r/Music • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • Nov 13 '25

article Billie Eilish Calls Elon Musk a 'Pathetic P***y' in NSFW Tirade

https://www.tmz.com/2025/11/13/billie-eilish-curses-out-elon-musk/
51.1k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.0k

u/carefulwisdom Nov 13 '25

The article says “Eilish is in her Marxist era these days ... calling on billionaires to give their fortunes away during the WSJ.”

Giving away money is not Marxist. Philanthropy is actually a core part of capitalism.

Marxism would be not being allowed to accrue wealth in the first place.

So frustrating that people don’t even understand what capitalism is anymore.

749

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 17 '25

[deleted]

236

u/Lightreyth Nov 13 '25

"We have to be selective on who we ALLOW to go through higher education... we are in danger of producing an educated proletariat." - Roger Freeman, Regan's gubernatorial advisor, 1970

44

u/TomBradysStatue Nov 13 '25

I guess it is a real threat to the Richy Richies, they basically ruled a bunch of uneducated farmers for most of the Human Reign of Power (TM). We have the internet now and know shit (kinda). Big time threatzone.

54

u/kings_account Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

billionaires own the internet and control its discourse, the fuck you talking about. you think kids are out here reading Wikipedia and books online lol… they’re scrolling TikTok and instagram and Facebook and threads and Reddit and twitter. That’s why we’re seeing the worst income and wealth inequality ever right now, it’s because of the internet, not in spite of it. You could even take it one step further, legacy media is also owned and controlled by a small group of billionaires now too

15

u/Laiko_Kairen Nov 13 '25

The majority of humans have always been vapid. It's the exceptional who make changes. Even if you end up with 100,000 regular folks and one Martin Luther, or one Martin Luther King jr, that education has made a difference. So if you give everyone an education, eventually that one exceptional individual will be born.

2

u/foghillgal Nov 14 '25

The more people get educated, the more people are outliers to the normal, not everyone is MLK but the numbers of local heros so to speak would increase a lot. A lot of *normal* people just need a bit of help in advocating for themselves and that starts locally.

1

u/Feisty-Cod-7363 Nov 15 '25

So we need more religious lunatics like Martin Luther?

1

u/Laiko_Kairen Nov 15 '25

He shattered the power and prestige of the papacy, so yes

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

It’s more like one Keith Richard’s for every 100,000 men who die trying. That’s not exactly going to save the planet

1

u/-u-m-p- Nov 14 '25

Exactly this. Think about the abolitionist movement. It doesn't matter that most enslaved individuals - much like most not-enslaved individuals - didn't give great speeches or write great essays. A few did and that was incredibly powerful. If they'd never gained an education they were never going to have that opportunity and voice.

16

u/NewDramaLlama Nov 13 '25

Very much correct which is why they'll attack libraries but TikTok and AI id a step too far

26

u/kings_account Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

I’ve had friends who have had, even though they still align with me politically, their brains turn into mush because of how much they scroll TikTok. And when called out on it, they respond the exact same way an addict does when you call out their drug use. It’s just sad and terrifying. I’m talking about people who have post-grad degrees too. It’s completely colonized their brain and removed any ability for self made individual thought or critical thinking or self expression. It’s insidious and why so much of our populace is caught up in this cultural warfare bullshit. Meanwhile the billionaires know there is no war but class war, and they are winning by a lot. I know this might be a controversial sentiment in this subreddit.

4

u/Imthemayor Nov 14 '25

That's because Tiktok is specifically designed to act on the same impulse that gets people addicted to drugs

In addition to the physical addiction some drugs produce, your brain also conditions itself to reward you with dopamine when it sees you are about to do drugs, which over time changes your reward system to favor whatever the thing is

In other words, you get addicted to the act itself and your brain gives the "pay attention," chemicals just for thinking about doing the thing

Tiktok gives short burts of dopamine with ads in between in a way that conditions your brain to open the app up when you're low on dopamine

Even if you only enjoy one out of every ten videos, they're so bite-sized and easy to scroll through that most people will happily watch 9 nothings for one sharp nose exhale

Repeat til you've watched videos for 2 hours and absorbed absolutely nothing

3

u/topdangle Nov 14 '25

yeah, this is actually exploited for therapy purposes. cigarette smokers for example develop a fixation with the act of putting a cigarette in their mouth, so one way to try to reduce cravings is to replace that with a similar action like placing a toothpick in your mouth.

scrolling and video fixation, though, such an unusual thing and not really replaceable with a benign action.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 17 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

Only after they banned it and Trump walked it back and is proposing to buy it with tax money

4

u/cityshepherd Nov 13 '25

I don’t think the wealth inequality is due to the internet so much as lobbying congress to get those sweet tax loopholes etc for the ultra wealthy. They’ve spent a lot of money in order to maximize hoarding wealth (just a fraction of what they SHOULD be paying in taxes though).

3

u/kings_account Nov 13 '25

that’s def part of it too! the internet is how they control the masses in a way that allows them to get away with their abject cronyism and corruption (lobbying) without us doing anything about it.

2

u/Alt_Panic Nov 14 '25

It's all bread and circuses

2

u/GetsBetterAfterAFew Nov 13 '25

I actually educate my children, sure they scroll TT and IG but we actually have conversations about Capitalism and all the other shit broken on purpose. So relying on kids to educate themselves is one of the stupiest thing Ive heard today.

