The Impossibility of Capitalist Charity - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15142025
Forward: Capitalism is a system where « the profit motive » takes precedence over all other concerns. Even when charity happens, it is always with the intent of making more money for the charity-provider. The Green Revolution of the 60s and 70s, as well as the Right to Protect of our day, both demonstrate the application of this principle. As do the many “Foundations” that scour the earth in search of tax evasion opportunities and hidden profit-scams.

Image

Imagine a capitalist comes across a man having a heart attack in a public park – a park that hasn’t been converted into a golf course yet...

The first thing that the capitalist notices is that the man is well dressed, and his wallet seems to be visible in the shadows of his pockets.

Seeing potential money in the victim, the capitalist leans down and begins to practice CPR in order to revive the victim. This makes all the passers-by think that he is there to do something life-saving for another person. Charity!

Refusing the help of other people and asking them to keep a distance from the victim (for safety reasons, of course), the capitalist then proceeds to strip the victim of all his jewellery, money and credit cards. While, every once in a while, performing the compressions of CPR.

Image

If the victim comes through, the capitalist calls an ambulance and sends him off on his way, knowing that his panic state means that the victim will not notice that all his jewellery and money are missing. By the time the victime of charity-pick-pocketing discovers this, our capitalist has changed his clothing, left no trace, and is off looking for other people to « help.»

When the capitalist comes upon a poor person having a heart attack, someone who looks like they have no money or jewellery, he just walks on by and allows this « victim » to die. The capitalist will even change sides of the street to avoid this « distraction » in order to keep his eyes peeled for rich unconscious people to « help. »

As he evolves ("progress"), the capitalist even learns how to provoke heart attacks in rich victims in order to pick-pocket them during CPR. Again and again.

soundtrack
#15142809
Wellsy wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthrocapitalism

"The term was coined by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green in their book Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save The World. The book was endorsed by Bill Clinton..."
...

The Green Revolution is a good example of how capitalism simply CANNOT create a sharing or ecologically sane society, because it can't help anyone else. It MUST always profit from others. From externalities.

It was sold as a way for capitalist countries to "save the third world" (which it had been colonizing and trashing for resources for centuries when this program was introduced).

"Both the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation were heavily involved," according to the wiki article.

And the results of this capitalist "saving" of the third world was over-crowded cities full of ex-farmers, a dependence on international trade and high tech products like chemical fertilizers, mechanical equipment, and GMO seeds, bankruptcy for small farmers, and DEBT towards those same "helpful" banksters and trust funds that "did all that philanthropy."

African farmers are forced now to buy expensive products, often patented by Western companies, or risk agri collapse. These products have a similar "result" as steroids do on human muscle tissue.

Image

So rather than helping Africa (and other countries) to develop their own agriculatural practices, the Rich Countries sold a skinny man steroids. And now the skinny man could die if he can't pay for his steroids.

Capitalism is ALWAYS profit-based, and when it tries to "do charity," it does so very publically (to market itself as moral) and sneakily finds ways to make a bigger profit than ever - at the expense of those who were *helped.*

TOXIC EFFECTS of GREEN REVOLUTION
#15142817

The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism – are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.

Under Socialism all this will, of course, be altered. There will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger-pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings. The security of society will not depend, as it does now, on the state of the weather. If a frost comes we shall not have a hundred thousand men out of work, tramping about the streets in a state of disgusting misery, or whining to their neighbours for alms, or crowding round the doors of loathsome shelters to try and secure a hunch of bread and a night’s unclean lodging. Each member of the society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society, and if a frost comes no one will practically be anything the worse.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/
#15143117
Let every country switch to communism, then. It's a surefire way to make sure we no longer ruin African nations' ecomomies by shipping them food.
#15143120
Regular people, and people with organizations, give to charity out of the goodness of their heart. Walmart will ask me if I want to donate to some charity when I'm at the cashier, then will flaunt this money at the end of the year to show how much they raised for charity and how such a giving corporation they are, and this is simply for PR reasons to cover for the fact that they are scum-sucking money-whores.
#15143202
Oscar Wilde via ckaihatsu wrote:...the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good...


the people who try to do most good

For me, the word "try" is extremely important to a controlling elite (CE).

If a CE lies to their lower classes, and cut off their natural social interactions, the CE can implant *trying to do good* strategies that will never help the lower classes.

The CE teach their dogs to mistrust other dogs, especially the unleashed ones.

libertasbella wrote:Let every country switch to communism, then. It's a surefire way to make sure we no longer ruin African nations' ecomomies by shipping them food.

