3 ms·
He uses his wealth to affect social policies in third-world countries. That is by definition anti-democratic. It’s corporate colonialism, plain and simple.
by ceilingcorner 5y ago
He uses his wealth to affect social policies in third-world countries. That is by definition anti-democratic. It’s corporate colonialism, plain and simple.
- rich_sasha 5y agoBut what would be better? Give that money to another undemocratic org, like WHO or UN, and let them affect policies of other countries? Also let’s not exaggerate with “colonialism”, that is where purpose is overtly exploitation. Is that the case here? Was the Marshall fund colonialism?
- ceilingcorner 5y agoI don’t know, anything other than using your wealth to shape third-world countries to fit your own ideological agenda? Hell, even redistributing his stocks and wealth to Microsoft employees would be less destructive. It’s colonialism because it’s forcing Western values on to people that are too powerless to fight it. Accept our ideas of how society should be constructed, or else. The Marshall Plan was absolutely used to reshape countries according to American desires. However, this was largely intra-Western, so the situation isn’t quite the same as in India or Africa.