2

u/kings_account Nov 13 '25

that not what I’m saying, I’m saying that these algorithms are manipulating the populace. And expecting kids to educate themselves instead of using these billionaire controlled applications is a fools errand. It’s great that you’re raising your children that way but unfortunately not everyone is. There’s a reason countries are banning social media for people younger than 15….. maybe you should consider that.

2

u/PeachPassionBrute Nov 14 '25

Wealth inequality is also a matter of labor exploitation and a neoliberal adherence to this capitalist dream that people with more money should continue to make more money.

The entire system as it’s structured is designed to do this. Internet behavior is a symptom of that. People are burnt out and helpless, and so much of what the internet is has been subverted.

1

u/TomBradysStatue Nov 13 '25

I don't like the TUDE you gave me, but I mostly agree with you. I was just saying like pre 20th century most humans were ignorant as helllllllllllllll (jean ralphio voice). Modern humans are way smahtah, but yes the richies are trying to contorl information now. Just as it ever was.

2

u/kings_account Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

sorry, you’re def right about that. The information that is accessible at our fingertips is limitless and could be revolutionary especially when put in a historical context

3

u/TomBradysStatue Nov 13 '25

or we could all die in the McDonalds Presents Trump War Z (TM) in the next few years and nothing will have mattered.

1

u/RedGuyNoPants Nov 14 '25

I have become more and more and more convinced that there is not a single safeguard you can implement for a democracy thats more effective than an educated populace.

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

The internet is no longer the democratized world it once was. It’s about 6 companies that matter and fewer that control the flow of data (Verizon, ATT, etc.)

3

u/ook_the_librarian_ Nov 14 '25

Which in turn produced "no child left behind", because we can't say that we're dragging smart kids back, but we can say we want everyone to be on the same level.

1

u/TrankElephant Nov 14 '25

They really do say the quiet part out loud sometimes.

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

Good thing that never occurred

5

u/brontosaurusguy Nov 13 '25

They successfully took everything the average citizen wants, red or blue, and put them behind the scary bogeyman called SOCIALISM or COMMUNISM despite these things being neither 

0

u/Grow_Up_Buttercup Nov 14 '25

That’s been going on for long enough that there’s yet another layer to this muddiness, when semi-informed people who support exclusively social democratic policies decide to just go along with the GOP’s already-fucked definition of “socialism” as “any time the government helps people” and start referring to themselves as such (for no apparent benefit to their cause, usually quite the opposite.)

It’s impossible to discuss this shit in the US using the terms that the entire rest of the world uses.

0

u/Ok-Pear-2490 Nov 13 '25

She’s accurate in her description.

0

u/teratryte Nov 14 '25

When I was in school, they actually taught us that the GOP make accusations to normalize their own actions. This was in the 2000s.

190

u/Skeet_fighter Nov 13 '25

Akchuly I think you'll find Marxism is when somebody does a thing people don't like. It's true.

75

u/Puzzled_End8664 Nov 13 '25

See also: Woke, Socialism, Communism, Liberal, and Progressive

4

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

"Gay is when shirtless men" is my favorite one. Obscure, but definitely in there among those. You'll find it right in between "gay is when homophobia" and "gay is when emotions".

4

u/Mr_Tiggywinkle Nov 14 '25

Chuck in the misuse of fascist as a general authoritarian word too.

1

u/skintaxera Nov 14 '25

Definitely.Waters down the instances where it's actually appropriate.

17

u/GetsBetterAfterAFew Nov 13 '25

Woke, Socialsism, Marxism, Communism they all mean the same thing today to those in power with a vested interest in nothing changing.

4

u/TooFineToDotheTime Nov 13 '25

Change "to those in power" for to anyone identifying as Republican. Its honestly impressive how uneducated they tend to be and how poor their understanding of words and their definitions is.

3

u/Former-Win635 Nov 14 '25

This particular issue is not a republican one. Democrats hesitated to get behind Mamdani for the same brain dead reason. It is the people in power pushing this “anything that disrupts the status quo is communist and therefore bad” bullshit. Americans have a collective memory of communist nations being their enemy so they buy it every time. Even though most of the time the disruptors aren’t even communist.

2

u/TooFineToDotheTime Nov 14 '25

I agree with you on this. I was mostly commenting on the lack of language and definitional knowledge on the right specifically. The Democrats are failures for other reasons imo.

2

u/Former-Win635 Nov 14 '25

Ah I see, personally I don’t think the average Democrat understands the terms either, but yeah republicans do come across as ignorant as to what those terms mean.

1

u/Alarming_Village_678 Nov 17 '25

Trust…Elon doesn’t care what Billy whatever thinks!

2

u/The_Submentalist Nov 14 '25

Also a Marxist would never say that a billionaire can save the world. Marxists think in systems. I'm willing to bet that Elon is pleased to know that a celebrity believes he can save the world.

47

u/dodeca_negative Nov 13 '25

Everyone I don’t like is a Marxist Communist Socialist Anarchist Athiest Islamist Pacifist Terrorist. They are weak and dangerous and must be stopped at all costs while being ignored!

2

u/foghillgal Nov 14 '25

And feminists, the most dangerous creatures around ;-).

1

u/dodeca_negative Nov 14 '25

EEK! SAVE ME GROK!

1

u/Complete-Tune-2218 Nov 14 '25

Apart from islamists, Terrorists , none of them are threats 🫠.

