Why do Liberals call a business owner " greedy & evil " who is worth $ 1 million but........?

Why do Liberals call a business owner " greedy & evil " if they are worth $ 1 million but Liberals like Oprah who are worth $ 2.7 Billion are not " greedy & evil " ?

And... please don't give me any crap about Oprah's ' charitable acts ' because despite the fact that Oprah has made her many Billions in the US ...Oprah cares so little about the US that she went halfway around the world to the continent of Africa to spend a million dollars to open up a girls school

Oh.....and those cars she has given out on her TV show ?........they are donated by the Motor Vehicle Companies....Oprah doesn't shell out 10 cents for them

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Arnie
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Liberals know as much as a box of rocks..

    The Liberal ideology is a theory , fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and which holds forth beliefs that have no basis in reality.

    They are Advocates of a policy that empowers a strong federal government to enslave its people with a high tax burden incident to the support of extravagant and unnecessary social programs destructive to both the work ethic among the lower class, and the incentive to innovate and succeed among the working class.

    "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

    Liberals like to spend other peoples money!!

    The problems we face today are because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

    @

    • ...Show all comments
    • Mop the kitchen floors, and clean the ******* bathroom, as a side note. All business are made to make a profit and they don't care who they have to **** over to get it. It Dosent matter if its their godson, they want their money.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Andy F
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Do ALL liberals call rich business owners "greedy and evil"? NO.

    You're over-generalizing.

    I'm a socialist, not a liberal, but even I don't always call rich business people "evil" or even "greedy." Sometimes I do, so you're not ALL wrong, but you don't understand the way socialists, anyway, often think about rich people.

    How so?

    (1) The question of "evil" is irrelevant here, to start with. In wildlife biology, no sensible scientist calls wolves evil just because they're predators. When a wolf eats a defenseless bunny rabbit, it's not because the wolf is wicked; it's just doing what it must -- to live.

    If you're a bunny, of course, the wolf will still gobble you up without any attacks of conscience. But not because of the wolf's moral failings.

    It's similar with "evil" capitalists, I think. Many will cheerfully eat you, but only because they're acting naturally. They're not being IMMORAL according to their own values.

    (2) In terms of Marxist philosophy, rich capitalists -- like everyone else -- are at least partly products of society.

    Sure, they may have individual personality flaws; we all do. But as a group, they're trying to survive in a society where the rules of the market & the prevailing culture ENCOURAGE many people to be greedy -- maybe even REQUIRE it.

    Blaming them for this, when they almost need to be greedy to succeed under capitalism, is unfair. Why do it?

    (3) If you're not a liberal, but an actual Marxist -- as I am, partly -- the whole idea of "evil" and "good" also may not seem eternally fixed the way it probably seems to, say, producers of old Disney movies.

    Since Marx himself was an atheist materialist, I think he would say that "evil" is a metaphysical concept that isn't necessarily true in an eternal sense. Instead, "evil" and "good" are INTELLECTUAL concepts largely determined by the biases & the needs -- the "economic base" -- of each given society.

    Given that societies differ from each other in their economic structures, their ideas about "evil" vary, too. And at one stage of development, a society may consider something good that it will consider bad at a later stage, because new conditions produce new moral concepts.

    Thus in ancient Greece, the philosopher Aristotle labeled slavery "good," because he saw it as needed to support civilization. He reasoned that Greece could not support politicians or philosophers without the unfree work of slaves, so slavery had to be morally justified for Greek society to function.

    Much later in Western history, fortunately, the capitalist development of machines powered by wind, water & fossil fuels made slavery unnecessary to support civilization. Then -- and only then -- Abolitionists successfully pushed the idea that slavery was evil. In fact, they eventually got it banned throughout the western capitalist world.

    Because of material progress, IOW, the definition of evil changed dramatically where slavery was concerned. The same with capitalist "greed" today, IMO.

    I may think it's evil, but when capitalism began in medieval European cities about 500-800 years ago, most medieval burghers thought greed was good. It's bad materialism to blame the capitalists for preferring the old definition to the new one.

    (3) To answer about Oprah: From a Marxist viewpoint, the business owner you mention may have gotten rich by exploiting the labor of people working as his employees.

    If he's only worth $1 million, of course, he didn't get VERY rich -- not in today's dollars. But if his wealth is $20 million or more and his yearly income is also high, he may qualify for being "evil" according to traditional religious ideas.

    In Marxist terms, such a capitalist business owner usually earns profits by extracting a bit of "surplus value" from every day of work done by each of his employees. Because he owns a profitable enterprise and they don't, he can require each employee to do more work & produce more "exchange value" per day than they need to support themselves in decency. The "surplus value" produced is pocketed by the capitalist, and he grows rich (in a sense) by robbing his workers a little each day.

    Oprah, OTOH, gets at least some of her income from her popularity with TV viewers -- which is partly the result of her own talent & hard work. She may be indirectly exploiting her production staff & her viewers, but she's not doing so as nakedly as the capitalist employer is. Therefore she gets more love.

    -- democratic socialist

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Right is right, I actually agree with oprah on the school in Africa. Oprah had experienced a lot of real racism growing up. You can look up youtube clips of it. People calling her while she was ON her show and telling her she was an inferior monkey. Oprah is a very good woman and Africa needs as much help as it can get. They're too stupid to help themselves.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    They don't, basically, they just want to make sure they pay their share, rather than avoiding tax, rather than pretending that all rich people are ''wonderful and moral'', without exception.

    As long as people pay their taxes I don't care what they donate to charity, I consider it none of my business in fact what private individuals donate. I certainly don't feel jealous of them like Conservatives do, and keep a mean little snearing socrecard of exactly how much was donated to exactly which specific ethnicity of a charity, in fact money turns cons into green eyed monsters and this post is a fantastic example

    Source(s): You sound like a right-wing racist actually, "Boohoo, I want Oprah's money for white people"
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    One word: Hypocrisy.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    I agree, I think all rich people are successful and moral people.

    They work hard for their wealth and never take additional efforts to get more wealth.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    because they don't stick to their "values"

    Their "Values" change with the wind depending on "who" it is

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    Because they are LIBERALS and should be worshipped.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    They don't.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.