- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I think one of the best legacies of the way capitalism has developed in the US is the strong sense of noblesse oblige that became part of the capitalist culture in the early 1900s. Some of the earliest huge capitalists (Rockefeller, Carnegie) expressed views that are deeply unpleasant to us today, but they also created a culture in which it was simply not socially acceptable to be rich and not to give substantial portions of that money to charity. Because of that culture, we have great institutions of art, education, culture, and analysis that do make the country a better place.
We don't have to agree with how rich people become rich to still agree with and support that culture. I'm in the camp that believes that capitalism is by its very nature going to be unbalanced, and until we come up with something better, wealth imbalance is something that we have to cope with rather than eliminate. Given that, creating and encouraging a culture of philanthropy is valuable and helps turn those riches towards the rest of society.
If you want to encourage such a culture, start by not spitting in people's faces when they say the right things, even if you think they're only saying them for self-serving reasons and even if you don't like how they acquired the money in the first place.
As a side benefit, positive reinforcement of philanthropy regardless of the motive will mean less public speculative mind-reading of people's "real motives" by random pundits who have had no personal interaction with the people in question, which in my book can only be a good thing.