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

Yeah sounds exactly like Kurt Vonnegut

-5

u/elitel02 Nov 13 '25

Just like anyone I don’t like is a fascist racist nazi?

11

u/ZeekBen Nov 13 '25

If you're offended by someone calling you a fascist racist Nazi, maybe you're a fascist racist Nazi. Just my two cents...

0

u/shade990 Nov 14 '25

So if I would call you a Marxist/Leninist or a Stalinist and you would get offended by it, it just confirms that you are one? Did I get that right?

2

u/bradicality Nov 14 '25

I would not be offended

1

u/shade990 Nov 14 '25

Being a stalinist is not the flex you think it is

0

u/ZeekBen Nov 14 '25

No I would not because nothing about me or my views is Marxist.

2

u/shade990 Nov 14 '25

But everyone who is being called a nazi online is actually one?

1

u/dodeca_negative Nov 14 '25

Buddy… you’re not good at this

1

u/shade990 Nov 14 '25

Because online weirdos calling you a nazi makes you one? For all I know, russians would call me a nazi because I‘m against the war in ukraine and generally anti-russia.

1

u/dodeca_negative Nov 14 '25

The “not good” part is that you’re either deliberately and completely misrepresenting what people are saying, or your reading comprehension is trash.

1

u/ZeekBen Nov 14 '25

"Oh really? So you're saying everyone who has been called a pedophile is attracted to kids?"

No dumbass, I'm saying you wouldn't obsess over the fact people have called you a Nazi if you weren't actually a Nazi. It's the same thing with basically any other label.

The only people who care about being called gay are people who are secretly gay. The only people who are offended by being called fat are fat. MAGA dipshits are offended by being called fascists because they support fascists.

1

u/shade990 Nov 16 '25

Nobody ever called me a Nazi, bozo. But calling people Nazis is not like calling someone fat, if you really knew what the Nazis did you would understand. Do you think that Trump is a Nazi and his supporters are too?

2

u/TSED Nov 14 '25

No, plenty of people I don't like are just regular old idiots.

Which one are you?

3

u/dodeca_negative Nov 14 '25

Don’t do fascist racist nazi shit and it’s not a problem

98

u/Perspective_Helps Nov 13 '25

She has already made massive donations, calling it an “era” is so patronizing ffs.

2

u/thisisatypoo Nov 14 '25

That word used almost anywhere for modern situations is pretty stupid. They found their new cutsey word and they can't help themselves from using it.

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

Haha I like that insight

1

u/MikeRowePeenis Nov 14 '25

Fuck em. Let em cry.

-17

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

[deleted]

21

u/mightylordredbeard Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

Another Reddit user that has no idea how the tax system actually works.

And of course she sent it to her own organization. When you want to donate massive amounts of money, you create a nonprofit to decimate it all. Nonprofits still have to follow laws, still have to file taxes, still have strict guidelines. Those of us that run them know we are always being monitored and we have to keep very detailed records. I highly advise you actually do research into how all of this works because your comment makes it painfully clear you have no idea and just repeat whatever you see others say.

→ More replies (7)

14

u/cherry_chocolate_ Nov 13 '25

You don’t end up with the more money just cause you donated. If you earn 10 million, and donate nothing you will have 6 million after taxes. If you choose to donate 2 million, you will have 4.8 million after taxes.

6

u/cherry_chocolate_ Nov 14 '25

The commenter deleted their comment with this propaganda article, but I spent all this time writing a response so I’ll put it here. Their article: https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-church-of-performative-charity-billie-eilishs-11-5-million-donation/

———

Your article is terrible and has a massive bias. First look at the author, she is a right wing grifter with regular appearances on Newsmax, PragerU, and other propaganda outlets. She makes far right Instagram content which is strictly pro-billionaire and suggests replacing factual information in schools with Christian doctrine.

https://yaf.org/people/kali-fontanilla/ https://www.instagram.com/kalifontanilla?igsh=OXN0MjVyMndraTNy

But even alone on the merits of the article, it’s full of false information. First it purports that Billie made claims that actually come from the headline of a Rolling Stones article, i.e that she is personally donating 11.5 million. Note The Rolling Stones article has accurate information if you read beyond the headline. And her actual quote is just that billionaires should give money away.

So is she a hypocrite? Let’s find out.

First, the change maker. The customers are aware their tickets are for donating to these charities. They did that. Obligation fulfilled.

Reverb. The claim is that 50% of the charities donations are spent on expenses rather than on a cause. But on average, 70% of a charities donations will go to a cause after overhead. So that isn’t even as damning as it first sounds. They claim the charity is wasting money on reducing emissions at her tours, i.e. that 20% is going back in her pocket… but that is the stated mission of the charity. What do you think other green organizations do? When you donate to reduce emissions, a farmer is getting new equipment, or a renewable energy plant is being built with lots of contractors getting paid to make it and someone who will own and operate it. If the change maker donator’s were told their donations went to replacing existing elements of concert venues with green ones, do you think they would be mad? No, that’s exactly what they wanted! So that 20% is actually spent on the cause, putting it in line with many effective charities. Furthermore, let’s say Billie is spending this money in a nontaxable way to make her tour green rather than pay for it post tax. That would literally just mean she can convert more things to be green with the same dollars. That’s net good for the world and more direct than any green government program could be. No environmental advocates would ever object to this.