Here, "trying to do good" probably means shipping subsidized GMO food products to Africa in ways that crush local farming in Africa. Agribusiness told us "how to do good" when it comes to food aid.
#15143219
libertasbella wrote:
Let every country switch to communism, then. It's a surefire way to make sure we no longer ruin African nations' ecomomies by shipping them food.



'Eco-mommies' -- ? Surely *they'll* be the ones who can stop global warming -- ! (grin)

You have an anarchist symbol in your avatar, but you're arguing on behalf of African nations' *economies*, and not for African people *themselves*.

Localist production, as for agriculture, is not really a *solution* because smaller-scale production is also necessarily *more expensive* for the consumer, compared to the 'food dumping' that's being decried here. I don't mean to defend imperialism, but we do have to distinguish between geopolitics and the best interests of the *consumer*, economically.

UM can critique Walmart's corporate practices, but, for consumers, it's arguably the only game in town because of its huge presence in the (consumer goods) market, and near-monolithic position to pick-and-choose from among a multitude of vendors, driving down prices (based, ultimately, on the hyper-exploitation of Chinese labor).

'Switching to communism', presumably multinationally, would mean that money would no longer be valid or used -- agricultural exporting would then be done to satisfy *human need*, and especially to remedy the *undersupply* of food to impoverished Third-World-type areas due to lack of capitalist money-making opportunities there.
#15144105
Capitalism does not require that no profits be spent towards charitable ends. And no definition out there supports your ridiculous agitprop.

Moreover, even if BUSINESSES had to avoid charitable spending (which they don't), there is nothing that prevents private individuals from doing so.

You post is socialist nonsense parading as discourse.
#15144166
Wolvenbear wrote:Capitalism does not require that no profits be spent towards charitable ends. And no definition out there supports your ridiculous agitprop.


Milton Friedman put the impossibility of capitalist charity into his own words:

The Friedman Doctrine

wiki wrote:The Friedman doctrine, also called shareholder theory or stockholder theory, is a normative theory of business ethics advanced by economist Milton Friedman which holds that a firm's main responsibility is to its shareholders.[1]

This shareholder primacy approach views shareholders as the economic engine of the organization and the only group to which the firm is socially responsible.

...The Friedman doctrine has been very influential in the corporate world but has also attracted criticism.


But this "success-generating ideology" of putting profit on a pedestal is nothing new, and wasn't new when Milton Friedman was born, or when he tried to package this kind of anti-others parasitism as "wisdom."

Counterpunch wrote:The corporation may well mean corpus or a body of people, yet these are not ordinary people just as corporations are not ordinary organisations. Historically, the archetype of an evil corporation remains the East India Company tasked to exploit British colonies and most the people who lived there. Such an old corporation was very much seen as an evil corporation dedicated to what one of the master chefs of neoliberalism once called the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits – in whatever way possible.

The East India Company existed 400 years ago, and - like the Hudson Bay Company - committed genocide, ethnic-cleansing, and drove many animals to extinction... in order to maximize profits - their only real goal.

And with their millions of profits from exterminating other cultures and species, some of them may have dropped a few pennies into the hats of their victims. But robbing people and giving them back a fraction of what you've stolen, is hardly charity. It's FAKE CHARITY and it's usually done in a very public way (Look how charitable I am!) so as to invite trust from future victims.
#15144380
Wolvenbear wrote:
Capitalism does not require that no profits be spent towards charitable ends. And no definition out there supports your ridiculous agitprop.

Moreover, even if BUSINESSES had to avoid charitable spending (which they don't), there is nothing that prevents private individuals from doing so.

You post is socialist nonsense parading as discourse.



If charity is such hot shit then why hasn't it solved the world's ills by now? Surely holiday goodwill all year 'round would be sufficient, according to what you're saying.

And, socialism isn't about casual voluntary individualist 'altruism' -- it's about changing how *goods and services* are produced, to where private ownership won't be necessary for social production anymore.

Consider:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



And:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image
#15144975
ckaihatsu wrote:If charity is such hot shit then why hasn't it solved the world's ills by now? Surely holiday goodwill all year 'round would be sufficient, according to what you're saying.


While I hate to call my opponents stupid, the argument that charity doesn't work because it hasn't fixed all of the world's ills is stupid. Of course, you would be immediately offended if I pointed out that none of your solutions work by this criteria either. Because all of your solutions have not only not solved the problems you complain about, they have made them worse.

