Philanthopy is'nt a big deal

[RGacky3]

If your a kid in a playground, and you have ALL the toys, and th rest of the kids have no toys, you can't play with all the toys obviously, so you give away some of the toys you can't play with anyway to some of hte kids you like that have no toys, does that make you a great awesome kid? No probably not, what it makes you is NOT a giant Asshole.

If you have more money than you could ever use, giving a part of it to charity does'nt make you somehow a good person, it makes you not the biggest asshole in the world, its not a sacrifice for those people to give to charity, infact it allows them to CHOOSE what issues they think should be important.

I'm sick of right wingers pointing out how great and nice hte super rich are because athey give a lot to charity, they arn't great and nice, they are juts doing what anyone would do if they had more money than they could use.

Also, it should not be up to them what issues are important enough to fund, it should be the people.

BTW, yes, rich people give more in charity than working class people, because working class people are tyring to survive and rich people have money sitting around doing nothing.

[Nehru]

If your a kid in a playground, and you have ALL the toys, and th rest of the kids have no toys, you can't play with all the toys obviously, so you give away some of the toys you can't play with anyway to some of hte kids you like that have no toys, does that make you a great awesome kid? No probably not, what it makes you is NOT a giant Asshole.

If you have more money than you could ever use, giving a part of it to charity does'nt make you somehow a good person, it makes you not the biggest asshole in the world, its not a sacrifice for those people to give to charity, infact it allows them to CHOOSE what issues they think should be important.

I'm sick of right wingers pointing out how great and nice hte super rich are because athey give a lot to charity, they arn't great and nice, they are juts doing what anyone would do if they had more money than they could use.

Also, it should not be up to them what issues are important enough to fund, it should be the people.

BTW, yes, rich people give more in charity than working class people, because working class people are tyring to survive and rich people have money sitting around doing nothing.

What I hate even more is that workers often praise the rich for their 'goodness' while attacking each other for being selfish and uncaring.:rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Whats even more sick is that a lot of rich peoples "charity" is to things like the heratige foundation, which is basically an investment for class control.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am going to dispute two points here....I have worked in the charity/NGO branch as a fundraiser.

Poorer people give to charities more easilly and percentually a higher part of their yearly income. The rule of thumb is that the less money you have the more easilly you donate your money to charity and share what you have (up to a point offcourse). The wealthier you are the less frequent you donate to charity and the harder it is to get a donation.

The reason rich people pat themselves on the shoulder is because the are, when they donate, able to give large sums of money...not because they donate more frequently. Which is not the case...quite the contrary is true. And not because they donate such a large part of their income...again...quite the contrary is true.

Now the way people donate differs substantially depending on the amount of money they have available. While most poorer people donate to charity through monthly or irregular donations...rich people are more likely to found their own charity or donate in legacy donations or set up trusts to benefit an organisation. Rich people also want something in return for their donations...especially when they are substantial. Poorer people also support more and more diverse organistions. While rich people tend to focus on specific topics or subtopics.

There has been a lot of research in the motivation of people to donate. And what sticks out is that people who have little are more understanding of the need of others and are more willing to lighten the burden for others in any way they can. That is why most volunteers for collections are from poorer sections of society.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Bourgeois philanthropy...

After years spent building a fortune on the backs (and blood and bones) of workers in Pittsburgh, the surrounding coal fields, and elsewhere, Andrew Carnegie sold his company to J.P. Morgan and spent the rest of his life as a "philanthropist." Pittsburgh's public library system was one of the results (for years steel workers and miners who worked for Carnegie refused to enter).

It was basically a bigger version of an earlier scam he and his cohorts carried out. After the poorly constructed expanded dam of the lake he and 50 others built (as their own private fishing resort) collapsed and destroyed the town of Johnstown--killing 2,209 people in the process--Carnegie and co. formed the "Pittsburgh Relief Committee" to rehabilitate his image and avoid real responsibility.

It's a lot like what BP is doing now.. promoting environmentalism after destroying the natural environment.

Fuck the bourgeoisie and it's blood money.

[Judicator]

With the toy analogy the non-sharing "asshole" is only an asshole because he violates social norms. This social norm evidently doesn't extend to rich people and wealth, so it's seen as commendable when they share it.