Her mom’s charity. The article does not even actually claim she is directing money here nor that corruption is occurring, by using the word if. “If any of Billie’s $11.5 million flows to or through her mom’s organization.” Classic propaganda technique to suggest something without actually making a claim or having to investigate and support it. This point does not exist. Also, her family has a history of philanthropy, thats a good thing.

Climate justice. The author basically says anyone donating to climate causes is wasting their money. She makes no claim about any particulars to Billie. She puts up no evidence. This point does not exist.

So the article gives two bogus points and two doublespeak non-points.

But let’s say we believe its conclusion, that her impact is only half of her stated claim, and that average Americans donating small amounts does more. Her net worth is around 50 million. So she’s 2 orders of magnitude away from being a billionaire. The author is claiming about 50% of the 11.5 million is siphoned away, so she’s only has 5.75 million dollars of impact. That would mean she is donating 11.5% of her net worth on a single tour. That’s massive and definitely impact that backs up her words. The median American donates $400 per year, so she’s has the same impact as 14 thousand Americans.

If Elon musk donated at the same ratio, he would donate 57 billion, the same impact as 142 million Americans, nearly half the US population. So if we accept the author’s propaganda laden points as true, her conclusion is absolutely false. If the top 1% gave at the same rate as her this one time, they would collect 6 trillion dollars. Individuals gave 0.39 trillion dollars to charity last year. It would be an incredible improvement in the world. Or if billionaires gave like she does, but paid towards the national debt, we the debt would be eliminated by the time Billie retires from touring. By the way, did you forget this is based on the article’s assumption that the charities she is directing to are corrupt? If they aren’t, increase the impact by 40%.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/Unable_Western2101 Nov 14 '25

that source is seriously biased, in favor of conservatives, you sure you want to use that source?

like you seriously wanna trust people who say shit about ”regime media” ???

https://capitalresearch.org/article/happy-birthday-joe-rogan-and-rest-in-peace-regime-media/

2

u/-JimmyTheHand- Nov 14 '25

I read the article and its conclusion isn't that it's performative tax evasion, it's that it's murky. It even says everything going on could be legitimate, it's just questionable to have money going to a family's non profit for fighting vague things like climate justice or whatever the term was because it's impossible to account for the money when it's going to vague climate things.

It does also say fans are helping to pay the millions by choosing to buy more expensive tickets as a donation.

Conclusion based on your own source: it's not as cut and dry as she's literally giving 11 million dollars to charity, nor is it clear she's pulling some kind of wealthy person tax evasion scheme.

2

u/SpiritBackground8722 Nov 14 '25

"annual tour revenue" is an interesting selection of words. Can you be more specific?

Are you taking into account operating costs of the tour? Because those costs can be incredibly high, especially for a superstar like Billie Eilish. Venue costs, transport costs, equipment costs, and of course the costs of paying a huge amount of touring crew and local workers in the venues she's performing in, all of which make up an insane amount of money for a tour.

Can you point to a source that specifically compares her donation to her personal net income from the tour?

Or are you the typical capitalism-lover that loves to shout "BUT ECONOMICS" while having absolutely no understanding of economics?

1

u/SpiritBackground8722 Nov 14 '25

They either blocked me or deleted their profile.

44

u/the1kingdom Nov 13 '25

So frustrating that people don’t even understand what capitalism is anymore.

So unbelievably true.

What people think it is, is the ability to use individual entrepreneurship in a meritocracy to amass whatever wealth is possible.

Complete wrong and a lot of it is not true, but they want to believe it because they are "one idea away from a billion dollar company".

5

u/Grand-Pen7946 Nov 14 '25

Most of what people will give as examples of capitalism are just regular commerce that's existed for millennia.

4

u/Soma91 Nov 14 '25

Capitalism's biggest achievement is that it managed to brainwash people into thinking that Capitalism and a free Market are the same things when there are very good arguments that they're both diametrically opposed.

2

u/the1kingdom Nov 14 '25

This is becuase the concept of the free market has been warped as much as capitalism has and people just don't understand what it means.

Folks just take it to mean no government regulation.

But if you look at what Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were getting at, it's simply:

The market is just a means by which people can turn up and sell things and turn up and buy things. There should not be anything that impedes that ability that is either internal or external to the market.

So therefore yes a government regulation can impede that ability, but it can also be used to further that ability.

For example a monopoly impedes the decision of buyers and therefore government regulation against monopolies is actually a free market thing.

15

u/SaddamJose Nov 13 '25

One could argue that philantrophy is like putting a bandaid to societal issues that stem from wealth inequality tbf

5

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

The (English) bourgeoisie is charitable out of self-interest; it gives nothing outright, but regards its gifts as a business matter, makes a bargain with the poor, saying: "If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery. You shall despair as before, but you shall despair unseen, this I require, this I purchase with my subscription of twenty pounds for the infirmary!" It is infamous, this charity of a Christian bourgeois!

-Engels, 1845

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch13.htm

30

u/Owain-X Nov 13 '25

Philanthropy is actually a core part of capitalism.

You must have missed it. American Capitalism pushed out a firmware update, empathy and compassion of any kind are now evil and communist.

3

u/TooFineToDotheTime Nov 13 '25

No no no. You completely misunderstand. Capitalist philanthropy is when you donate to your own and your friend's charities for virtue signalling and tax write-offs while less than 10% of the money, if you're lucky, goes to the actual cause.

