1
Marxism & Philanthropy:
A Conflict of Interests
By
Jessica Halsell
Karl Marx and Marxists have held the opinion that constant critical evaluation is key to a successful and progressively improved society. Modern society in the United States, for whatever reasons, frequently attempts to balance its capitalist economy with “altruism” through philanthropy. For the purposes of this paper, philanthropy will be defined as the donation of monetary funds by a small party to specific groups or people for the purpose of charity or financial assistance in efforts such as welfare of research and development believed to have some sort of beneficial outcome. For this reason it seems only appropriate to attempt to define the role of philanthropy from a Marxist standpoint. Being that Marxists have traditionally supported a socialist economy, the concept of philanthropy as defined above is one that theoretically should have no place in society.
Marxists traditionally hold the belief that all value is created by labor. Therefore any product or service has value simply by virtue of the manual labor expended in the creation, procurement, or other action applied to such product or service to render it of value. Because Marxists, following Karl Marx, believe this to be true for all things valuable, they consider it only reasonable and fair that all value should be returned to labor. For a philanthropist to have large sums of expendable money, then, there is the implication that this person has accumulated some wealth in the form of surplus value.
However, if all value is returned to labor, conceivably no person should be in possession of large sums of surplus value. So, the question becomes, How is surplus value created? The traditional Marxist response to this question is: through the exploitation of labor.
In a capitalist economy, such exploitation of labor is what generates the wealth of the capitalist entrepreneur. This is accomplished by paying workers of the entrepreneur’s business fewer wages than his labor, by rights, has earned for him. An oversimplified example might be a laborer works in a factory 10 hours a day; in those 10 hours, he makes 10 widgets. Each widget he makes has a sellable value of 10 monetary units, but the worker receives compensation of 5 monetary units—half the value of his efforts. The other half is appropriated as surplus value by the factory owner and used for overhead costs such as electricity and water bills. Any remaining money is used for advertising, and what value is leftover is either reinvested or spent on the personal pleasures of the capitalist himself. For some such wealthy persons, philanthropic donations are a part of their pleasure-spending, though not always for altruistic ends.
Now, the issue of philanthropy becomes a matter of ethics. For what purposes do people most often donate money? Who benefits from these donations?
James Ozinga queries into the roots of allegedly altruistic behavior in his book Altruism. His chapter on “The Genetic Possibility” attempts to explain altruism and selfishness as genetically inherited behavior. Ozinga defines the two as follows: “Altruism is doing something for another at some cost to oneself. Selfishness is doing something for oneself at some cost to others. The cost to self or to other may be mild or severe’ (Ozinga, 5). However, while Ozinga does remark that altruism and selfishness are mutually exclusive entities, there are frequently occasions where instances of selfishness have led indirectly to serendipitous “altruism” (Ozinga, 91). An example of this might be the economic gain of a nation after a capitalist in that nation emphasizes, via advertising of some sort, the importance of supporting domestic business over foreign for his own personal profit. The effective stimulation of domestic economy then is a byproduct of the selfishness of the self-promoting capitalist (Ozinga, 91).
Similarly, philanthropy has been abused by the wealthy as a form of self-promotion. For most capitalist businesses, philanthropic donations nearly always are paired with ulterior motives. Many large corporations favor highly media-promoted donation ceremonies. Others prefer corporate sponsorship of events geared towards raising money for major health research projects such as cures for AIDS, cancer, and leukemia. By providing advertising and event paraphernalia, both brandishing the company logo, corporations manage to advertise in a highly effective fashion by associating themselves with positive, proactive community care-giving.
The part they hope no one will emphasize is that, by such a large charitable ‘donation,’ a corporation is eligible for a large tax write-off. The corporation thus advertises in a manner most likely to endear potential clients and receives a reward from the government for doing so.
However, it may not be fair to say that all corporations demonstrate a multifaceted form of philanthropy. Some major corporation owners have seen fit to create foundations specifically for the purpose of redistributing their capitalist wealth as they see fit.
Andrew Carnegie, the big man of steel in the early 20th Century (before Stalin) decided to create a foundation before the idea of throwing wads of money at good deeds became popularized. His foundation and that of tycoon J.D. Rockefeller “were much larger than those that preceded them,” (Holcombe, 53). Due to the sheer overpoweringness of those two foundations, other smaller foundations felt compelled to follow in their example. “The adage, ‘Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime,’ describes this general idea well” (Holcombe, 53). His feeling was that people need to be taught self-reliance, not have money thrown at their problems. Carnegie “elaborated his theory of ‘scientific philanthropy,’ a capitalists’s reponse to Marx’s ‘scientific socialism,’ in The Gospel of Wealth (1889), an eloquent testament and a stinging rebuke to many a contemporary foundation executive” (MacDonald, 148). Still, he provided financially, though in ways designed to encourage learning and promote positive behavior. Carnegie’s foundation helped provide for the building of many libraries in its early years (Holcombe, 55) and has sponsored many of “Carnegie’s Heroes”: people who have committed some form of altruistic, heroic action to save another life. The definition of the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission’s hero entails that one enter into this heroic action “knowingly risk[ing] his or her own life to an extraordinary degree while saving or attempting to save the life of another person” (Oliner, 93).
