Ask a Red III

[Takhisis]

The point is that buying goods and services that provide power, prestige and security is demand generation.

No, that's demand. Going out to buy stuff is demand.

 

[Monsterzuma]

No, that's demand. Going out to buy stuff is demand.

which part of "buying goods and services" did you miss in that quote?

 

[aelf]

That is a semantic issue. If you're so insistent on getting hung up on words why don't I instead say "the capitalist's actions have the effect of philanthropy". My argument stands all the same.

And semantics is rather important here, since you clearly intended to say "philanthropy" for specific reasons. If all you're saying is that it has "the effect of philanthropy", then why not just say it is "beneficial" or "good"? Why say "philanthropy" so that you can enjoy the good connotations of the word while trying to avoid its implications that don't fit your agenda?

 

[Traitorfish]

How can philanthropy be an effect, anyway? Literally, at least, it denotes a "love of other people", an orientation on the part of the philanthropist rather than a state of affairs that he brings about.

 

[Tahuti]

How can philanthropy be an effect, anyway? Literally, at least, it denotes a "love of other people", an orientation on the part of the philanthropist rather than a state of affairs that he brings about.

Literally speaking yes. Factually speaking, not always no. Someone who donates a lot of money - and kills people - would often be called a philanthropist anyway simple because that person is an important benefactor to "charities".

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Literally speaking yes. Factually speaking, not always no. Someone who donates a lot of money - and kills people - would often be called a philanthropist anyway simple because that person is an important benefactor to "charities".

One could easily gather that he hated the people he killed and loves the ones he helps. But for the capitalist to meet that criteria of disjunction, he would have to both love and hate the society that he fleeces/donates to. Giving back with one hand what you just took with the other does not a philanthropist make.

 

[aelf]

Literally speaking yes. Factually speaking, not always no. Someone who donates a lot of money - and kills people - would often be called a philanthropist anyway simple because that person is an important benefactor to "charities".

Even then, the label 'philanthropist' is still tied to the acts that are considered to be acts of philanthropy (which are typically associated with the right intentions - it's unlikely that a certain donation to charity would be considered an act of philanthropy if it was known to be done in order to, for example, help cover up someone's crimes). Merely doing beneficial things don't, in our current understanding, automatically constitute philanthropy.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think Monsterzuma needs to clarify why the capitalist's supposed philanthropy is such, but the same actions by everyone else in society are not. Because no one is denying that his actions as opposed to his non-actions have a positive benefit (though I did previously demonstrate that any possible action will have good repercussions, or what I'm now calling the "Reluctant Philanthropist Principle") for other people, but rather whether that action deserves to be called "philanthropy,' or whether it is useful to do so.

 

[Traitorfish]

To skip past the clouded definitions for a moment, this is a pretty good critique of capitalist philanthropy in contemporary society:


Link to video.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes I was trying to translates that into useful language for him. Oh well, trump card!

 

[Takhisis]

Speaking of farce, the IMF experimented here in Argentina with convertibility (pegging the Argentine peso to the US dollar no matter what, in effect dollarising the Argentine economy) and bankrolling everything with millions and millions (eventually billions) in 'easy' loans, all in the name of the Almighty Trickle-Down. Guess how they are trying to solve the European crisis?

 

[Monsterzuma]

Though I regard him as more of a comedian than a serious thinker I'm quite familiar with Zizek's views on the issue and used his "chocolate laxative philanthropy" phrase jocularly in one recent thread. But the truth is, for all the creative thinking going on on the left, has a superior alternative to it even been devised? The problem where philanthropy is concerned is stimulating it, even if that means turning it into something it is not.

Here's a radical theory: instead of having people give to those in need of their own accord, we let them first give the resources and THEN, when the people in need are standing on their own feet and capable of fending for themselves, we allow the "givers" to demand their rightful compensation for their prior help. Does that sound good? It's what the loanable funds market offers. It is what investment is all about. And it doesn't even require any complex, top-down redistribution schemes.

 

[Takhisis]

That wouldn't be philantropic.

 

[Traitorfish]

Though I regard him as more of a comedian than a serious thinker I'm quite familiar with Zizek's views on the issue and used his "chocolate laxative philanthropy" phrase jocularly in one recent thread. But the truth is, for all the creative thinking going on on the left, has a superior alternative to it even been devised?

Meh, utopianism is for suckers.

 

[Takhisis]

hey Monsterzuma, I've just realised: your post is exactly why capitalism isn't philantropic. Nothing is done in the spirit of helping others according to your scheme, only in the spirit of profits. You even help someone only if they will be able to repay you.

 

[Monsterzuma]

hey Monsterzuma, I've just realised: your post is exactly why capitalism isn't philantropic. Nothing is done in the spirit of helping others according to your scheme, only in the spirit of profits. You even help someone only if they will be able to repay you.

I didn't claim it was philanthropic. I just said that the only exception to Say's Law Marx purported to have uncovered was one in which the effect was that of philanthropy.

 

[Traitorfish]

And yet again I'm forced to ask how philanthropy can be considered an effect. It doesn't just mean "net positive outcome", or at least not in any outcome that I've ever heard.

 

[Monsterzuma]

If the capitalist understands the effect of his action and still undertakes it, his intentions are philanthropic. If this sounds dubious it's because Marx also neglects to explain why it would happen, given that the capitalist has no incentive to behave that way. Which makes the complaint that economies should even be demand constrained as a result of the complication pointed out by Marx even more dubious by proxy.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Meh, utopianism is for suckers.

I love you.

 

[Hygro]

So, let's talk the next stage of history and Marxian thought:

Is capital planting the seeds for its own self destruction, or is it planting the seeds for our self destruction?