1. Smartphones were not invented in one go. They were the result of decades of advancement in computer technology. Each step along the way was useful for something.

2. Space travel was funded by the space race, something into which the 2 world industrial powers put a substantial chuck of their economy into. It was also done for a military benefit and again, was done in multiple steps. Hyperloop, despite being a harder thing to create, was funded by a few private capitals.

3. Organ transplants aren’t infrastructure. They aren’t even remotely comparable to hyperloop.

4. “Instant” global communication has been possible for a very long time. The first transatlantic cable was laid down in 1858. The only thing different today is the number and speed of cables.

Honestly, I’m all for it. The only thing better than the deindustrialization of Europe, could be the further deindustrialization of the US

As much as I understand the sentiment, for the sale of the climate, both regions of the world need to transition away from fossil fuels quickly. They can’t do that without sufficient industrial capacity.

You mean that the politician who spent 50 years of his life being a racist corporate stooge continues to be a racist corporate stooge?

Why do these companies even feel the need to take a stance on this?

Thousands of people have probably already died from the famine conditions. [There are over 3000 new cases of diarrhea per day since 17th of December in just children under the age of 5] (https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/intensifying-conflict-malnutrition-and-disease-gaza-strip-creates-deadly-cycle). Once the war is over, the death toll will be horrific and way higher than 26000.

Pigeon abuse T_T

Isn’t the German government facing severe budgeting issues right now?

The conditions for a post-war neo-nazi takeover are so ripe that I’m sure that this was part of the western leadership’s plan.

Also, I remember when early in the war, liberals were arguing that arming neo-nazis is actually good because it would get them killed on the front line. Lmao.

As soon as he gave the definition of cults, it was over. Fatal mistake right off the bat, and pretty guarantees that the rest of the video is worthless.

He defines cults in such an overly broad manner, while analysing ML terms and ideas so superficially that it pretty much guarantees that ML have to fit the label of “cult”. Let me break down each instance where he does this

1. “Mystical manipulation” 6:19 to 7:00

Here he says that the forces of history, or the masses are “supernatural” concepts that only serve to justify the power of the leaders. He makes an implied comparison to the divine right of Kings.

What makes this stupid is obvious. Unlike God, the masses obviously exist. They can choose a leadership from amongst themselves as they have throughout all of history. That is the whole basis of democracy. The forces of history are something of an abstract category, but when has any ML leader ever proclaimed themselves to be chosen by history? If anything, MLs have by far the most realistic view as to how history works out of any ideology.

2. “Sacred science” 7:00 to 7:30

Here, he just compares the term “immortal science” with “sacred science”, the latter which is defined as something whose core tenants cannot be challenged.

Anyone even remotely familiar with MLs knows that we can’t agree with each other in anything, and that “immortal science” is purely a meme or hype slogan.

It’s on par with saying that obama’s “yes we can” slogan makes the democratic party a cult of action.

He also says that a sacred science is a supereme moral vision as well, but surely, he doesn’t think that Marxism is a moral vision, does he?

3. “Loading the language” 8:40 to 9:00

The intense moralization of terms until they loose all practical meaning like “petit bourgeoise”

shows picture of street vendor from the third world

Lmao. I love how he thinks “petit bourgeoise” is a meaningless moralistic term while displaying on screen the clearest possible cut example of a petit bourgeoise.

To understand what is being said here, you have to remember that utopians like this guy idolise petty production. In their minds, the petty bourgeoise are a morally clean class who we will all become in a future anarchist utopia. That is, the workers will own the means of production they work upon.

It is ironically the moralistic lens which people like this don that makes them unable to see why Marxists don’t care for the petty bourgeoisie.

He also talks about cults believing in a utopia which is hilarious given that this guy is the quintessential example of a utopian. That’s what half of his videos are about. On the other hand, MLs do not at all aim to establish a utopia. This would be known to him had he done literally any research.

He also calls “revisionism”, “material conditions” and “left unity” as thought terminating cliches.

This point is a little bit more correct. I have seen examples of MLs just say “material conditions” without explaining what it means. That I suspect is the result of “material conditions” being difficult to actually analyse and understand. A lot of MLs unfortunately take the lazy route.

When it comes to “left unity”, I’ve never seen the term be used by MLs unironically, only anarchists. MLs have at various points formed United fronts, bit we have done so alongside many other factions that weren’t even remotely left (KMT, Hamas, etc). We have also formed these united fronts at great personal cost. The KMT broke the United front and attacked communists over and over again during the war with the Japanese. And yet, the communists maintained the United front because it was better for the Chinese people. This much I was taught even when learning history in a bourgeois high-school.

5 …

Holy shit this video is just one giant thing gish gallop. It’s taking me longer to debunk a few sentences than it took for him to just say a bunch of shit, even though I am trying to skip over so many of his dumbass claims