Libraries are wonderful tools for a community, and heroes quite often do not receive their due credit, but should it be the responsibility of a capitalist to educate and honor people? Should the government receive a larger portion of the population’s earnings, rather than a capitalist, it might find itself more capable of these philanthropic efforts. Perhaps Andrew Carnegie had only good intentions…and some keen understanding about a government allocating funds towards projects less of a fringe-benefit nature.
Other mind-bogglingly rich people opt to donate without the ceremony of a foundation. An example may be made of Joan Kroc, widow of the creator of the world-infecting McDonald’s fast food chain. Due to her generosity, friends of hers dubbed her “St. Joan of the Arches” (Montgomery, 3/29/04). McDonald’s is widely considered by Americans to be the place where one works if he is uneducated and/or desperate—and has no other recourse than to seek minimum wage employment with a high physical labor toll. Mrs. Kroc became wealthy through her husband’s capitalist efforts, benefiting immensely from his corporation’s widespread exploitation of labor.
During her life hers was a fairly unrecognized face, so in meeting new people on airplanes and in other public places, she retained much anonymity. Her greatest joy was in surprising strangers with whom she’d held brief, unofficial conference, by having a check for an absurdly large sum unexpectedly mailed to their home. Joan’s final surprise was left in her will when she died last year: the largest single philanthropic donation ever was bequeathed to the Salvation Army in the amount of $1.5 BILLION, making her $200 million contribution to National Public Radio seem puny in comparison, not to mention the other $2 billion divided amongst various other organizations Joan felt deserved her financial support.
The shock value of random donations was a kind of high for Mrs. of Arches, as one can imagine. Yet, with all of the good she provided, there are still some things that provoke me to accuse her of ethical imbalance. Her efforts were in the extreme, and often the persons her donations supported were the same persons exploited by her corporation, helping her to create her wealth in the first place.
Now, thus far philanthropic donations have been made to seem selfish or compensatory at heart. A fair evaluation of most donors would certainly include a nod to those who truly believe they are working in the best interests of society. If James Ozinga is correct about the genetics of altruism and selfishness, then perhaps some smaller scale of philanthropy and greed is inevitable in human society. The main issue seems to be the extreme sinusoidal curve that upper class philanthropy generates. Middle class philanthropists frequently donate funds on a smaller scale and are often more actively involved in volunteerism at the roots of the causes they support. However, the levels of surplus income most middle-class people generate are easily moderated by this lower-scale money-giving, creating far less amplified troughs and crests (although on a percentage scale, are fairly even).
The application of general principles of socialism and communism would suffice to level the playing field. If everyone were relegated or elevated to middle-class standing, donations to poverty would be a moot point. If monies were appropriated, by some measure, fairly by the government for public healthcare, there would be no need to raise money for little girls with leukemia by hosting a walk-a-thon. There would be no need to dump millions of dollars in corporate funds into cancer research centers because the money would theoretically already be provided. Ideally, of course, citizens would be able to decide what research ought to be conducted and how to distribute spending amongst research efforts. What is there left but libraries, heroes, and the arts? Of course, these have been accounted for in previous and present socialist societies, so there seems no need for philanthropy other than as its root meaning—a love of mankind, which certainly has its place in socialism.
Incidentally, there is no dearth of books on ‘How to Donate Money Effectively.’ The shear amount of literature on the subjects of charity and philanthropy is somewhat ironic, given that these books are largely designed for profit by those intending to educate not-for-profit and non-profit association members or contributors. Many of these texts include suggestions for how to identify a need and what the author deems is a guaranteed no-fail way to get the most out of giving away your surplus time and income.
