Why charity wouldn't work in a free-market capitalist society

[ilaughatrightwingers]

Run time: 08:08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PksmPXvY3iI   Posted on YouTube: October 25, 2010 By YouTube Member: NoMoreSunsets Views on YouTube: 286   Posted on DU: October 27, 2010 By DU Member: ilaughatrightwingers Views on DU: 543

 
This explains it all.

[raphi]

1. question theoretical assumptions

I disagree that this clip "explains it all." It is a great rebuttal to the idea that an anti-state capitalism would produce efficient distribution of goods while dealing with other social needs through charity. But it is an argument based on the worldview of its opponents.

Words like "capitalism" "free market" and "self-regulating" used without questioning their assumed meanings reinforces the claim on reality by economic propagandists.

Capitalism, a word invented by Marx, is the privileging of money. It's supply-side or finance economics, which assumes that manufacturing, mercantile, and labor need no attention. It's therefore not at all the same as private enterprise. Regardless of how we've been trained to confuse the two terms.

Free market is an oxymoron. Large corporations distort information and have the power to affect outcomes. In contrast to the assumptions of economic theory. There is also an unwarranted leap from small village market barter to the assumed aggregate decisions of millions of people. In addition, a "free market" or a "self-regulated market" implies that a market is a being with rights and able to act. That's reification-- making a physical thing out of an abstract idea.

We don't have to buy into the premises.

[moonbatmax]

2. A few points...

This really would have worked better in text form. The images could be used to break up the "wall" of text, but it would be a lot easier to read and process the information at one's own pace, rather than trying to keep up with the speaker's hurried monotone. I had to stop and back up the "video" several times to make sure I was catching her points, until I finally just gave up on it. At least give us a transcript!

I also don't think the (admittedly occasional) expletives were necessary. Even if the speaker is trying to express her own disgust with a specific point, it's crude and uncivil, and generally undermines her credibility. The monotone delivery makes it even worse, like she's either reading them straight off her page, or just throwing them in to try to sound "edgy." It just rings hollow.

Finally, she seems to voice her own personal opinion in at least a couple of places when she invokes the "I" word. Even when commentators like Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow express their own credulity at something, they tend not to SAY specifically what THEY feel about it, but leave the audience to guess from their intonation as they lay down the facts, and maybe draw an inference or two. You can get away with expressing your personal opinion to some degree, but you should, first, back it up with independent facts, and second, NOT make it about YOU.

But most of all, give us a transcript! Before anyone points it out, I'm well aware that I'm criticizing the from while ignoring the message. That's because I really don't think I'm GETTING the message, for the reasons I just presented. The rushed monotone delivery makes it hard enough to follow, and the rest are distracting enough to aggravate the problem further. This is disappointing, because I THINK there's actually a good point or three in there, if they could just be presented more clearly.

Like in a transcript.

[booley]

3. Pretty good

and I didn't have any problem following it.

This made several good points, especially how free marketers move the goal posts every time something that refutes their pet theory, they say that it's really corporatism. OF course they ignore that an unregulated market leads to the corporatism they say they hate. We already have a long history of market forces marching towards monopoly.

So either these guys are lying when they say they hate corporatism or they are deeply stupid yet useful idiots.