• Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If the state can incentivize charity to negate the effects of capitalist naked self interest, why can’t the state just… help directly?

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Your meme specifies: In a truly free market, voluntary charity would help the poor - indeed that’s a fact.

              The poor are the product of the free market operating. The free market is what’s creating the problem in the first place.

              So you’re saying philanthropists cause cancer in children? And that’s why they donate to children’s cancer hospitals…?

              Now that’s just a straw man you’re using to derail the argument.

              His arguments countered.

              🤣

              • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                A strawman that may actually be true, given how much poison the rich have dumped into our environment.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              So you’re saying philanthropists cause cancer in children?

              That’s quite possible, rich businesses have a quite extensive history of poisoning environment.

        • Kras Mazov@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          They donate not because of the goodness in their heart, but because they get tax cuts from it.

          Furthermore, what does donation really accomplish when:

          1. People are still suffering, regardless of how many charities there are and how much money they get;

          2. Those wealthy donors are the reason people continue poor since they are only wealthy by exploiting other people’s work.

          Charities shouldn’t need to exist in the first place.

            • Kras Mazov@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              People will always suffer. There’s a multitude of variables as to why people around the world suffer.

              Let’s take a step back. Why does the majority of people suffer under capitalism? Because they have to live in a world where they don’t get good, free healthcare, don’t have a right to a house, don’t earn nearly enough to live comfortably, don’t have enough vacation, can’t afford to take a trip, don’t have time to enjoy their lives, are alienated from their work, have shitty jobs, work too much, etc, etc, etc.

              That creates a necessity for charities for all the basic stuff everyone should have, but doesn’t currently have. If we give free good healthcare for everyone, the need for charities to threat people disappears. If we give everyone a home, the need for charities for homeless people, disappear.

              Okay, so how about they don’t donate to charities… no more technical advancement in medicine, so people can be poor and die from disease.

              What??? You do know that most breakthrough advancements doesn’t come from the private initiative right? It comes mainly from public, government expending, into research. This idea that private entities advance society is just a liberal propaganda lie that is peddled to us all the time since birth.

              Charities isn’t something you enforce or eliminate. It is a free choice to give. Mandate it and you’re just legalizing theft by the authority.

              I’m not talking about making charities illegal, I, like every other communist in the world, am talking about solving the issue at it’s roots, eliminating capitalism, and that requires eliminating exploitation through labor and eliminating the rich and insanely wealthy as a class.

        • jdeath@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          this isn’t reddit homie, you don’t have to argue with everyone. if you didn’t like the meme keep scrolling yknow?

    • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      So… wtf is the problem? They’re donating. Why aren’t you happy?

      It’s another way billionaires are taking away power from the common people. They are donating money and reducing their taxes by doing so. What it effectively means is that instead of the democratically elected government deciding on what causes that money is spent on, the billionaires get to decide instead.

        • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          More like billionaires donating ‘charities’ that push a certain agenda, e.g. the NRA, instead paying taxes that can be spent on things likje public schools or libraries.

          Or they just create their own ‘charity’ that supports whatever political goals they have.

            • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The problem is that the billionaires get to decide how the money is spent, instead of ‘we the people’. You are basically giving them control over how that tax money is used.