Itâs not new information, though. Itâs misinformation.
First, itâs not that new.
Did you know that there was a time in U.S. historyâwhich is by definition recent historyâwhen a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, thatâs the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, âSo what does this do for everyone else?â
The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What youâre calling âbenevolent capitalismâ isnât benevolent at all. Itâs a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract fromânot even paper over or stick a band-aid onâthe problems capitalism creates. And the fact that youâre here championing it as âbenevolent capitalismâ is a sign of how ell itâs working.
Letâs take Toms, as one example. The shoe thatâs a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who canât afford them.
Thatâs not genuine benevolence. Thatâs selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.
(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)
The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. Itâs no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.
Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?
Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. Theyâll tell you they canât afford it, that itâs not possible, that consumers wonât stand for it, that youâll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.
But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.
So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but theyâre not willing to pay their workers more?
Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.
âCharityâ is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. âCharityâ is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and youâre setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.
On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, youâre creating an expectation. Youâre admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and itâs hard to walk that back.
Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, theyâre smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.
So companies will do charitable âbuy one, give oneâ and marketing âbuy one, get oneâ even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they wonât do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.
Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is âHow much money can we make?â and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.
But thereâs nothing benevolent about throwing a scrap of bread to someone whoâs starving in a ditch because you ran them out of their home in the first place.