Perhaps these instructions are geared toward the ‘bored wives of rich men’ stereotype criticized by Diana Kendall in The Power of Good Deeds in which she describes the “Implications of Elite Women’s Volunteerism for the Future of U.S. Philanthropy” (Kendall, 171). Kendall discusses the exclusivity of these elitist women’s organizations, remarking that, “As prior studies have found, the philanthropy of the wealthy typically serves to sustain upper-class interests, including the organizations and institutions from which elites derive specific benefits” (Kendall, 172). This is in keeping with previous commentary on corporate philanthropy, however Kendall’s research found that “Similarly, the human welfare services that elite women provide are usually available only to limited numbers and categories of people, such as teenaged mothers or abused children” (Kendall, 172). While no one would likely argue that groups such as teenaged mothers and abused children are worthy of assistance, Kendall feels that the focus on such groups is too limiting and exclusive to provide any extensive benefit for society. Though, perhaps Diana is being myopic by not considering the ‘Elite Women’s’ viewpoint; it is likely that such organizations have a special feeling towards certain groups that speak to their hearts. One may also conceive that limited spending is provided for these causes because only limited funding is available. While they may be elitist, the genuineness of the efforts and restrictions may not be compromised with manipulative and selfish motives.
In the late 1960s, “…Americans now aspired to revolutionize what they believed to be a deeply flawed American society” (MacDonald, 146). According to Heather MacDonald in her commentary on The Billions of Dollars That Made Things Worse, “the results, from the 1960s onward, have been devastating” (MacDonald, 146). She cites the former advocacy of making welfare a right—an action which has facilitated generations of ill-educated families where children have been raised fatherless and dependent upon outside assistance. Other issues that have arisen are reminiscent of the missionary times when New Americans attempted to convert Native Americans to Christianity. MacDonald relates that “poor communities across the country often find their traditional values undermined by foundation-sent ‘community activists’ bearing the latest fashions in diversity…. The net effect is not a more just but a more divided and contentious American society” (MacDonald, 147).
Yet, one is compelled to mention that, if Marxist principles were applied to our nation, a well-designed socialist economy could successfully address the needs of each sort of threatened group in modern society. Such a structure would eliminate, in theory, much of the selectiveness of social assistance programs, thereby improving the status quo.
The aforementioned philanthropists and organizations do not comprise an all-encompassing list of those who feel compelled (for whatever reasons they may have) to lavish their largesse upon the less fortunate. Conceivably, they may suffice for a representative sample of American culture and its prevailing viewpoints regarding philanthropy. A reasonable analysis in Marxist terms gives rise to the conclusion that modern society in the U.S. is unprepared ideologically for conversion to socialism or communism. Support for such a conclusion is abundant in the capitalist ideology that pervades the nation: People generally consider Marxism a thing of the past, a relic often thought to be “great in theory” but impractical and completely dysfunctional due to the natural greed and laziness in others. This is likely a throwback to the anti-communist classes taught in U.S. public schools during the government’s propagandized push to eliminate the dangers of socialism and communism invading the homeland with fanciful, rebellious ideas.
A population of individuals vying against one another (as occurs in capitalism) has been promoted as the most natural way of things. Of course, a disunified population is more politically stable because people develop a defeatist attitude when divided and individualized. Marxism encourages constant criticism of one’s ideas and institutions, which is anathema to a conservative government. Collectively, people, such as an exploited proletariat, are capable of a major uprising that could potentially crush the capitalist dominators of society—and Marxism promotes just such collectivity. Because individuals feel futility in fighting (as in voting), most conform to the ideas that surround them. Perhaps this is why the tradition of marginally effective philanthropy continues. The good nature in people induces them toward acts of generosity; yet this generosity seems disinclined to convert to a more rigorously regimented, government-sponsored form of beneficence for society at-large. In other words, ‘Philanthropy ain’t happening unless I damn well feel like it.’
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grace, Kay Sprinkel, and Alan L. Wendroff; High Impact Philanthropy: How Donors,
Boards, and Nonprofit Organizations Can Transform Communities; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, 2001.
Holcombe, Randall G.; Writing Off Ideas: Taxation, Foundations, and Philanthropy in America; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, 2000.
Kendall, Diana; The Power of Good Deeds: Privileged Women and the Social Reproduction of the Upper Class; Rowman & Littlefied Publishers, Inc.: Maryland, 2002.
MacDonald, Heather; “The Billions of Dollars That Made Things Worse,” Subsection of What Makes Charity Work?, edited by Myron Magnet; Ivan R. Dee, Publisher: Chicago, IL, 2000.
Montgomery, David; “St. Joan of the Arches,” St. Petersburg Times, Floridian Section; March 29, 2004.
Oliner, Samuel R.; Do Unto Others: Extraordinary Acts of Ordinary People; Westview Press: Boulder, CO 2003.
Ozinga, James R.; Altruism; Praeger Publishers: Westport, Connecticut, 1999.
Stevens, Brian; “An Examination of Economic & Ethical Consequences of Corporate Philosophy,” University of South Florida, 2003.