But, this is what happens when you refuse to accept reality. Charity cannot force a man to work, nor can socialism. Because you cannot address the real world, you are incapable of discussing real world events.
#15144976
QatzelOk wrote:Milton Friedman put the impossibility of capitalist charity into his own words:


Sigh. He most certainly did NOT. He said that corporate charity was undesirable, because corporations do not have their own money. Everything they have is their creditors and shareholders. By contrast, he said that individual charity was not only desirable, but was closely tied to economic success:

“The period of unrestrained, rugged individualism was a period when the modern type of nonprofit community hospital was first established and developed. It was the period of the Carnegie Libraries and their spread through the philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie. It was the period when so many colleges were founded throughout the country. It was the period of the founding of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the spread of foreign missions. There was no income tax, no deductibility of contributions, so what people spent on charity came out of their pocket and not, as now, largely out of taxes they would otherwise pay. And yet, in every aspect of private charitable activity, it was a boom period.”

Far from saying capitalist charity was "impossible", he said it was "inevitable". But it's cool, misquote Friedman.

The East India Company existed 400 years ago, and - like the Hudson Bay Company - committed genocide, ethnic-cleansing, and drove many animals to extinction... in order to maximize profits - their only real goal.


All sorts of attrocities have been committed by government. The failures of the United States, which probably has the best track record in the world, make the worst 50 corporate offenders pale. Of course, we could point out that the East India Company was essentially an arm of government...but I doubt that goes anywhere you want.

And with their millions of profits from exterminating other cultures and species, some of them may have dropped a few pennies into the hats of their victims. But robbing people and giving them back a fraction of what you've stolen, is hardly charity. It's FAKE CHARITY and it's usually done in a very public way (Look how charitable I am!) so as to invite trust from future victims.


Few companies rob their customers. So, yet again, you are arguing fantasy, not reality.
#15145135
Wolvenbear wrote:
While I hate to call my opponents stupid, the argument that charity doesn't work because it hasn't fixed all of the world's ills is stupid. Of course, you would be immediately offended if I pointed out that none of your solutions work by this criteria either. Because all of your solutions have not only not solved the problems you complain about, they have made them worse.

But, this is what happens when you refuse to accept reality. Charity cannot force a man to work, nor can socialism. Because you cannot address the real world, you are incapable of discussing real world events.



So the point should be to get people to *work* -- ?

You consider that to be the point of charity -- ?

*My* solutions are right here, if you'd like to take a look -- the whole solution-concept is based on *fully automated* *industrial machinery*, so that *everyone* can benefit from industrial mass production, potentially with *no one* having to work whatsoever.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
#15145183
I've read and refuted your solutions already. You continue to ask foolish questions to pretend your arguments aren't ineffectual nonsense. "I'll pretend I didn't understand your point simply to claim you're an uncaring jerk." You don't know the facts about anything you argue. You can't be bothered to do two seconds research. But you expect to be treated as an equal in the contest of ideas.

Hard pass.
#15145267
Wolvenbear wrote:"I'll pretend I didn't understand your point simply to claim you're an uncaring jerk."

I see what you did with the facts I presented about the Hudson's Bay company and East India company's (among the first multinationals that aren't disguised as "religions").

You responded that "governments are evil."

But the territories that these corporations controlled had no effective governance because... these corporations destroyed the local goverance and customs.

It was another "reset" operation that involved lies and genocide.

Here's a beautiful example that involves the fake charity of capital:

Uncovered Tracks wrote:Between 1871 and 1876, treaties 1 to 7 cleared the western path for the railway’s construction. In treaty negotiations with the Cree on the Saskatchewan plains, the government promised humanitarian aid in times of crises, but 18 months later, in 1876, bison were disappearing.

The starving Cree went to the Indian agent for food. From their lands, the hungry Cree were moved onto reserves to the north. The North West Mounted Police were ordered not to feed any “non-treaty Indians” south of the tracks, Daschuk explained during an interview with Canada’s National Observer. On the reserve, the food provided was substandard. “People were so poor, so malnourished and so poorly dressed, and tuberculosis broke out like at a community-wide level.”

Once the tracks had been laid, the railway allowed for mass settlement of the territories across the country formerly occupied by First Nations.

“Until the railway, the number of settlers was minuscule,” Daschuk said.

The celebrated moment in the driving of the last spike “signalled the end of freedom for First Nations people,” said Daschuk. From that same year until the mid-1930s, the Canadian government imposed an extralegal and little-known policy of segregation called the “pass system,” which prevented First Nations peoples from leaving their reserves without written consent from government officials. ...

So the First Nations and Métis were told that the railroads would bring them food. But instead, it brought foreign settlers brought in to industrialize Western Canada and repress the locals who had been living there for generations.

Today's corporations are the exact same. They promise "goods" but deliver only profits to shareholders. Any charity that interrupts the genocides and ecosystem destruction is purely PR - just like John A MacDonald's promises.

