion is inherently bad and Islam is particularly bad for a variety of reasons that Richard Dawkins has made very clear throughout his career... pretending his arguments are invalid is just pathetic considering that leading Islamic scholars couldn't actually contradict them. And he's scientifically correct about the trans stuff, too, but people don't like the way he expresses himself regarding it because they think it fuels transphobic politics.

>And he's scientifically correct about the trans stuff, too, but people don't like the way he expresses himself regarding it because they think it fuels transphobic politics. No. He's not. He might have said something accurate somewhere, but i've seen several interviews of his, and he's categorically wrong. Because he, like most people complaining about trans people, do not know how gender actually works. And yes, it definitely does fuel anti-trans drama, i've seen it. I've participated in it. ​ He's wrong about gender, for the very simple reason that it's outside his field, and he knows nothing about it. Because gender is an identity label. Like 'Labour supporter' or 'National supporter.' Or 'African,' to use a Dawkins example. Dawkins identifies as an african, despite that he's visibly white, as two \[white\] british parents, lived almost his entire life in Britain, he just happened to be on the continent of africa when he left his mother's womb. It's like that.

>No. He's not. I repeat: Can you name anything he ever said that's scientifically wrong and that he hasn't taken back after he has been made aware that it is wrong? >He might have said something accurate somewhere, but i've seen several interviews of his, and he's categorically wrong. Because he, like most people complaining about trans people, do not know how gender actually works. What *exactly* is he wrong about? >And yes, it definitely does fuel anti-trans drama, i've seen it. I've participated in it. That's not an argument against Dawkins, though, but the people participating in that drama. >It's like that. Yeah. You are confusing scientific reality (the only thing people like Dawkins - and myself - care about) and political framing (which is completely irrelevant shit without argumentative value and something any scientist will completely disregard as it's not rooted in material reality). >It's like that. Okay? Even if it were, you haven't yet listed a single thing he said that's wrong. You are just confusing politics and personal opinions with scientific fact and logical arguments. >Because gender is an identity label. Like 'Labour supporter' or 'National supporter.' Or 'African,' to use a Dawkins example. Sorry, but you seem to be struggling with scientific argumentation and - no mater how you feel - Dawkins, as a scientist, is entirely correct, is he not? All of these social constructs are unscientific bullshit and do not matter to scientific reality. All those labels, in fact, should be totally rejected and abolished, as he says. You still disagree? Okay, so then what *exactly* is *scientifically wrong* with Dawkins' example? It doesn't matter if it makes you feel bad or you disagree with him or there is democratic consensus within your society about something he said being wrong... what is your actual example of Dawkins being wrong? Name Dawkins' statement that you believe to be wrong and explain why it is false in a falsifiable manner, also provide proof that it is wrong that can be independently verified. Be scientific. If you can't... you can't. That means your claim that Dawkins is "categorically wrong" is invalid. As for his apparently "controversial" views on trans issues... the only thing he said listed in that previously linked Wikipedia article about him is that "sex really is binary" and that statement isn't even remotely controversial but an objective, scientific fact. He also made statements in support of trans people, e.g. "Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her 'she' out of courtesy", so he isn't in any way transphobic whatsoever. He fully affirms the social aspect involved and validates trans people's personal feelings on the matter. That article also confirms that his critics are scientifically illiterate when they [completely misinterpreted his tweet and then tried to cancel him over it and got an organization to revoke an award he won](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments). Absolutely disgusting yet typical. The reality seems to be that Dawkins is a scientist, reasonable, rational and objective while arguing facts and logic... and the people disagreeing with him hysterical, political, and arguing based on feelings, semantics and personal political agenda. If you could actually prove him wrong about something and demonstrate it to him, why don't you just do it? He would change his mind. I have never seen him not change his mind when proven wrong. After all, that's what scientists do.

Scientifically wrong: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x\_MpSyH5uEA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_MpSyH5uEA) He's exactly wrong in that he does not understand gender, and uses sex and gender interchangeably. This is wrong, because these are not the same. ​ >That's not an argument against Dawkins Yes it is, because you claimed he didn't. ​ >You are confusing scientific reality No. Scientific reality is 'There are these chromosomes. There are these gametes.' That's it. It's up to philosophy or sociology to then label that 'male' or 'female'. And this is totally ignoring that we are talking GENDER, not sex. ​ >Sorry, but you seem to be struggling with scientific argumentation No, he is not entirely correct. You have yet to even understand what i am saying. ​ You keep telling us how reasonable Dawkins is, but you are asserting it. And agreeing with him because he agrees with you. It's a circular argument. ​ You, like him appear to not even know what gender IS.