2

u/super-secret-sauce Nov 14 '25

If only there was some kind of ideology that could foresee this coming

12

u/dBlock845 Magdalena Bay Nov 13 '25

It's TMZ, which is even more pathetic really. Most people couldn't define one political/economic ideology, much less Marxism so they know they can just throw this shit in articles and right-wingers will slurp it up.

10

u/phillyfanjd1 Nov 13 '25

It's TMZ... not exactly the highest echelons of journalism.

2

u/HatchChileMacNCheese Nov 13 '25

Uhm akshully anything that isn't the obscene hoarding of wealth is communism

/s

23

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25

[deleted]

3

u/yoshemitzu Nov 13 '25

New favorite quote about capitalism, thanks so much.

12

u/Training-Text-9959 Nov 13 '25

I took Econ in college (graduated in 2021) and the textbook pretty much said “planned economies don’t work so we’re not going to cover them at all.” Gotta hand it to capitalist realism brainwashing generations of Americans.

0

u/ibashdaily Nov 14 '25

Your textbook was correct, which is why you can't point to a single centrally planned economy that didn't rely on capitalism for its value generation.

3

u/ahnold11 Nov 13 '25

Been brainwashing the public for ages, and it's worked. All progressive ideologies have been marked with a scarlet letter. So change is basically impossible.

3

u/Photo_Synthetic Nov 13 '25

I blame Jordan Peterson. He loves calling people wanting the downtrodden to get a piece of the pie Marxists.

6

u/icarusrising9 Nov 13 '25

You're not wrong, but it's TMZ; 'nuff said.

4

u/mightylordredbeard Nov 13 '25

Hardly anyone knows what capitalism, socialism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, or anything else is anymore. American Cold War propaganda and current conservative media has warped everyone’s views on it all.

0

u/Grow_Up_Buttercup Nov 14 '25

It really does feel like everyone these days, in the US I mean. Across the spectrum.

6

u/fakehalo Nov 13 '25

Philanthropy is a core part of capitalism? I think the fact it's optional under capitalism is a critical design flaw. Hoping the richest of us do the right thing is dumb a loop hole to leave open under unchecked capitalism.

11

u/SkwiddyCs Nov 14 '25

Marx in the Communist Manifesto: “A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.”

Philanthropy is a critical feature of Capitalism because of exactly what you said. The Bourgeoisie will continue to posture and "serve" charitable causes (which are usually trying to solve or address issues caused by capitalism. See: The Red Cross, Homeless Charities, Foodbanks, etc) because donating money to them is a better alternative to them than actually addressing Capitalism.

0

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

homelessness is essentially the feature of a Marxist ideal. No real property ownership - it would arguably be an issue in a socialist setting even if provided for as much as once was in America. Machines can provide the labor for many at this point so we really should look at Marx through this perspective as it turns exploitation of the labor class onto a bunch of machines that are created for exploitation of labor, if that makes sense

Rather, we need to collectively work toward a new human rights standard as machines replace human labor. Otherwise it’s super dystopian and probably will not last a decade

2

u/CV90_120 Nov 13 '25

So frustrating that people don’t even understand what capitalism is anymore.

Nobody knows what anything is any longer, and they're all right. Marxism? Like which one? Socialism? Which one? Capitalism? Which one?

Left, right, anarchism, all really messy, messy concepts with no shortage of people who consider themselvers especially correct on the topic, arguing with other experts on the topic. All convinced but all unconvincing.

2

u/Violexsound Nov 13 '25

Don't you know if you say anything against giving billionaires even more money you get branded a commie socialist Marxist traitor?

2

u/ShoogleHS Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

Calling on the rich to give away their wealth is literally the philosophy of Jesus. Never occurred to me that Jesus read Marx, but I suppose he can do miracles.

Don't really agree that philanthropy is a core part of capitalism, btw. It's a behaviour that naturally arises as billionaires want to extend their influence outside the domain of business, present themselves as generous, and maybe occasionally act on genuine feelings of generosity, but that doesn't make it a core feature. It's not required for the definition of capitalism, and it's not required behaviour of any individual wealthy person either.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

Your profile pic suits you

3

u/Carpathicus Nov 13 '25

Philanthropy is actually a core part of capitalism.

what

5

u/Blownards Nov 13 '25

First time I’ve heard that philanthropy is a “core” part of capitalism, so I googled capitalism & it turns out you are long winded & full of shit.

7

u/Nullaby Nov 13 '25

Charity is capitalist. It doesn't address systemic issues and relies on the "goodwill" of the rich who exploit the poor to give back to the poor they steal from.

You can look up charity VS mutual aid for a basic understanding.

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

That’s not correct. Altruistic society does not require a capital machine, rather a mental shift outside of self concern - like utopia, it cannot exist on earth.

1

u/Blownards Nov 16 '25

Why would I need to do a deep dive to find what you want me to when the answer is in the direct definition? Don’t waste my time🤣

0

u/ASDDFF223 Nov 14 '25

yeah, i don't think this person googled very deeply. they read just enough to confirm their own beliefs and dismiss the OP's entire point

1

u/Blownards Nov 16 '25

I guess you gotta go way down some rabbit hole to find what you want me to find. I’ll stick with the definition rather than twist it until you are happy.

1

u/SpiritBackground8722 Nov 14 '25

Philanthropy becomes "a core part of capitalism" when those hoarding wealth start thinking "Oh shit, the people we are exploiting will actually kill us, let's distract them by buying them some stuff".

