Dr. David Cowan
One of the most depressing aspects of our popular culture is observing celebrities branding themselves as “humanitarians.” Having reached a - or the - pinnacle of their career they need a new aspiration, and who better than the poor to be their platform. The problem is not that they have a concern for the poor; it is the superficiality of their concern. We know a celebrity becomes one largely by being self-obsessed, though they will dress this up by calling it “focus.”
In reality, as they preach to the less wealthy middle–class audiences who funded their careers, they make themselves the subject of the matter. It becomes about what they think, how they feel so much for the poor, and, what they are doing to help the poor. What does this make the poor? An object.
This is cultural Marxism at its best. Objectifying the poor has been the lot of the poor since the dawn of Marxism, and it has now become mainstream through superficial culture. The poor are to be pitied, and they are geographically located somewhere far form those who are oh so concerned about them.
And of course all the heart wringing statements don’t actually solve the problem, but then again when one is the subject what does it matter what the object is about.
The irony of this cultural Marxism is that many of these celebrities are the Chief Executive Officers of their own multinational corporations, like Michael Moore Inc., George Clooney Corp., and so on. ad nauseam…
The reality is that the solution of poverty is wealth, just as medicine is necessary for the treatment of illness or a scriptwriter or playwright is essential to make an actor play an intelligent character. These unscripted comments about poverty make it seem so existentially troubling, whereas in fact it is existentially soothing for people who want love and attention for themselves as warm humanitarians.
The poor don’t need this, they need economic policies in the context of a political-democratic society that will make it easier for them to acquire property, to safely go about creating a business, and to become wealth creators themselves, and thus to give them the ability to help the poor around them.
The market economy brought the forbears of many of these celebrities out of poverty at some point in their ancestral history. The historical chart of the level of incomes shows a straight-line level of income from the Garden of Eden to the 1750s, and then it rose steeply raising the vast amount of people out of poverty. It will do the same for the remaining poor, but only if economic policies allied to regulatory and structural changes are implemented.
This is to make the poor their own subjects, able to solve their problems with the nascent entrepreneurs amongst them able to lift others around them out of poverty. It may not sound very romantic, but it will be effective and the celebrities can be left to dwell on their subjectivity in someone else’s neighborhood, or just shut up in the meantime.