Capitalist Philantropy

[Dóchas]

i wasnt sure if this should go in OI or politics or theory so i just put it here.

i was reading recently about capitalist philantropy and from what i understand it is that the real capitalist of the world eg. Bill Gates, feels that it is their responsability to help out those less fortunate. i decided to go into this in more detail and couldnt find it as an actual belief but it is taken up by some capitalists. in the link below it shows richard branson talking about it (after claiming that communism has failed and that capitalism has been proven to work).

http://triumphantevents.co.uk/blog/2007/10/ted-talks-richard-branson-life.php

i was just wondering what you guy thought about this? personally i think it is a publicity stunt but some of them are actually doing good so im not too sure.

EDIT: i dont think the video is working but here are some "capitalist philantropists"

http://www.globalenvision.org/library/12/122

[Os Cangaceiros]

Some rich people are really serious about philanthropy. John D. Rockefeller gave away an enormous amount of his personal fortune at the end of his life. Andrew Carnegie spent a lot on various projects, as well.

I've heard that most of today's rich don't give as much in proportion to what they have as in the past, but I don't know if that's true or not.

How do I feel about philanthropy? Well, it's good in the sense that it helps fund things like medicine, but I don't feel that it's some ringing endorsement of or justification for the capitalist system. (Obviously)

[#FF0000]

I don't think it's so much that they think it is their responsibility to give up their money so much as it is just regular old guilt for having so much when others have so little. Then again, we're talking about individuals here, so I'm being a little to broad.

Some philanthropists really think they're helping people. Some, I'm sure, are in it for the publicity (oh hi oprah). Others are looking to offset some guilt. Overall, though, no matter how good their intentions, philanthropy changes very little in any significant way. Sure, it'll feed a bunch of people who would have no food otherwise, which is a good thing and speaks well of the philanthropist no matter what, but it isn't going to get rid of the conditions that made these people go hungry in the first place.

[GracchusBabeuf]

If only philanthropy could solve our problems! Since we have so many rich capitalist bastards all over the world, couldn't their "philanthropy" have solved world poverty, hunger etc by now? The sorry fact remains that the bourgeois have no incentive to be charitable. They can just as easily be non-charitable and get away with it. Noone in our current society would really bother if they did that. As long as they own the means of production, the working classes cannot expect any real justice from the bourgeois, expect for some crumbs they throw occasionally.

[MikeSC]

On the one hand, these people shouldn't have the power over so much resources. Resources being directed to where they're most needed should be the neutral position, rather than something odd to be celebrated. And I don't like the idea of people living or dying based on the whim of some rich guy, who will cease their philanthropy as soon as they have to choose between that and their fleet of Ferraris.

But, in the context of a capitalist system, I guess it's a good thing.

[Dóchas]

ye i agree in terms of the capitalist syatem its probably one of the best things going but it still is wrong just how much wealth and assets that these "philantropists" hold. the power that they hold over all of the people recieving their charity is sickening and i doubt there is anything stopping them from trying to claim their charity back. as i said before i really dont think that they are sincere about their giving of charity and that it is just a plublicity stunt.

[#FF0000]

as i said before i really dont think that they are sincere about their giving of charity and that it is just a plublicity stunt.

I think that's a bit cynical. The rich are people as well. People with unwarranted power and wealth, who will use the state and its armed forces to protect their ill-gotten gains if they need to, making a violent revolution all but inevitable and necessary, but people nonetheless who can relate to others and feel guilt.

[RGacky3]

The rich are people as well. People with unwarranted power and wealth, who will use the state and its armed forces to protect their ill-gotten gains if they need to, making a violent revolution all but inevitable and necessary, but people nonetheless who can relate to others and feel guilt.

excactly, and many feel its their responsibility.

But as was said before, philanthropy is the same as a benevolent dictator, sure he's nice, and he treats the people well, but he should'nt have that power to begin with.

[Dóchas]

I think that's a bit cynical. The rich are people as well. People with unwarranted power and wealth, who will use the state and its armed forces to protect their ill-gotten gains if they need to, making a violent revolution all but inevitable and necessary, but people nonetheless who can relate to others and feel guilt.

ye but what did they do to get there? how many people did they stab in the back and put down to achieve their wealth and status?

[Pawn Power]

To take a line from Barbara Ehrenreich, it is the poor and working people who work for minimum wage and less then livable wages who are the real 'philanthropists.' The give their time, blood, and sweat to those supposedly philanthropic capitalists.

Bourgeois 'philanthropy' is the result of the oppression of working people-- who give everything (i.e. their livilyhoods) to society.

[brigadista]

i wasnt sure if this should go in OI or politics or theory so i just put it here.

i was reading recently about capitalist philantropy and from what i understand it is that the real capitalist of the world eg. Bill Gates, feels that it is their responsability to help out those less fortunate. i decided to go into this in more detail and couldnt find it as an actual belief but it is taken up by some capitalists. in the link below it shows richard branson talking about it (after claiming that communism has failed and that capitalism has been proven to work).

http://triumphantevents.co.uk/blog/2007/10/ted-talks-richard-branson-life.php

i was just wondering what you guy thought about this? personally i think it is a publicity stunt but some of them are actually doing good so im not too sure.

EDIT: i dont think the video is working but here are some "capitalist philantropists"

http://www.globalenvision.org/library/12/122


yeah BIG TAX BREAKS

[Dóchas]

yeah BIG TAX BREAKS

what? :confused:

[brigadista]

tax relief on charitable donations...

[Dóchas]

tax relief on charitable donations...

oh right ye. sorry about that. man im slow today :blushing:

[brigadista]

LOL its late in the day.. have you ever known any capitalist to give their money away without gaining some more!!???

[Dóchas]

LOL its late in the day.. have you ever known any capitalist to give their money away without gaining some more!!???

cant say i have :lol:

[GracchusBabeuf]

This is the man businessmen follow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A):crying:

[Pawn Power]

This is the man businessmen follow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A):crying:

It's not even that Freeman's views are despicable but that the are just false.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's the way that Capitalists and their supporters see to helping the poor. It's like Dickens - he chronicled the horrors of the working class and poor in Industrial Europe, but his assessment wasn't, "Down with a system that produces such misery", his solution was individualistic. If Dicken's were alive today he might write a story about ghosts visiting George Bush and showing him the suffering of the Iraqi people and convince him to change his ways and end the war.

So I think philanthropy can be sincere (I'm Bill Gates and I see suffering in the world, don't know what could really stop it, but I do have a lot of cash that's earning interest faster than I can spend it) or motivated for other reasons (I'm rich and want a legacy/I'm rich and killed everyone in a small town and I need some PR stat!/I'm rich and I want to buy-off the local officials of this small town so I can build a factory that will eventually kill all the workers in it/I'm rich, something needs to be given to the poor before there's a revolution up in here).

The main point is that individual answers can not solve collective problems. If Gates gave all his money away to the poor, it would significantly help many people throughout the world. But in a generation everything would go back to normal because the underlying system that causes inequality and poverty is still in place. So it's like the Christian saying (ironically often evoked to justify not being charitable when charity is so clearly a virtue in Christianity): It's better to teach a man to fish than to give him fish. Except in capitalism the saying would have go something like this: It's better for the fishermen to take over the boat and fish for themselves rather than wait for the fishing company to decide to give the fishermen some leftover fish to eat.

[Jack]

Just giving us back part of what they have stolen.

It's like someone stealing your wallet, returning it, then you see half the money is missing.