(Ronald McDonald is no better than John A)
#15145327
QatzelOk wrote:I see what you did with the facts I presented about the Hudson's Bay company and East India company's (among the first multinationals that aren't disguised as "religions").

You responded that "governments are evil."


Hmm, that is most certainly NOT what I argued. Arguing that governments have done evil things does not automatically mean all governments are evil. Nice strawman though.

But the territories that these corporations controlled had no effective governance because... these corporations destroyed the local goverance and customs.


This ignores that, at that time, corporations were basically arms of government. The East India Company started after the government gave them letters of marquis (official sanction to commit piracy in the name of the government). And they engaged in naval battles against corporations of foreign governments with British sanction. After they landed in India, they started to take over FOR BRITAIN. Pointing to the EITC and ignoring government involvement shows a lack of understanding, or a disregard for, history.

So the First Nations and Métis were told that the railroads would bring them food. But instead, it brought foreign settlers brought in to industrialize Western Canada and repress the locals who had been living there for generations.


And the people who told them this? Government officials? Wait...

Today's corporations are the exact same. They promise "goods" but deliver only profits to shareholders. Any charity that interrupts the genocides and ecosystem destruction is purely PR - just like John A MacDonald's promises.

(Ronald McDonald is no better than John A)


So after complete historical revisionism, deliberately ignoring that corporations in the past WERE government agents...you then claim that Ronald McDonald is a despot and a killer?

Maybe he'll be nice and spare some make up for you. Because you're a clown.
#15145417
Wolvenbear wrote:
I've read and refuted your solutions already. You continue to ask foolish questions to pretend your arguments aren't ineffectual nonsense. "I'll pretend I didn't understand your point simply to claim you're an uncaring jerk." You don't know the facts about anything you argue. You can't be bothered to do two seconds research. But you expect to be treated as an equal in the contest of ideas.

Hard pass.



Well, you'd rather mischaracterize my politics as being state bureaucratic-elitist *Stalinism*, when I have an actual *feasible alternative* to capitalism all-mapped-out as a model, but you're not bothering to see where I'm coming from.

If you don't want to discuss, that's fine, but then don't put forth your vague, abstract mischaracterizations instead of addressing actual issues. I'm here for the politics, so I don't impugn those I interact with on this board.
#15145465
I never called you a Stalinist. Nor have I recharacterized your ideas. I have simply addressed them as uninformed socialism. This really isn't debatable, as I've defined above.

Your solutions AREN'T feasible, because they refuse to address reality. That you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't help.

If someone came on the scene and said "I know nothing about alcohol, have never studied it, have never dealt with drunks" etc but proposed a solution to alcoholism, he'd be ridiculed as a complete fool. Yet, here, you openly admit you're too lazy to research the topics you talk about, but insist that your solutions to a problem you don't understand are intelligent alternatives.

If you don't understand why people reject them, you have some serious deficits
#15145515
Wolvenbear wrote:...at that time, corporations were basically arms of government...

Um... how about they're the same thing in colonialist constructs like Canada, USA and Israel.

They are both "arms" of an oligarchy.

Here are three examples of the FAKE charity of capitalism to ponder:

1. TUSKEGEE CHARITY

For 40 years (1932 - 72), the CDC and US Public Health Service charitably gave out free top-drawer health care to selected African-American men.

Unknown to them, they were infected with syphillis and then denied any treatment... in order to study side effects of the disease without their knowlege or consent.


2. NESTLÉ CHARITY

Once rich countries had been saturated with baby formula products, Nestlé went after the developing world by dressing up their promotional agents as "nurses" and convincing women in Africa, Asia and Latin America that their natural breast milk was unhealthy and that they could attain"first world" health by switching to expensive formula.

The first formula samples were often given out for free, ensuring mothers would not be able to produce milk themselves after a few months. And Nestlé showed no concern for the lack of infrastructure or money to ensure that their products would be used in a way that wasn't toxic.

Hundreds of thousands of children have grown up unhealthy because these formula products were completely unsuitable and unhealthy for these "markets." Meanwhile, breast milk has been demonstrated to be a much healthier product in all contexts. But money was made.

3. CULT CHARITY

What's worst than stealing more than a billion dollars of healthcare money and giving it to your own cult?

Being pardonned for it in the mass media that serves the people you ripped off.

....


I think a lot of the fake charity of capitalism fits into these three categories.
How to deal with Trump?

Ban everything and everyone.

What you saying Hammond....

The thing with this crisis is the truth has never[…]

Is USA a Plutocracy?

The West used to be ruled by monarchs. The arist[…]

Election 2024 Thread

Why is the GOP still participating in elections? T[…]