The free-market kills freedom

[IcarusAngel]

x0DgvuvII7Y

The guy in the first 22 seconds is Michael Albert, correct?

[LeftSideDown]

You post a 11 minute youtube video to ask a question about the first 22 seconds?

[anticap]

You post a 11 minute youtube video to ask a question about the first 22 seconds?

So what? He wants to know the guy's name. He could have recorded it, uploaded an MP3 somewhere, and posted a link that nobody would click, or he could do what he did.

The answer is yes, that's Michael Albert's voice, and it's from this excellent video (http://www.zcommunications.org/michael-albert-on-market-abolition-by-site-administrator).

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. That is a good video, and I wasn't sure it was Albert or another political expert mr1001nights talked to. Since free-market ideology is an opposing ideology and since many people who post in OI are familiar with this man's work, I thought I could get a quick answer.

The problem with the free-market people is that they want every system to work within their narrow concepts of "rights" and "liberty" that most people even today do not agree with.

They are wrong.

[Left-Reasoning]

Do you mean buddhagem?

[anticap]

No, Buddhagem is the guy on the left at the start of the video. The other guy is Mr1001nights (their YouTube monikers).

[Left-Reasoning]

Oh, you mean the guy speaking...

[anticap]

Yes. Didn't you watch the video I linked, where that voice comes from? I didn't post it only for the benefit of IcarusAngel; I hoped also that you marketarians would watch it. It's less than half an hour, it wouldn't kill you.

[Left-Reasoning]

I watched the first 15 minutes.

EDIT: I finished the video.

[anticap]

I watched the first 15 minutes.

EDIT: I finished the video.

And what did you think of it?

[Left-Reasoning]

And what did you think of it?

I must admit that I was much more impressed than I expected I would be.

He seems like quite the reasonable man.

[anticap]

I must admit that I was much more impressed than I expected I would be.

He seems like quite the reasonable man.

And did it change your views at all?

[anticap]

The free-market kills freedom

It also promotes a mythical and severely limited understanding of freedom, which the following videos do a good job of exposing:

B7G4WIa-HAk

hJikG-p_nho

Note: Cooney got a lot of flak over the title of these videos. Many thought it alluded to Chomsky's book, but in fact the videos draw from Burawoy's book of the same title. Some even thought it was an attack on Chomsky. I only mention this to avoid a repeat of that confusion. Here's Cooney, from the video description:


When I make a couple comments about "libertarians" in this video I am not referring to Chomsky or those that identify as libertarian-anarchist. I am referring to the right-wing, free-market libertarians. I have great respect for much of what Chomsky and other anarchist thinkers have added to the left and I would hate for anyone to think this video was an attack upon that tradition.

[Left-Reasoning]

And did it change your views at all?

I'm skeptical.

In a libertarian socialist society we could have communes, trade unionis, pareconimists, and market socialists.

We'll find out soon enough which system is best.

[anticap]

I'm skeptical.

In a libertarian socialist society we could have communes, trade unionis, pareconimists, and market socialists.

We'll find out soon enough which system is best.

But that's not what the video was about. It was about market abolitionism. And it proposed reasons for taking that position.

Which of Albert's statements are you skeptical of?

Also, I'd be absolutely giddy if you would watch the two YouTube videos I've posted above. :)

[Left-Reasoning]

But that's not what the video was about. It was about market abolitionism. And it proposed reasons for taking that position.

Indeed.


Which of Albert's statements are you skeptical of?That Parecon is a better way to run a society than markets.



Also, I'd be absolutely giddy if you would watch the two YouTube videos I've posted above. :)I already watched part 2, thinking it was part 1. I'll watch part 1 now.

EDIT: Finished.

[anticap]

Indeed.

That Parecon is a better way to run a society than markets.

But that was practically an addendum! What about all the devastating criticisms he leveled against markets? You were completely unmoved by them? Really?

That's awfully reminiscent of fundamentalism.


I already watched part 2, thinking it was part 1. I'll watch part 1 now.

EDIT: Finished.

*sigh* Are you going to make me ask for your thoughts every time? I'm glad you watched it, but, sheesh!

If I had to guess, I'd say you're reluctant to discuss these videos because you feel like you've been punched in the ideological gut. How close am I?

[Dermezel]

Dood, it has the word "free" in it, so it has to be free. Just like Fox news is "Fair and Balanced".

[Havet]

So if I understand it correctly, a supermarket is not a market, because "it's a place where you go and get stuff"? Is that it?

[anticap]

So if I understand it correctly, a supermarket is not a market, because "it's a place where you go and get stuff"? Is that it?

No, that's not "it." That's Albert nipping a potential equivocation in the bud. "It" follows. But I gather that you didn't bother to watch "it," probably because "it" shatters your worldview so convincingly that you could sense "it" coming and quickly scrambled for the stop button, lest you might have to actually consider "it" and possibly even accept "it."

[Endomorphian]

What in particular are you trying to argue was a shattering reason for market abolitionism? I was particularly unimpressed to hear markets described as competition against all, only to see it followed up by the suggestion that we have 'negotiation' replace it. ParEcon would still require voluntary participation on part of its user base to be fair.

[Left-Reasoning]

But that was practically an addendum! What about all the devastating criticisms he leveled against markets? You were completely unmoved by them? Really?

He makes some good points. Absolutely.


If I had to guess, I'd say you're reluctant to discuss these videos because you feel like you've been punched in the ideological gut. How close am I?

You are quite accurate.

[Havet]

No, that's not "it." That's Albert nipping a potential equivocation in the bud. "It" follows. But I gather that you didn't bother to watch "it," probably because "it" shatters your worldview so convincingly that you could sense "it" coming and quickly scrambled for the stop button, lest you might have to actually consider "it" and possibly even accept "it."