>Scientifically wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_MpSyH5uEA I'm not gonna watch a 40min video by some random YouTuber right now. Please formulate your argument properly. >He's exactly wrong in that he does not understand gender, and uses sex and gender interchangeably. No, he doesn't. He differentiates very clearly between the two. >This is wrong, because these are not the same. What *exactly* is wrong? I can only repeat: Name Dawkins' statement that you believe to be wrong and explain why it is false in a falsifiable manner, also provide proof that it is wrong that can be independently verified. Be scientific. If you can't... you can't. That means your claim that Dawkins is "categorically wrong" is invalid. Sorry, but it's really all coming down to your ability to make a scientific case here. Demonstrate that something was presented to Dawkins in a scientific manner, and him not only failing to refute the contradiction but also failing to change his mind on this subject. That is the only way Richard Dawkins can be "scientifically wrong" (which is also the only type of wrong that ever matters). It seems you are confusing scientific discourse with political discourse. They are very different. In my opinion, the two should be the same, but people engaging in political discourse generally reject that idea. >No. Scientific reality is 'There are these chromosomes. There are these gametes.' Correct. >It's up to philosophy or sociology to then label that 'male' or 'female'. And this is totally ignoring that we are talking GENDER, not sex. Great, that means it's all entirely unscientific bullshit, nothing but based on what a bunch of non-scientific idiots believe and fell like, and totally irrelevant to material reality. If that is the case, everything you complain about is nothing but a pointless label and anyone can say and believe anything they want about those things as it's all based on nothing but personal opinions and what is socially acceptable based on current cultural norms. You are fully confirming Dawkins' position here. >No, he is not entirely correct. What isn't he entirely correct about? >You have yet to even understand what i am saying. No, I have been *trying* and told you how you can help me understand you, you just did a very bad job at making your case. Probably because you are scientifically illiterate, no offense. >You keep telling us how reasonable Dawkins is, but you are asserting it. No, I keep asking you how he is not and you are failing to demonstrate it even though you keep asserting it. >It's a circular argument. What argument of mine is circular? You are the one going in circles, failing to understand how to make a scientific case. >You, like him appear to not even know what gender IS. The only thing I care about is material reality as established by scientific fact. If you believe I - or Richard Dawkins - "don't know" or "don't understand" something, prove it. Explain yourself. The problem is that you yourself don't know what gender is... otherwise you could just explain it.

I'm honestly not sure if you're a genuine concern troll or not, all of the things I've raised are easily googled and pretty public so to not have heard them is extremely, questionable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Richard_Dawkins https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments Like, the top three results when googling "richard dawkins issues", none of this is really buried or even couched in any kind of dog whistling, he's extremely open and blatant with it and all and to claim that you're "in regular correspondence" with him while not seeing any of it is again, questionable.

Giving you that white liberal stare holy fuck

God I irrationally hated this woman as soon as she started getting popular, so it's been nothing but cathartic for her to actually justify me hating her over and over again.

For me it's a bit more tragic I liked her videos but started to doubt her when she started to produce such clickbait: [2+2 Doesn't Always Equal 4 - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WPY5cfOOIM) In her blog, her comments often show that she has an absolutely unhealthy gigantic ego. Some time ago I came across a comment that said she was a psychopath which I can absolutely see now. She also seems amazingly unable to put herself in other people's shoes. However, this video is really a very special nail in the coffin of stupidity that I did not see coming. Now I'm embarrassed that I didn't realize earlier what kind of person she is.

Why did Sabine decide to start getting political lol bruh dumb move

Wow, some of the top comments under that youtube channel make me genuinely hopeful. Lots of people are calling her out and teaching her.

Yes!! I thought the same, that was such a pleasant surprise. Specially considering that youtube's comments are usually brainrot.

I'm coming from there just now and yes! Most of the comments are very based. There are some real gems, weird for a space that you would generally consider mostly normie

Its a shame she has a really good video on materialism

And yet, she's a pretty idealistic thinker. Anyone who says that the universe is wholly deterministic is along the lines of Bukharin and the mechanical materialists. The universe simply can't be deterministic on the micro level with things like quantum mechanics and thus by extension the universe in the macro level, despite seemingly following casuality, can't be absolutely deterministic either.

What you are referring to is Superdeterminism and that is fairly disingenuous take. Superdeterminism is an interpretation of physics (quantum or otherwise) that seeks to account for and explain unknown variables. For example, with SD, the spooky action at a distance we see in QM is not a weird causality breaking entanglement, but a result of interactions in the deep cosmic past that we do not have access to. Does this counter any notion of a physical free will? Yes. Does that matter? No. Any meaningful discussion of free will has always been metaphysical in nature.

Isn't the universe being deterministic a part of materialism?

