As a recent Wall Street Journal article suggests, the same factors that helped create the billionaires may have also exacerbated social injustice and inequality, malnutrition, and disempowerment for millions of poor people cross India. At the same time, much to my relief, citizen-led social justice movements around the globe, many funded by social change philanthropies, are emerging to challenge the substance, form, and direction of philanthrocapitalism as well as the current, largely unequal systems of trade and global capitalism. Critics of philanthrocapitalism are not really against the use of those funds for the social good, as much as they are opposed to the policymaking and agenda-setting powers that tend to accompany this new global elite. Where is the evidence that philanthrocapitalism works, and are there better ways to achieve urgently needed global social progress? As our world grows ever more interdependent-a fact that global climate change is making clear-communities and social movements across the world are seriously questioning the assumptions that underlie this new version of the “White man’s burden.” The nuance and inherent humility of the social sciences-the realization that development has to do with people, with human and social complexity, with cultural and traditional realities, and their willingness to struggle with the messy and multifaceted aspects of a problem-have no cachet in this metrics-driven, efficiency-seeking, technology-focused approach to social change. Finally, Ramdas thinks that there is philanthropy that tackles the symptoms of poverty, which is bad, and “Social change” philanthropy that tackles the root causes of poverty, which is good. Is the world really that simple? Even if it is, is Ramdas arguing that the poor should be left to watch patiently as their children die of preventable diseases like polio and malaria, while they wait for social change? Hedge fund legend George Soros has been backing social change movements for decades, in the United States and overseas, courting controversy all the way. 3) Let’s talk more about how businesses add or subtract to social value-not through PR-driven corporate social responsibility projects, but through their core business activities. How do we measure this social value, and how do we engage citizens to vote with their wallets-not just as consumers, but as investors, using their savings and investments to promote better business?4) We still need to talk about nonprofit performance and impact. We are excited that the Internet and social media can engage and mobilize “Mass philanthrocapitalism” from ordinary donors.
The ChesterBelloc Mandate: Distributism Vs. Laissez-faire Capitalism
If we really would like to see the full results of totally “Free individuals” working out their own economic activities the least encumbered by law and “Economic controls,” or morality, we need only look at the frequent example of African regimes. Again, if the present day wage earner has time to be with his family, and not working 14 hours a day as he did at one time, it is not due solely to the benevolence of factory owners. Workers do not go about carefree while the benevolent paternal capitalist owner takes all as his own concern. Why should one man make 5 million dollars a year and another working in the same industry be making 15 dollars an hour? If all are involved in the work why should there be such disparity? Co-operatives would be a better solution in general. The governing body in a community is less of “An external body” to the people than is the employer to individual worker and his family. The Communists called this high wage effect a “Labor aristocracy.” It doesn’t change the status of the worker, it only means that there is, for the moment, a worker who is paid less than himself in China. Then where will the worker shop? The wealthy are becoming phenomenally wealthy, but I am not convinced that the working people in general are getting ahead, regardless of the new car in the garage. So “Unnecessary” are the constructs of the modern economy that it required riots and deaths to obtain a normal working day. The Capitalist economic bosses had no problems in the 1930’s working with the Bolsheviks. Six corporate boards controlling all main stream communications media! For Marx the original goal was to simply allow this natural progression and when all was in the hands of a few to take it from them by the force of the many, the famous “Proletariat.” Proletariat was the pejorative term to indicate those who own no productive property, their only “Capital” is their labor to be hired out for hourly wages, and, of course, to produce “Proles” – future workers. What is to be maximized in society is the ability for a man to work productively and not simply to be reduced to a wage-earner, a cog in some multi-national conglomerate, so huge that it makes “Everything.” This was the economic basis for the corporate guilds in the middle ages. These institutions worked for the collective interest of the trade, the division of labor that it entailed, facilitated the relations between the employer and the employee, and oversaw the education/formation necessary for its craft.