Great Philanthropists or Producers of Slaves

Yesterday, I read Fortune magazine’s story The $600 billion challenge, which provides this opening summation of what the article purports to inform us of.

Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett are asking the nation’s billionaires to pledge to give at least half their net worth to charity, in their lifetimes or at death. If their campaign succeeds, it could change the face of philanthropy.

Within the article itself, we read this.

...The ideas advanced included national recognition of great philanthropists (presidential medals, for example),..

Now, it is none of my business what the exceptionally wealthy, or the poorest dirt farmers for that matter, do with their money, it is their money, not my money, but the idea of the wealthy patting themselves on the back, or being recognized with presidential medals, for their altruistically “pledged” benevolence incorrectly deduces that massive charitable donations will somehow benefit the impoverished.

Do not misunderstand me.  Individual acts of charity, altruism, can provide tangible benefits to an individual in distress, but charities, in large part, simply perpetuate poverty, keeping the impoverished impoverished and enslaved, and this assertion is supported by some interesting and diverse individuals.

A quote from Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus.

“Charity is not the answer to poverty,” Yunus wrote earlier this year. “It only helps poverty to continue. It creates dependency and takes away the individual’s initiative to break through the wall of poverty.”

And this quote from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim.

“Our concept is more to accomplish and solve things, rather than giving; that is, not going around like Santa Claus,” said Slim, as he cracked jokes, smoked a cigar and outlined business plans at a rare news conferences. “Poverty isn’t solved with donations.”

Bernard Shaw, who I am no fan of, also has characters from his play Major Barbara address the relationship between charity and poverty.  Major Barbara’s father, Mr. Undershaft, who is an arms manufacturer, states that poverty is a “crime,” enlarging on this thought with these words.

But there are millions of poor people, abject people, dirty people, ill-fed, ill-clothed people.  They poison us morally and physically; they kill the happiness of society; they force us to do away with our own liberties…

Poverty and slavery have stood up for centuries to your sermons and leading articles;...

Emma Goldman also speaks to this in her essay The Modern Drama - A Powerful Disseminator of Radical Thought.

Poverty also necessitates dependency, charitable organizations, institutions that thrive off the very thing they are trying to destroy.

If this billionaire club wants to do something productive with all their wealth, they should be creating new businesses and opportunities, rather than funding charities which only temporarily assuage the travails of the impoverished.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/17 at 07:25 AM

  1. “If this billionaire club wants to do something productive with all their wealth, they should be creating new businesses and opportunities, rather than funding charities which only temporarily assuage the travails of the impoverished.”

    You are so RIGHT.  Temporary will not float the boat.

    Posted by Yabu  on  06/17  at  08:39 AM

  2. ”...it is a wicked dollar, which by and by I shall have the manhood to withhold.”

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/17  at  11:18 AM

  3. Kip,

    I should have posted that line from Emerson myself.  Thanks.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/17  at  11:57 AM

  4. “Bernard Shaw, who I am no fan of,”
    Whom. If you can replace “who” with “him” (“I am no fan of him.”), it’s whom. It should probably as be “of whom I am no fan” but that’s too much like the joke about the Arkie at Harvard who asks “Could you tell me where the library is at?” “At Harvard, we don’t end our sentences with prepositions.” “OK, where’s the library at, ASSHOLE?”

    Otherwise, nice work.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/17  at  03:32 PM

  5. It depends on how the charity disburses the resources.  There are not a few organizations that don’t give traditional handouts, but instead try to identify “grantees” (in the usual lingo) to whom they give money or capital assets to begin a new enterprise or expand an existing enterprise, usually in “Third World” countries.  This may be on the order of giving farmers more goats or cattle; or giving money to a village woman so she can start selling a hand made craft in the nearby towns.

    IOW, they are recognizing the strength of the rule “teach a man to fish…” (Hmm, I would think you’d be the last person who needs that line quoted at them smile )

    There are still plenty of organizations that are content to hand out money or supplies, of course; and I’ve encountered at least one group, ostensibly devoted to ending hunger, that thinks it’s a legitimate use of philanthropy to teach US inner city folks how to better navigate the welfare bureaucracy and get what’s “coming to them”.  They got dropped from my list of possibilities real fast.

    And that says nothing about organizations (again, mostly operating in the Third World) that do things like build water supply systems for villages, provide medical care, etc.

    So it depends on how that philanthropy is channeled, and who benefits, and the only way to know is to investigate each NGO/charity on its own.

    Posted by kishnevi  on  06/17  at  04:22 PM

  6. Jeffrey,

    It seems I’m prone to misusing “who” and “whom,” but I shall try and utilize the simple rule you have provided to correct this deficiency.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/21  at  09:45 AM

  7. kishnevi,

    So it depends on how that philanthropy is channeled, and who benefits, and the only way to know is to investigate each NGO/charity on its own.

    That’s true, kishnevi, but I still think the majority of charitable organizations are not teaching a man to fish, but rather teaching a man to be dependent.

    I still say if the wealthy applied their charitable inclinations to creating new businesses, it would produce better opportunities and results in minimizing poverty.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/21  at  09:52 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Great Schemes Quote

Previous entry: Now That's a Ride

<< Back to main