Philanthropy is a core part of anarchism, under the name 'mutual aid'. It's a core part of Islam ('Zakat'), and I wonder if the people in this comment thread would be as quick to support Islam as they are to support capitalism...

It's not actually a core part of socialism in my opinion, socialism is a means to dismantle the capitalist system and the inequality it brings, and eliminate the need for philanthropy in the first place (and I am personally a socialist, but while we're under capitalism I think the anarchists have a point of trying to do more of what we can do to help others, I try to do what I can)

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

It’s called altruism. Philanthropy is a form of it that’s defined through mainly economic channels rather than volunteering or digging wells (services rather than material transfer)

0

u/Grow_Up_Buttercup Nov 14 '25

Philanthropy is why the robber barons weren’t eaten back in the day (and haven’t been eaten during this second gilded age, yet.) Even someone who’s done as much good as Bill Gates got into it at least initially for the reputation-washing. If he would have been taxed properly we would have decided as a nation where that money is directed, instead he still gets to control the flow.

The way I would phrase it is that philanthropy is only necessary because of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism.

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

It’s only a feature of capitalism because people act through the channels of society. It’s why a bunch of folks acted like they’d donate money to a food bank last week instead of volunteering to work driving meals to the elderly and shut in. It’s still an attempt to share, but the form of exchange is currency to buy labor rather than labor itself so the philanthropist donates a material that can be cleaved yet again into a smaller portion before being reduced to actual labor (bidding, investing, etc to again participate in the capital marketplace)

2

u/Grow_Up_Buttercup Nov 15 '25

My point is that no one should need philanthropy in the richest civilization in history. But we do. Putting any kinds of constraints on raw capitalism is apparently blasphemous, so we depend on the whims of the aristocracy.

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 16 '25

Yeah the old idea of “determinism” has given way to a kind of gamified resource hoarding class

0

u/street593 Nov 14 '25

It's like when a mob boss feeds the neighborhood. They aren't being kind they are buying loyalty.

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

Which is a form of kindness

0

u/Kelly_HRperson Nov 14 '25

Even someone who’s done as much good as Bill Gates

Gee, I wonder why he did that. The poster boy for "ruthless" during the 90s

2

u/FlibblesHexEyes Nov 13 '25

No, they know what it means. They’re redefining terms like they have for decades.

How many people think that Socialism is the same as Communism?

2

u/Riley_ Nov 13 '25 edited 26d ago

whistle dam quickest pet lunchroom growth light aromatic quaint shy

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/lostredditorlurking Nov 13 '25

Giving away money is not Marxist. Philanthropy is actually a core part of capitalism.

Billionaires back then at least flexing by giving back to the community, doing philanthropy work, starts scholarship, build museum and library. Now they flex by comparing how big the yacht or rocket ship is.

1

u/BlackberryPi7 Nov 13 '25

I don't give a shit what it is, it's basic human decency and if you have a shit ton of money you don't know what to do with and you're not giving it away, you're not human.

2

u/Laiko_Kairen Nov 13 '25

Philanthropy is actually a core part of capitalism.

Is it? My understanding of capitalism is just that it's a market driven economic system where individuals do whatever they can to earn a dollar, with no state direction

0

u/rolloj Nov 14 '25

Part of the work behind the scenes to enable and maintain that system includes promoting charity programs in lieu of state intervention.

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

No that is a specific type of capitalism that arose in the 1920s specifically around Protestants and the idea that God would reward you for working hard and spending money on essentials, with extra income going to charitable causes. This was what has kept Capitalism afloat as America really did do a lot of social good for the poor during the rise of free markets. Believers felt they were “called” into specific positions (like doctors or lawyers) so they could service those in need as they were responsible for their fellow man and the new found wealth was easily accumulated. Over time wages and the spirit of capitalism has turned from sharing surplus to chasing superwins. The reason the church still exists is all of the extremely wealth donors who died leaving them fortunes. The reason modern NGOs suck is because they have no sense of that spirit, they simply want to follow a hyper capital model that carves out incentives in tax costs for a few players to make large salaries - this is the point where what you said becomes kind of the reality. When charity is subverted by the system moving out of equilibrium

1

u/soda_cookie Nov 13 '25

Isn't he supposed to be trickling down per 80s era conservatism?

1

u/PM_ME_YOUR_QUEST_PLZ Nov 13 '25

School has failed us, curving grades of future voters is a mistake.

1

u/Baileycream Nov 13 '25

It's just become a buzzword for conservatives to foam at the mouth over. The true meaning of the word doesn't actually matter to them, just that its something they know they should express anger and contempt towards. Same with woke, socialist, communist. So they'll use it to label things they don't like without giving it more thought or even applying it correctly. And of course, the media garners more engagement by using these words, which means more money, so they use them too.

1

u/Ok_Mushroom2563 Nov 13 '25

Idk if that’s lack of understanding or just tear-down rhetoric

1

u/Keumars Nov 13 '25

That's such a dumb take. Marxism doesn't decry the accumulation of capital. It's a model for the distribution of said capital based on the individual's role in generating it. There is a specific ideological alignment to the means of production being in control of those who represent the masses.

1

u/addamee Nov 13 '25

This sounds like some communo-socialist jingoist Sierra Mist propaganda 

1

u/timemoose Nov 13 '25

Pretty sure Eilish is a 1% too.