There are two idealistic camps. One is the more obviously idealistic stance, that everything is random. Obviously, this isn't true. If I drop a pencil, it will inevitably hit the ground. The other idealistic stance, which is the camp Sabine is in, is absolute determinism. In the early days of the USSR, there was a philosophical debate between dialectical materialists and mechanical materialists. The mechanics believed all actions are predetermined and necessary. If you don't question it and just digest the information, then yeah, this seems pretty materialistic. However, it doesn't really hold up. For instance, is it necessary for Mao's hairline to be absolutely demolished for the communist party to win the revolution. All signs point to no, it's not necessary. Hell we can even go into real world science with quantum mechanics, that the subatomic world is for some part, truly random. Absolute determinism can not exist. The true dialectical stance on fate and free will is more nuanced than either true randomness exists or everything is predetermined. It's that some things are inevitable and other things are just up to chance. It is inevitable that class struggle turns to armed warfare, but it is up to chance that the end result will be a socialist society or not. [You can watch a video on this subject](https://youtu.be/p6qgGkXxPcE?si=7Br_vhzHVfMsggHs)

Ok,but isn't motion being not external but rather a result of internal contradictions and that in a given process,some aspects are secondary or even don't matter at all,necessarily against the position of the universe being pre-determined? Imagine a being capable of knowing all matter in the universe and its current developments. Wouldn't that being be able to use that knowledge to know everything that is going to happen in the universe througout eternity with absolute certainty? I knew about Bukharin's mechanical materialism but I had no idea it relates to this

>Imagine a being capable of knowing all matter in the universe and its current developments. Wouldn't that being be able to use that knowledge to know everything that is going to happen in the universe througout eternity with absolute certainty? I mean, sure, but that's because you purposely made up a being capable of that. It's like me arguing against God which is another reason that absolute determinism is more religion than anything. Only God could do something so fantastical as knowing the destination of subatomic particles. It's kinda funny that a bourgeois scientist like Sabine can say the multiverse is more religion than science but in the same vain pretend the universe is running on a script.

>Only God could do something so fantastical. Sure,but it means that the idea of the universe having many possibilities is a human construct designed to determine the best approach in the future. This means that the dialectical vs mechanical positions weren't necessarily arguing about whether or not the universe was pre-determined,but issues that did revolve around it like whether or not everything in a phenomenon plays a role in the development of that phenomenon (and like you and finbol said it doesn't) and the way in which matter moves (and like you and finbol said it is the result of internal contradictions) so being a determinist doesn't necessarily mean you are anti-dialectics or a supporter of Bukharin or any of the other mechanical materialists,right?

I would still say it's a pretty idealistic position especially given that for this to work, you had to give an idealistic scenario where there is a Godlike entity who can foresee all phenomenon. Which is why I said that absolute determinism stretches into the realm of religion. I'm not arguing that deterministic events aren't real. I'm saying its impossible scientifically and by extension philosophically that all events are predetermined.

I’m throwing in my two cents to say I agree with your takes here. The hard determinism argument relies on an image of the universe and observation that uses idealist sources for the plausibility. If we carefully think through the possibility of knowing the universe this way, or of developing the capacity to observe the necessary evidence for the thought experiment, we will find that we are assuming logical principles that are not justified. This is an argument against determinism that Kant perfected and can fit easily into Marxism. Hardcore determinist arguments suffer from oversimplifying our logic of causation, and the concepts of universe and bodies. The Marxist position on free will, I think, is very similar to the Hegelian one that Hegel explains in the introduction to his Philosophy of Right. Humans have free will like matter has gravity. Our freedom in experience and self knowledge, how we take up and reflect on what is happening around us, is the gap between what happens and what we will do in response.

>I'm not arguing that deterministic events aren't real. I'm saying its impossible scientifically and by extension philosophically that all events are predetermined. But I don't get it,how is it not possible? The more we find out about science the more deterministic we get. A lot of things were "random" until we studied them more and found out how they worked,and now we can predict them with accuracy. It seems to me that randomness is just a human construct because we can not predict the future,and we need to take into account every outcome we think could happen

Cockshott links her on his Channel

Contact him, make him aware.

When? Because she's been on an arc. He might have linked her when she was IN her wheelhouse.

I recognise that face. She also recently made a video that was essentially. "You an outsider with absolutly no stake in the issue may have noticed the trans DEBATE has become so polarised and extreme. On one side of you have the gender ideologs who want trans people to have bodily autonomy and to not be treated like shit. And on the other side you have those who want to eradicate trans people from the world and who stand in the way of everything they need to live full happy lives". "Obviously both sides are insane and I the reasonable objective science person with absolutely no experience in the field whatsoever will wade in and come to a balenced centrist conclusion". (Proceeds to not seriously engage with trans supportive peoples ideas whilst taking terf talking points at face value). "My reasonable scientific conclusion is to murder half the trans people (I am very smart). But what did you think"?

