Philanthropy

[NewLeft]

What do you think about philanthropy?

My teacher was bashing the occupy movement, she claimed that bankers were good people too and that some of them are also philanthropists. So I replied with basically what Barbara Ehrenreich said: (go to 5:00 mark)

AVScA-l5TX8

She rolled her eyes... :rolleyes:

[ВАЛТЕР]

Philanthropy is like charity. It only gives people the illusion that it is making a serious difference from afar. Look into it however and you will see it really doesn't change much for most of the people at all.

[Stork]

if the rich were generous they would not be rich

[Azraella]

I often describe myself as a confused philanthropist, who seeks to alleviate the ideological quagmire we as a society are prisoners of.

[Apoi_Viitor]

There were nice slave owners too...

[Marxaveli]

John D. Rockefeller was a Philanthropist, but doesn't change the fact he was a capitalist piece of shit. Philanthropy is just a reactionary way of keeping us in pacifist mode. I dont want some greedy capitalists money, for that money belongs to who the fuck knows how many peoples labor that it was leeched from.

[NormalG]

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are philanthropists :closedeyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

Capitalism is reliant upon the rate of profit, in a large part because it determines how much profit may be re-converted to capital. So, you know, they can't be too generous or the economy'll go to shit. In any case, we aren't particularly concerned about the personal characters of bankers and whatnot, but ultimately with the necessary movement of capital; likewise, attacking the Occupy movement as such because one simply disapproves of their rhetoric and ideas about themselves is missing the point a bit.

[Zav]

Philanthropy is great. Thinking that it alone can support the financial needs of the poor is absurd.

Someone needs to do some math to show exactly how far it actually goes.

[RebelDog]

We have all this wealth produced by the working class and a tiny elite is wallowing in cash whilst savage austerity measures are carried out across the world. Philanthrapy is very poor reason to give in order to support this situation. Social welfare is being dismantled whilst billions have been diverted to institutions and private individuals who have massive political power. The masters of the universe in Wall Street give nothing positive to society but take massive reward due to their power. Capitalism, markets, hedge funds, bailouts, currency speculation are all things that have nothing in common with democracy and the welfare of the majority of US citizens. Its not about this or that rich guy gave money to charity. Their corrupt institutions and the entire political structure is rotten and it needs flattened, not held up because this or that rich guy gave money to charity.

[Belleraphone]

I think philanthropy is just super rich CEO's realizing what they're doing is wrong so they're trying to atone for it in some way (obviously not enough.) I really don't think it's about PR because the media always praises the innovation of the rich.

[Stork]

it's like if someone mugged and took £100 from you, but dropped £20 as he/she was running away.

[tobbinator]

Maybe because they had enough in their megafortunes to spare some change...

It's not like the poor are only just surviving on what they earn.

[Aurorus Ruber]

The focus on philanthropy, as I understand it, misses the key point behind the socialist critique of capitalism. The defects and contradictions of capitalism, poverty and exploitation and so forth, reflect problems inherent to capitalism as a system and not merely the actions of any specific capitalist. It makes no difference whether one particular capitalist goes into the boardroom with plans to build housing for the homeless or fill the city lake with sewage or anything in between. Their position in the capitalist mode of production means maximizing surplus value from their workers, exerting authoritarian control over the work place, and so forth. They would still be doing all of that, with all the negative effects that has on society, even if they gave away much of their profit in the form of philanthropy.

For comparison, few people today would defend absolute monarchy on the grounds that some kings treated their subjects relatively well. The problem with such a political system does not rest with the individual character of the monarch but with the fundamentally anti-democratic and oppressive nature of the political system. No matter how nice the ruler acts, they still got their power through inheritance rather than popular election and they still rule by fiat rather than the will of the people.

Furthermore many of the problems that philanthropy purports to address stem from the side effects of capitalism in the first place. The operation of capitalism as a whole generates problems like poverty and unemployment, famines and sweatshops in impoverished non-Western countries, and so forth. Philanthropy merely allows individual capitalists to pat themselves on the back for helping people that the system harmed in the first place. All the while it ignores that they only have the money to donate in the first place because they live atop a system which has dispossessed and exploited the very people they claim to help.

[OHumanista]

Philantropy is like saying we can have "good" masters instead of "bad" masters.But the question is...why should we have masters at all? I cound't care less about what capitalists need to do to stop feeling guilty or whatever they do to try to convince us that they are good to us.
It is as contradictory as those people who believe in a Benevolent Dictatorship or a Benevolent Monarchy.


(yes I met many of these lunatics outside of these red leftist halls, with brilliant ideas such as a paternal and morally good all powerful dictator)

[NewLeft]

Philantropy is like saying we can have "good" masters instead of "bad" masters.But the question is...why should we have masters at all? I cound't care less about what capitalists need to do to stop feeling guilty or whatever they do to try to convince us that they are good to us.
It is as contradictory as those people who believe in a Benevolent Dictatorship or a Benevolent Monarchy.


(yes I met many of these lunatics outside of these red leftist halls, with brilliant ideas such as a paternal and morally good all powerful dictator)

It's kind of like how when you're in a job interview, you have to make your employer feel good.. Make them feel like they're the all mighty one that is granting you the priviledge to work for them.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is like the best tasting shit you will ever taste.

A tool to mislead the working class, that is all really.

[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.