Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

“‘The world still has plenty of superrich people. Indeed, overall, the superrich are likely to emerge from the crisis in better financial shape than anyone else.’ Therefore, crucially, ‘the reservoir of wealth to fund philanthrocapitalism is still there.’ This self-fulfilling cycle—capitalism creates wealth, and thereby inequality, and thereby the conditions for the rich to spend surplus money on helping the poor, without ever alleviating poverty—dates back (Bishop points out) to the Renaissance, when both capitalism and philanthropy were born.” Charitable giving among the super-rich has one goal, and it isn't to change the world

Philanthropy, he insists, is not an adequate counterbalance to inequality, and can act as a “fig leaf”. “I also don’t believe in this idea that the rich will save us,” he says. “I think we need to reclaim our democracy; arguably we live in a plutocracy”. Like philanthropy, taxation, too, is another fig leaf to foster the idea that private ownership is sacred and capitalists have accumulated wealth legitimately, and that the rich, or at least some of them, think of the nation and give their share. The reclusive rich

 

A liberal “leftish” view, but very informative. It should be noted that The Guardian itself is in philanthropic partnership with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Philanthropy is facade to present a human face of capitalism, mitigating the system’s negative impacts. In fact, it often exasperates the problems it claims to solve or perpetuate the status quo) and it is a state ideological tool (PR) for Westerners to reinforce the belief in their superiority and that they are helping and empowering the Other. In some cases, philanthropy is a tool promote “liberal democracy” and drawing organisations/opposition forces into the orbit of the Western powers, especially the north Atlantic states. The mushrooming of philanthropic organisation in the last two decades has to be seen in the context of the neoliberal form of capitalism. How it benefits the super-rich Related The Problem With Capitalist Philanthropy There’s no Such Thing as Good Philanthropy

What systemic really means

"The dark star behind Brexit, without which it cannot be understood, remains the British people’s unreconciled relationship with the experience of empire. The empire is a huge and complicated subject that, to our enduring collective detriment, is barely taught and is thus also barely known and absorbed into public discourse. This is partly why Sunday was probably the first time that most people outside Bristol will ever have heard of Colston." — Martin Kettle, the Guardian

Capitalist criminality and imperialist philanthropy: the two sides of the same coin Like USAID, Gates Foundation, and others, the aim is to portray the capitalist system as having a "human face, "defender of human rights, propagator of "liberal values," and like NATO, IMF and the World Bank, they are tools of Western imperialist domination through debt, exploitation, plunder and military power. Anyone who opposes this global mission, is labelled "nationalist" and "infected by populism." George Soros

Against Charity

Michael Roberts replies to the Financial Times' "Activist Manifesto" Recent empirical work on the US class division of incomes has been done by Professor Simon Mohun .  Mohun analysed US income tax returns and divided taxpayers into those who could live totally off income from capital (rent, interest and dividends) – the true capitalists, and those who had to work to make a living (wages).  He compared the picture in 1918 with now and found that only 3.8% of taxpayers could be considered capitalists, while 88% were workers in the Marxist definition.  In 2011, only 2% were capitalists and near 84% were workers.  The ‘managerial’ class, ie workers who also had some income from capital (a middle class ?) had grown a little from 8% to 14%, but still not decisive.  Capitalist incomes were 11 times higher on average than workers in 1918, but now they were 22 times larger.  The old slogan of the 1% and the 99% is almost accurate." From communism to activism? ...

A rare use of the word bougreoisie by the Financial Times, without inverted commas. Before 2008 the word 'capitalism' itself was almost absent except among some far left-wingers. The Western ruling class, the corportae media and other defenders of the system see Trump as a liability, but also some other 'excesses' of the system (such as inequality) might threaten the 'credibility' of capitalism. The discreet terror of the American bourgeoisie