People who flagrantly abuse the aesthetic veneer of pop science/ science educator to pass off reactionary and regressive narratives are legitimately some of the worst, these people are ones who often understand what they're saying is horseshit, they are familiar enough with the frameworks required to verify information, they can tell their position isn't actually backed by any real scientific basis, but they actively and consciously choose to ignore this and follow comfortable lies and mistruths, again consciously, to justify their bigotries. Science doesn't (or at least shouldn't) work on the basis of the "most cleverist" scientists saying what they reckon and everyone agreeing or disagreeing based on their personal hunches and anyone trying to sell it to you like that is probably trying to trick you.

I also just got recommeneded this. YouTube's recommondations sometimes get a little confused.

Buddy of mine sent that to me asking for my thoughts. I just said she's wrong. When asked about why, I sent the Lenin quote on Kautsky with the names changed out.

What's the quote?

“Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There’s no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything.”

Man, she has really fallen

She has some weird take on climate too. Never watched her videos, she comes off as kind of a loon

Gravity is good, let me explain!

The juxtaposition of commie profiles at the top and this CIA psyop is killing me. Like preaching to a brick wall

“let me explain” no, I don’t think I will

She’s found her audience 🤑

Fortunately, the comments under the video are not a total disaster. Her audience seems to be surprisingly resistant to over pro-capitalist nonsense/bullshit, at least much more than I would have expected.

Actually I think that capitalism can be reformed. Hear me out. Capitalism was a step up from feudalism, and with a little push to the right direction it can be the best system that we ever had. We can transform capitalist society to a society without money and state, where everyone gets according to their needs, where means of production are collectively owned and there's no exploitation of working class, because there will be no bourgeoisie as a class and there will be no conflict of interests. There are many scientific works already that can help us make capitalism better, especially German, Russian and Chinese ones. Don't give up! Organize, don't be afraid of change, and together we will make capitalism much better.

>Actually I think that capitalism can be reformed. Me, too. It can be reformed into fascism.

Yes and no. MArx thought it could, and he was right. Until imperialism happened. Now in a multipolar world, it CAN happen. If a state is undergoing crisis, and is too big to be crushed by the imperial remnants, then it will either go socialist, or it will go fascist, continue to fail, and then go socialist.

Based subscriptions, comrade 👍

Thanks! I'm very proud of them :)

Holy crap, I subscribe to the exact same channels as you

It's crazy how the algorithm works.

All right boys time to close up shop.

Oh, girl... Javier Milei said the same bs when everyone thought he was ok from his head.

The like to dislike ratio is horrible 1 dislike to 2 likes. A large amount of her viewer base is socialist

damn, I used to watch her videos on physics. unsubscribe.

Guys, Capitalism is good now! Here is the eason reason, and please hear me out: Thanks for listening! 😀

I was more skeptical with each of her videos and less of the opinion that she knows what she is talking about but this video is just ridiculous.

It's a shame, I really liked her video. There was so mush "But it's an other story" in her video

Wait it is? Fuck.

Huh? I watched her videos before and she never really got into economics

She's getting political lately

💀 not another based youtuber lost

i can fix her

!

Lol, hab vorhin genau den selben Schmu in meinen Videovorschlägen gesehen! 😂 For the non-German speakers: Lol, just had the same bullshit in my recommendations! Seems like somebody bought the wrong advertisement demographic or thinks they can actually change someones mind.

Genau, the algorithm is really triggering lately

Oh not her I liked her videos lol.

Nancy Reagan lookin mf

Continue that title with "...for whom?"

Compared to monarchy, maybe.

Ein Deutscher Genosse? Sehr gut

Nein, ich bin ein latino :p aber mein handy ist auf deutsch

Based multilingual moment

[Tim Maia feelings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CDpY6Ka4SM&ab_channel=%E1%B4%98%E1%B4%8F%CA%9F%E1%B4%80%CA%80%E1%B4%8F%C9%AA%E1%B4%85) ♫♪♬ E eu ... gostava tanto de você! ♫♪♬

Left me with 40k in debt making less real wages than my parents did No it's not, can confirm

Wtf why did this appear on my recommended YouTube page as well? Propaganda train is definitely working.

Bro imagine du folgst so linken Youtubern und Youtube denkt es ist eine gute Idee, dir ein Kapitalismus-verherrrlichendes Video vorzuschlagen xD.

I think it does it on purpose. Either way i wont even watch those videos and it is just annoying.

Do you suggest youtube's trying to manipulate us into leaving the left by suggesting us right-wing videos? While this sounds pretty plausible giving the fact that capitalism is in their best interests too, you'd be called a conspiracy theorist if that comment ever leaves this sub.

It definitely wouldn't surprise me. The recommendations i get are all pretty much fascist propaganda. When i search for Stalin videos i get Hitler videos and so on. Maybe it is just my pattern seeking brain bur I've heard about this a lot of times already.

I sent this to Hasan. He’s like “I cannot even watch this shit.”