Talk:Philanthrocapitalism
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philanthrocapitalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled by Oliviaorange 2006-11-15
[edit]Who was the first to use the term 'philanthrocapitalism' and in what context? I have begun to explore the sources in the Economist's survey and have wrote the author an inquiry, but have not been able to find this information.
Should be updated
[edit]For Bezos and his ex. Lycurgus (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Doling Back
[edit]Also since this is an article on an element of Capitalism, it should present the viewpoint that its received other, "Socialism", has to 'philanthropy' under Capitalism. That criticism is basically that it is feeding crumbs. If society were run for its own interest instead of that of the Capitalist, then the notion of philanthropy, charities, etc. would simply make no sense, society is already fully about the welfare of the units, each and every one. Just as the frontiers of production are impossible to reach under formulations constrained by the ideology of Capital, so welfare as an afterthought, mitigation, band-aid is obviated under full Socialism, command of the heights by something other than Capital. If society is not organized for the extraction of wealth from the actual producers, then there is no reason for them, the producers to have to give anything back, since they haven't extracted anything needing to be doled back. Even just nationalizing the finance and health industries in the US would allow the elimination of federal, state, and local taxes since the federal budget is smaller than the sum absorbed by those two grifts. So a) under fully transitioned Socialism, there would be no persons who could fill the role that is the subject of the article and b) under Capitalist rule, it adds the insult of doling back to the producers a pittance of their production to the injury of constraining social horizons to the iron rule of private accumulation. Thus from a socialist perspective, "philanthrocapitalism" is an oxymoron, Big Lie, etc. With every value monetized and exchange value having completely subordinated use-value in every sphere, use values that can't be monetized are at the mercy, whim, and largesse of Capital. The question is always how much does it cost and who will pay for it rather than objective concerns about is there sufficient know how and are there enough and is it a right allocation of resources. A(nother) source for the contrary viewpoint is "The New Prophets of Capital", Nichole Aschoff, Verso 2015. Lycurgus (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)