5 ms·

One of the best explanations why "philanthropy" and "novel (disrupting), win-win solutions" for systemic problems is highly anti-democratic (and inciting class

by pdkl95 8y ago

One of the best explanations why "philanthropy" and "novel (disrupting), win-win solutions" for systemic problems is highly anti-democratic (and inciting class warfare) is Anand Giridharadas's recent talk[1] at Google[2]. I strongly encourage everyone - especialy anyone employed at Google - to watch it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM [2] Google is the perfect venue for this talk.

kethinov 8y ago
His book on the topic "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is also a fantastic read.
opportune 8y ago
I don't have time to watch this, can anyone summarize?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I heard him on the radio and he pretty much says that a lot of philanthropy and change by the wealthy is done in a way that doesn't challenge their own position. Change is only welcome if doesn't threaten their wealth.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  It's been a while since I've watched it, but my recollection is of his main point is that philanthropy by the winners (like the wealthy) pushes "win win" change that preserves or enhances the mechanisms that allowed those wealthy people to win in the first place. However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need solutions where the existing winners lose in some way. Philanthropy led by the winners carefully avoids that. It's a really great talk, and I recommend you take the time to watch it. I can't do the argument justice.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    > However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need solutions where the existing winners lose in some way. So, basically, the broken window fallacy? I don't doubt that philanthropists act out of their own self interest (as do all rational humans) but forcing them to lose seems like just an extension of a zero-sum game argument where someone has to lose in order for them to win in their philanthropising (or whatever the proper word is).
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      It's not about forcing them to lose, but dismissing all solutions where they don't win. That makes philanthropy more of an exercise in preserving the status quo than a real attempt at solving the problems that it purports to be.
    - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
      Not that I necessarily agree with it (I'm on the fence) but doesn't sound like it. Broken window fallacy is saying "if I destroy your stuff, I'm actually doing society a favour". So, damage to you = benefit to society, which is bunk. This is saying, lets not be led by the nose by people who gain the most from what we are doing - because while it (arguably) helps society a bit, society could overall benefit a lot more from better balanced solutions that aren't stymied by those seeking to reinforce their wealth/power. A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what - which is what we do anyway, middle class already loses when a big company finds a tax loop-hole, to use a trite example.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        > A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what... But this is after tax income that they're just spending however they wish. The same arguments were used in the recent article about the superyachts where people were saying society is broken because someone can actually earn enough money to buy one of those things. I'd much rather have Bill Gates spending his wealth on whatever philanthropic projects he deems worthy than the city taxing me to renovate the baseball stadium down the street "for society".

by pdkl95 8y ago

kethinov 8y ago

His book on the topic "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is also a fantastic read.

opportune 8y ago

I don't have time to watch this, can anyone summarize?

maxxxxx 8y ago
I heard him on the radio and he pretty much says that a lot of philanthropy and change by the wealthy is done in a way that doesn't challenge their own position. Change is only welcome if doesn't threaten their wealth.
CharlesColeman 8y ago
It's been a while since I've watched it, but my recollection is of his main point is that philanthropy by the winners (like the wealthy) pushes "win win" change that preserves or enhances the mechanisms that allowed those wealthy people to win in the first place. However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need solutions where the existing winners lose in some way. Philanthropy led by the winners carefully avoids that. It's a really great talk, and I recommend you take the time to watch it. I can't do the argument justice.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need solutions where the existing winners lose in some way. So, basically, the broken window fallacy? I don't doubt that philanthropists act out of their own self interest (as do all rational humans) but forcing them to lose seems like just an extension of a zero-sum game argument where someone has to lose in order for them to win in their philanthropising (or whatever the proper word is).
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    It's not about forcing them to lose, but dismissing all solutions where they don't win. That makes philanthropy more of an exercise in preserving the status quo than a real attempt at solving the problems that it purports to be.
  - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
    Not that I necessarily agree with it (I'm on the fence) but doesn't sound like it. Broken window fallacy is saying "if I destroy your stuff, I'm actually doing society a favour". So, damage to you = benefit to society, which is bunk. This is saying, lets not be led by the nose by people who gain the most from what we are doing - because while it (arguably) helps society a bit, society could overall benefit a lot more from better balanced solutions that aren't stymied by those seeking to reinforce their wealth/power. A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what - which is what we do anyway, middle class already loses when a big company finds a tax loop-hole, to use a trite example.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      > A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what... But this is after tax income that they're just spending however they wish. The same arguments were used in the recent article about the superyachts where people were saying society is broken because someone can actually earn enough money to buy one of those things. I'd much rather have Bill Gates spending his wealth on whatever philanthropic projects he deems worthy than the city taxing me to renovate the baseball stadium down the street "for society".