First of all, the sentence I quoted makes no sense at all, and barely counts as an argument.

Second of all, you make no sense at all with that sentence of yours. You're implying that I didn't watch the video simply because you think it goes against my "fundamentalist principles". Well I did watch it, and found it rather interesting, if not somewhat misleading. I could agree to many of the things said in the video.

Of course, your whole reply was a stupid attempt at evading a discussion by fomenting disagreement. Which begs the question: why talk to someone if you only wish to disagree?

[RebelDog]

Class society is about power and that is what markets are about. Markets are about transferring costs on to others in the shape of workers, the environment, the economically weak. The bigger you are the more you can transfer. You win, many pay.

[Endomorphian]

Class society is about power and that is what markets are about. Markets are about transferring costs on to others in the shape of workers, the environment, the economically weak. The bigger you are the more you can transfer. You win, many pay.

All economic systems impact others and the environment to a negative degree. The quest to eradicate the market can only be accomplished with voluntary efforts against it; anything else is overly intrusive on open exchange.

[gorillafuck]

But that was practically an addendum! What about all the devastating criticisms he leveled against markets? You were completely unmoved by them? Really?

That's awfully reminiscent of fundamentalism.
There's nothing wrong with skepticism.

I've taken a shine to the thought that's extremely prevalent in this section of the site that for a society to function well, it has to be voluntary (that probably makes me a god damned liberal but it strikes me as true), and if a non-market system is superior (which I think it could be), people will not or rarely voluntarily go back to markets.

I don't know much about Micheal Albert but he seems cool from what I've heard.

[anticap]

First of all, the sentence I quoted makes no sense at all, and barely counts as an argument.

It does to me. I think of a market, in the sense of a supermarket, as "a place where you go and get stuff."

Albert wasn't using it as an "argument," he was merely doing like I said before: getting a potential misunderstanding out of the way before he continues. A perfectly reasonable thing to do.


Second of all, you make no sense at all with that sentence of yours.

The sense of it is that there's more to the video than the above. To me, your post appeared to be summing up the entire video as simply that.


You're implying that I didn't watch the video simply because you think it goes against my "fundamentalist principles".

My Spidey-Sense was tingling there, yes. It's not always accurate, but it serves me well in general. Marketarians who are willing to accept arguments against markets, and to concede to the flaws of markets, are extremely rare.

Incidentally, I don't use "market fundamentalist" as a slur. I use it with derision, because I think that they are idiots, but not as a slur. I consider it a perfectly suitable descriptor for someone who believes that laissez-faire markets are a fundamental economic corrective -- that the Invisible Hand will fix everything if we just leave well-enough alone.


Well I did watch it, and found it rather interesting, if not somewhat misleading. I could agree to many of the things said in the video.

I'm glad. :)


Of course, your whole reply was a stupid attempt at evading a discussion by fomenting disagreement.

Not so. It was an attempt to inform you that there was more to the video than what appeared to me to be your summary of it.


Which begs the question: why talk to someone if you only wish to disagree?

I didn't. At least, not just for the sake of it. See above.

P.S. To "beg the question" is to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning (http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html). You shouldn't use it when what you mean is "raise the question." (Be sure to read the "exposure" and "reader response" sections at that link. I concur with the suggestion to simply drop "beg the question" altogether, and use "raise the question" for your above usage, and "circular argument/reasoning" for the fallacy.)


There's nothing wrong with skepticism.

Nope (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1727638&postcount=23).


I've taken a shine to the thought that's extremely prevalent in this section of the site that for a society to function well, it has to be voluntary

I find this comment quite bizarre, since communism is about freeing people from involuntary servitude to capital. These people in IO have no monopoly on that word.

Moreover (and I realize that this is oblique to your usage of the word, but I think it's worth saying anyway, especially here in OI), those who label themselves "Voluntaryists" are wearing blinders. That something be done voluntarily is necessary but not sufficient. There are even market-anarchists who understand that:

xUYw-s1XsUE

[gorillafuck]

I find this comment quite bizarre, since communism is about freeing people from involuntary servitude to capital. These people in IO have no monopoly on that word.
I agree, people are involuntarily subjected to capitalism. That's not the only reason I oppose capitalism but it's one of them.

[Havet]

It does to me. I think of a market, in the sense of a supermarket, as "a place where you go and get stuff."

Well markets are supermarkets. I don't see the point of calling a market "a place where you go and get stuff", but if it helps you visualize better, then fine. But claiming that supermarkets are not markets because "it is a place where you go and get stuff" is wrong.


My Spidey-Sense was tingling there, yes. It's not always accurate, but it serves me well in general. Marketarians who are willing to accept arguments against markets, and to concede to the flaws of markets, are extremely rare.

Well, I agknowledge and accept arguments against capitalist markets.


Incidentally, I don't use "market fundamentalist" as a slur. I use it with derision, because I think that they are idiots, but not as a slur. I consider it a perfectly suitable descriptor for someone who believes that laissez-faire markets are a fundamental economic corrective -- that the Invisible Hand will fix everything if we just leave well-enough alone.

I partially agree/disagree. I think you should also realize that there is an iron fist behind the invisible hand (http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html), in this current society.


P.S. To "beg the question" is to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning (http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html). You shouldn't use it when what you mean is "raise the question." (Be sure to read the "exposure" and "reader response" sections at that link. I concur with the suggestion to simply drop "beg the question" altogether, and use "raise the question" for your above usage, and "circular argument/reasoning" for the fallacy.)



I apologize for the misuse of such accusation, then.