OC Message from the moderator: why should we stop praising wealthy philanthropists ?

Wealthy people are often depicted as example for society, especially when they are financing good causes. Thy're not. Here are a few reasons why.

  1. The way they became wealthy is far from being exemplary, including nepotism, fiscal fraud, exploitation, destruction, and the list goes on.

  2. The amount of money they are giving away to good causes is only a tiny fraction of their wealth.

  3. We shouln't let wealthy people substitute to a role of the state and decide wich cause merit to being financied, our democracy deserves better.

  4. Their so-called philathropy does not remotely compensate the evil of their business model.

Xariphon,

If rich people weren't hoarding functionally all of the world's wealth, we wouldn't need their goddamn charity. They don't deserve praise for pissing into fires they started.

HopeOfTheGunblade,
HopeOfTheGunblade avatar

Don't forget that at least some of this "philanthropy" is just exercising control over the world and dodging taxes with a shiny cladding.

sadreality,

"Some"

HopeOfTheGunblade,
HopeOfTheGunblade avatar

At least some. I'm not prepared to say with confidence that it's 100%.

Maeve,

Weregild that's still guilty, is that what you said?

BolexForSoup, (edited )
BolexForSoup avatar

We shouln't let wealthy people substitute to a role of the state and decide wich cause merit to being financied, our democracy deserves better.

I always bring this up, but people in variably go “wellllll the government is wasteful.” It’s so infuriating. I would rather have money spent by an entity I can influence with my vote. Not the whims of someone who could decide to add or subtract $1 million from something based on whether or not he had his morning coffee.

Maeve,

Or that would feed people, rather than fuel hate speech, which fuels hate and hate crimes.

Maeve,

Or that would feed people, rather than fuel hate speech, which fuels hate and hate crimes.

Ahydul,

They don't give a tiny fraction of their wealth, they are gaining wealth with loop holes and bs.

flipht,

Philanthropy always comes with strings. It is private aid with private judgement.

Mutual aid, on the other hand, is communities supporting themselves.

flipht,

Philanthropy always comes with strings. It is private aid with private judgement.

Mutual aid, on the other hand, is communities supporting themselves.

sadreality,

Peasants need a strong daddy to save them though....

Maeve,

That's not true. Ones that savor leather flavor do.

sadreality,

aint that the majority of gen pop

Lath,

What about wealthy philanthropists who give out most if not all their wealth?

HopeOfTheGunblade,
HopeOfTheGunblade avatar

The people who do that, who do not give it to a foundation that they have control of (IE handing it to themselves) are vanishingly rare.

Lath,

And because of that they deserve to be ignored and placed in the same lot with the rest. Negligible collateral damage, got it.

Zorque,

So basically damage control for all the bullshit they had to pull to become wealthy in the first place?

I'll give them credit for realizing they need to do better... but I'm not throwing them a party for it.

Lath,

How do you know they had to pull bullshit to get there? In a properly working economy, one can get rich by respecting the needs of the workers.

And you should throw them a party. No one is obligated to be kind. Virtues are rare because not everyone can practice them.

Thorned_Rose,
Thorned_Rose avatar

Part of the problem with that though is that to become that wealthy to start with means that someone (or many someones) weren't paid the value of their labour. Capitalism is predicated on making profit from the labour of others and you can't make profit if you're paying the full value of that labour.

Sometimes that's obvious in the form of slavery and exploitation. But many times it's not obvious at all - especially when a wealthy person is born into wealth (which almost all of them are) and they haven't themselves engaged in any exploitive practices - they likelihood is though that someone or more likely multiple people in their ancestry DID create their family wealth through exploitation. Because, again, capitalism cannot function without someone along the way being underpaid for their labour.

Lath,

Have you considered perhaps that people can be paid fairly for their labour, while someone else can overpay for the fruits of their labour? That is also capitalism, isn't it?

Dumbass consumers pay for brand and recognition. The materials used are the same and the labour is the same, but because one brand is more famous than the other, the resulting prices are highly different.
Should the workers be paid differently simply because the brand they work for is more popular?
Is it fair towards the workers in another company who do the exact same thing?

You might say that famous brands exploit cheap labour and slaver-like conditions and it is very true. But that is not in question here.

Can companies get rich by respecting the labour of their workers? Yes they can because the value of labour doesn't equate the value of the product being sold.

amio,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • Thorned_Rose,
    Thorned_Rose avatar

    Maybe from the number of people making posts to the Good News community that's 'X Philanthropist donates X millions to X". It's not really good news since most philanthropy is bullshit.

    Maeve,

    "The truth will set you free - but first it will piss you off." Gloria Steinam

    Binthinkin,

    Based.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • goodnews
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • ethstaker
  • magazineikmin
  • cubers
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • InstantRegret
  • slotface
  • osvaldo12
  • kavyap
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • megavids
  • everett
  • tacticalgear
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • ngwrru68w68
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Leos
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines