When billionaires advocate for social change, or adopt green issues, they are not doing so for the public good, but to reinforce an unequal status quo.
The billionaire class, rather than providing solutions for societal problems, are themselves part of the plutocratic system that is generating civilisational dislocation.
Let us dig deeper into this issue.
It is a telling sign of capitalist culture that we look to billionaires as inspirations for meaningful social change. The inequities of our times seem so intransigent that billionaires are presented in the corporate media as agents of public good who will put up their money to solve today’s problems.
Let us consider two typical examples that illustrate this type of naive expectation of billionaire-saviours.
CNN reported in 2014 that billionaire hedge fund tycoon Tom Steyer was funding candidates who were pro-science and in favour of environmental issues to confront the heavily bankrolled and strong Republican candidates who were anti-science, global warming-denialists and generally hostile to green causes.
We can see the results of that effort — in 2016, the United States elected a global warming denier as president.
The other more recent example comes from Truthdig. In July, writer Ilana Novick published a story commending the efforts of George Soros, a supposedly liberal billionaire, and conservative billionaire Charles Koch, in founding a new think tank to oppose the endlessly militaristic policies of successive US governments.
Both billionaires have expressed opposition to US foreign interventions, so what could be wrong about two politically-opposed billionaires teaming up to fight against destructive predatory wars?
It is the height of political naivety to believe that billionaires will change, in any meaningful way, the very system which enabled them to achieve plutocratic status in the first place.
For a start, the ultra-wealthy are hoarding their riches in a vast network of tax havens, out of reach of public regulations, taxation authorities and governmental scrutiny. The billionaire class does its utmost to avoid paying taxes — the latter theoretically intended to subsidise public infrastructure, health care and education for the public.
Taxation, and in particular progressive taxation, is one of the ways that a democratically elected government has — in principle — of raising revenue to fund basic infrastructure. Whether that process is effective is up for debate.
The political efforts of the conservative right and their billionaire supporters is to wage a campaign demonising taxes as an undue burden and push for tax cuts for the already-wealthy.
Of course, taxation should be a matter for debate; that is part and parcel of a democratic process. The corporate billionaires conduct a politically-expedient anti-tax offensive to reduce the tax rates on the ultra-wealthy and shift the discourse of supporting society onto philanthropy.
Deploying their money to influence the political process and buy political allegiances in the halls of government remains out of the public eye – though this corrupting influence of the financial oligarchy is gaining attention.
Ben Brooker, writing in Overland magazine, makes the point that today, billionaires have become household names and achieved a certain celebrity status.
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Bill and Melinda Gates – these billionaires have attained a kind of heroic, liberal-celebrity status: talented, intelligent, driven to succeed and creators of philanthrocapitalism.
The idea of capitalist philanthropy is nothing new – indeed, it is as old as the rise of the robber barons. Andrew Carnegie, steel magnate and one of the first ultra-wealthy industrialists of the 19th century, had the foresight to admit that he was hoarding wealth and thus contributing to the creation of a social order that produced teeming masses of working and unemployed poor.
His proposed solution was philanthropy: donating a small portion of his riches to found university libraries, endowed chairs at educational institutions, and establish pensions and annuities for friends and acquaintances.
Carnegie never left the corporate world and his philanthropic measures were but a drop in the ocean compared to the astronomical fortune he acquired through industrial production.
Rex Tillerson, a former ExxonMobil CEO and ex-secretary of state under US President Donald Trump, supports the development of geoengineering solutions to climate change.
What could be wrong about adopting new and innovative technologies to solve today’s problems? Injecting sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere will scatter sunlight and thus reduce the impact on Earth.
This solution, while deceptively appealing, does nothing to challenge the destructive impact of the extractive industrial practices and polluting output of the oil and energy corporations.
Drawing or deflecting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere allows the energy companies — of which Tillerson is part — to continue using fossil fuels and cause harm to the Earth’s atmosphere.
Rapacious and predatory consumerism can continue unhindered — and the oil multinationals can continue to promote climate change denialism.
Brooker quotes Naomi Klein: “Trump’s assertion that he knows how to fix America because he’s rich is nothing more than an uncouth, vulgar echo of a dangerous idea we have been hearing for years: that Bill Gates can fix Africa. Or that Richard Branson and Michael Bloomberg can solve climate change.”
The Gates foundation, Howard Buffett and others can contribute money to privatised projects in Africa as much as they like, but until the systemic inequalities that keep African nations in a state of poverty are addressed, no amount of philanthrocapitalism will seriously address these stark inequities.
We can blame corruption and greedy politicians, but focusing on these factors serves only to distract our attention from the rapacious corporations – and their billionaire owners – who are extracting natural resources to generate super-profits.
In fact, in this age of tech giants, such as Apple or Amazon, wealth creation and the hoarding of profits is not all that different from the practices of the steel, iron and industrial concerns of the 19th and 20th centuries.
[Rupen Savoulian blogs at Antipodean Atheist, where this was first published.]