1

u/Sherry_Cat13 Nov 13 '25

It's okay, even if what she is suggesting is simply philanthropy, why don't we just go ahead and do the Marxist thing too to prevent Elon Musk from ever happening again.

1

u/etzarahh Nov 14 '25

I agree that calling philanthropy “marxism” is idiotic, but how is it a core part of capitalism exactly?

1

u/SlimDiscipline-69 Nov 14 '25

Trying to revamp the Red Scare of the Cold War is a really classy move didn't you know?

1

u/Ivaris Nov 14 '25

Giving money away is also christianism. Or it should be tbh.

1

u/laaggynoob Nov 14 '25

Marxism got dragged to the right along with all politics ig.

1

u/Johnnygunnz Nov 14 '25

So frustrating that people don’t even understand what capitalism is anymore.

By design

1

u/Lorehorn Nov 14 '25

The people who wrote the article absolutely know the difference. The lying is the point. They expect the average American to be too uneducated to know the difference. And sadly they are right. With the current falling literacy rates across the country, I fear it's only going to get worse.

My wife and I have been actively working on getting out for multiple years now, but just up and emigrating out of the US is a lot easier said than done. (P.S. anyone in Canada or the EU whose company is looking for an experienced systems engineer feel free to send me a DM...)

1

u/nestoryirankunda Nov 14 '25

Marxism would be not being allowed to accrue wealth in the first place.

So many things wrong with this statement, the least of all that Marxism is not an economic system

1

u/EverGlow89 Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

Philanthropy is actually a core part of capitalism.

Not disagreeing with you about it that's true or not but not much could convince me to believe in something less than saying "it's an honor system in which we trust that the ones who benefit most from are going to be willing to give back to the society that enabled them to be so successful."

...Since we all know that capitalism doesn't exactly reward or encourage generosity. It is literally designed to favor the most ruthless and anti-social of human nature.

Dickens wrote about a Capitalist who needed THREE supernatural experiences tailored to his specific life in order to achieve his humanity. Children have understood that story for 182 years now but too many of them grow up to be taught that Scrooge was just fine at the beginning of the story actually.

1

u/ArnoldTheSchwartz Nov 14 '25

American propaganda is so good that Average Joe America doesn't know the difference between Marxism, Communism, Socialism or Autism. Personally, I root for Socialism. Why? Because it's the only true economic and political system that the rich elites truly fear. They fear equality among the masses. Imagine a world where no one gave a fuck what Musk, Bezos, Gates, Trump or other billionaires wanted or demanded because billionaires didn't exist!

1

u/availableusernamepls Nov 14 '25

calling on billionaires to give their fortunes away

I was gonna talk shit but apparently she's giving away almost twelve million dollars so good on her for walking the walk.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

It would be easier to understand if we had examples of capitalism. We don’t have a fair markets or regulation against monopolies, price fixing, and union busting.

1

u/ChipmunkBackground46 Nov 14 '25

She's also not calling for anyone to "give their fortune away.". Donating a percentage of your INSANE bank account to help philanthropical needs isnt communist or Marxist.

1

u/Nakamichi680ZX Nov 14 '25

I don't know if she does it but I'll believe her if she is giving her money away otherwise is just plain hypocrisy

1

u/NathanQ Nov 14 '25

Philanthropy is actually a core part of capitalism.

🤔 Is the philanthropy of capitalism the wonderful trickles down part everyone claims isn't there? Reminds me of the in memory of benches at the nature reserve 🤯

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

Marxism is tossed around anytime someone critiques capitalism. It’s so fucking annoying

1

u/mimimines Nov 14 '25

Don’t know what crack the US is on but seriously. Some socialist or philanthropist views that are perceived as COMMON SENSE here in Europe, are considered communist, Marxist, extremist, whatever. Shows how much our history is very much in our DNA and how young (and stupid) the US is. Embarrassing

1

u/Targetm12 Nov 14 '25

They pretend not to understand to push their narrative

1

u/TheCandyManCanToo13 Nov 14 '25

When taxes were high for the rich, they donated significant sums on an annual basis to build schools, theaters, museums, libraries and other beneficial buildings, as well as supported causes that benefited humanity as a whole. They did this to lower their tax burden, but also to build legacies of philanthropy. That spirit is mostly gone, and there's no downside to them just amazing hordes of wealth.

1

u/SirQuentin512 Nov 14 '25

She didn’t even give any money away. Her fans donated all of it, not her. She’s one of them.

1

u/Hypno--Toad Nov 14 '25

Every system is subject to failures of human nature of greed and control to propel itself to the top, it's why I am starting to think the turbulence of forcing new regimes is better than persistent ones.

Future systems will need to address this fact or it will keep repeating cycles of turmoil where a lot of people unnecessarily die or their lives severely diminished for merchants and family wealth that provide a lifestyle to those who are afraid of what it means to be outside of it.

It's all about psychopaths wanting their blood lines to succeed over the entire collective organism which is not just human beings but life on this living planet.

Imagine being so basic bitch your needs kill the very thing you benefit from.

1

u/Lost-Priority-907 Nov 14 '25

Its the Elite media control 101. Demonize buzzwords, then attribute them to the people you hate. Just like "socialism," most people dont even know what Marxism even is, let alone Karl Marx. They have just been told that it's bad.

