> This essay was disappointing. I mean this is very old news.
>
> Joanna
>
> mike larkin wrote:
>
> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/zize01_.html
> >
I agree, the guy seem to either not doing his homework lately, or so mesmerized by his own "lacanian" spin that he can no longer tell a diffrence between his navel and his asshole.
I am not a big fan of Bill Gates (to say the least) or private philanthropy (which is negligible vis a vis government resources expended to on social issues) - but corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is a big thing in Europe, supported by governments (http://www.csreurope.org/, http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/index.htm, http://www.societyandbusiness.gov.uk/ )is really a Left idea - advanced, inter alia, by such promonent Left luminaries John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith's argument is particularly worth mentioning inthis context, becaouise it holds that coprorate organization makes possible what market forces render impossible - public benefits. Basically, the argument goes that organization isolates busiess operation from cut-throat market competition and therace to the bottom it promotes, and creates a surplus that can be used for social purposes. Galbraith does not argue thatthis surpuls is automatically used for such purposes, but that it is available for the, whereas it woul dnot even be avai;able under the fully competitive market system.
In that context, a movement aiming to sway corporate execs to use corporate suprluses in a socially responsibole way seems like the right thing to do, ands has nothing to do with philanthropy, which relies on the use of private wealth separately from business practices. In my book, it does far more to promote social justice than though-on-business drivel of campus radicals, which is just that: tough talk with no subtance behind it.
Wojtek