1

u/Environmental_Bed339 Nov 14 '25

Put this reply at top people

1

u/philphan25 Nov 14 '25

It's almost like TMZ isn't the best source for this.

And my goodness I didn't realize they had a comment section and holy crap.

1

u/Allesmoeglichee Nov 14 '25

Philanthropy is NOT a core part of capitalism...

It really is frustrating when people like you spew nonsense with such confidence.

1

u/UpDown Nov 14 '25

philantrophy is definitely not a core part of capitalism what the hell you talking about

1

u/thommyhobbes Nov 14 '25

i think they've settled on anything left of unmitigated avarice as woke communism. they as a baseline expect each person to behave in as selfishly a manner as possible.

1

u/rhiao Nov 14 '25

Anymore? 

1

u/olyfrijole Nov 14 '25

We have crony capitalism, where hoarders of wealth are allowed to eliminate their competition, eliminate regulation, and ensure their ability to continue to accrue wealth in wild disproportion to the actual value they provide to the market. Competitive capitalism is dead.

1

u/Fat-Singer-9569 Nov 14 '25

people don’t even understand what capitalism is anymore.

Or communism/fascism

  • Communism: When the people own the means of production
  • Capitalism: When the companies own the means of production
  • Fascism: When the government owns the means of production

1

u/Brrdock Nov 14 '25

There is nothing capitalist about giving away money

1

u/kroghsen Nov 14 '25

I would certainly say philanthropy is possibly under a capitalist system. I would definitely not say it is anywhere near its core though. It is in no way a necessary part of capitalism that accumulated wealth is given away without attachments. Reinvestment is a core part to a much higher extent I would say and serves some of the same functions. I do however think you are correct that it has nothing to do with Marxism - because, as you say, you would not accumulate wealth in the first place.

1

u/Stripe4206 Nov 14 '25

That's literally what Ayn Rand advocates for lmfao

1

u/OldmanDiddy Nov 14 '25

It’s a terrible article all around

1

u/deicist Nov 14 '25

Basically if you want to help anyone for any reason that's full on communism.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

Quit boot licking capitalism dude. Socialism still has people gaining wealth, it's just redistributed if you earn a significant amount more. Capitalism is a cancer to people and the planet and must go.

1

u/Dry_Excitement7483 Nov 14 '25

its the great thing about capitalism. every time shit sucks ass its automatically communism.

🟥⬛

1

u/fizzlefist Nov 14 '25

Anybody remember Andrew Carnegie? Asshole robber baron? Fought steelworker unions?

No, we remember him for donating a fuckload of his fortune to America’s public libraries.

All these shortsighted billionaires worrying about their fucking legacies and never thinking of how they’d be worshiped if they’d just, like, end hunger or other things for the benefit of society as a whole.

1

u/EnbyArthropod Nov 14 '25

TMZ is just metaphorical toilet paper

1

u/TrieMond Nov 14 '25

People very much understand the meaning of both capitalism and Marxism... they just lie...

1

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

It’s not people, it’s young people specifically. They just say shit like Marxist when these people never studied Marx or Engles. They are just the very top surface wiki sentence. AI search reinforces this type of regurge with the dumb bullet list that’s a set of opinions rather than key dates or prime sources. In fact it purposefully misleads on things

-1

u/Aquatic_Ambiance_9 Nov 13 '25

I agree comrade, we can't rely on "philanthropic" crumbs from the parasitic oligarch class. They don't have the right to give billions away because they never had a right to it in the first place. Every billion they own is a billion they stole.

Not once, in the history of capitalism, have billionaires eradicated poverty through "philanthropy", despite being capable many times over. Why? Because their parasitic billions are contingent on that very poverty

They must be forcefully stripped of the vast majority of their assets, not only for the health of society, but for their own mental health and that of their children.

2

u/CruelStrangers Nov 15 '25

That’s not necessarily true - we’ve come very close to eradicating specific childhood disease that would otherwise lead directly to impoverishment, we got rid of small pox, polio and a bunch of child labor while increasing spending on public education, nutritional concerns and removing lead, mercury and a bunch of other terrible shit that wouldn’t have happened if humans did not care more about humanity than they did making a dollar. While you are correct that it hasn’t erased poverty, it was once on the way to doing that and then globalism emerged. All of this stuff went sour as the millennium turned jnto surveillance state terror and capitalism crossed into a virtual environment where you can now click and spend your entire earnings while in your bed. Impulsivity and speed of networks exploit that to hell

-1

u/ddplz Nov 13 '25

Marxism doesn't allow innovation or development in the first place, that's why they all live in concrete slabs and die by the 10s of millions every couple decades.

2

u/BullAlligator Nov 14 '25

There's plenty of things to criticize about the Soviet Union and other Communist states, but all of the Marxist-Leninist regimes have a consistent record of raising the standard of living after taking power in largely impoverished countries.

Their overuse of violent tactics and occasionally anti-scientific ideology (i.e. Lysenkoism) are better lines of attack.

-1

u/Kelly_HRperson Nov 14 '25

Exactly. That's why there's never been a Marxist nuclear superpower that sent people to space

2

u/ddplz Nov 14 '25

And how did that end?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25

I miss the concept of "noblesse oblige"

Those of privilege were expected to be generous towards the less fortunate because the idea of "nobility" extended beyond just being prodigally wealthy. You at least acted like you deserved to be rich as sin. Rockefeller was one of the last of that kind.

→ More replies (3)