When I heard that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett were teaming up again for another round of popular support by creating the "Giving Pledge", I almost gagged.

What could possibly be wrong with the wealthiest Americans deciding to pledge half of their wealth to charity?

As a lowly, barely above poverty line American, I'll share some thoughts. Then I'll provide some quotes from "Peter Krämer, a Hamburg-based shipping magnate and multimillionaire," who was interviewed by Spiegel Online about criticism of the project by a growing number of wealthy Germans.1

First, let me say that I am not against philanthropy. I believe that charity should be a spiritual act and not a method by which one can gain tax exemptions. Giving should come from the soul. It should not be corrupted by ulterior motives. Obviously, people have been exploiting the good-will that comes from being seen publicly giving to the less fortunate for millennia.

Now that I've got that out of the way, let me get to Bill Gates and the culture that says only the super-rich can save us.2 The meme throughout mainstream America is that government cannot run anything smoothly. Government cannot spend your tax dollars better than you can. Therefore we must drown government in the bathtub by starving the beast: no more taxes. Especially for the super-wealthy. The much-maligned 1%. Deriders of government shrill that the government has done nothing for you, but look at Bill Gates. Or the Waltons. Look at what they have provided you, the consumer. We must praise them in all they do.

Any criticism of the amount of wealth hoarded by these individuals is blunted by their charitable donations. Who can be against the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Surely they are doing more than the government ever would. Surely there is nothing wrong with them trying to alleviate poverty and hunger worldwide. And what about the pledge that the Foundation's money must be spent within 50 years of their deaths?3 This must prove the good-intentions of the Gates family!

I would argue quite the opposite. Taking a look at the Foundation's work and Mr. Gates' stance on GMO in Africa, one would do well to read Tom Phillpott's "Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag."4 Mr. Phillpott examines the Foundation's, and Mr. Gates' shifting relationship with GMO foods in Africa. I am against GMO food for many reasons, especially because to realize the yield increases, farmers must focus on "conventional" industrial agriculture techniques which do not support healthy farm ecosystems. And guess who the partner for GMO crops in Africa is? Monsanto. The same company that is destroying American farmers who want to rely upon heirloom and state-funded varieties of crops by pursuing devastating litigation against seed savers and farmers who just so happen to have some of their "property" growing in their fields.

And this is the company that is going to help "save" African farmers? Just because they are waiving the royalty fee does not mean that the seeds will not have the "suicide gene" implanted in them, forcing farmers to buy seed year after year. Nor does it mean that in the future as African farmers branch to other crops that they will not be locked into Monsanto's GMO propaganda.

It is the case of one super-rich foundation joining forces with a monopolistic, anti-environmental corporation (Monsanto) under the guise of philanthropy. To think that there are not billions of dollars in profits at stake here is naive. Profits are not the only benefit from becoming the number one provider of seed to emerging African food commodity markets. With profits come power. If you have not yet watched Food Inc, I suggest that you do. The revolving door between the largest corporations and government is not relegated only to finance and the MIC but also to our most precious resource: food.

I am not going to argue that the Foundation has not accomplished anything of value in Africa or anywhere else. What I am arguing is that there is a concerted effort in this nation by the right and free-market globalization sychophants to portray the super wealthy as legitimate heirs of the state.

I would hope that I do not have to tell anyone about the direction this country is going under corporatocracy (more traditionally: plutocracy and oligarchy). History is not dead. Wealthy individuals who were outside of the state have for centuries been gaining more power from the states themselves. Only recently have they been calling outright for the destruction of the so-called obsolete state itself. Drown the government in the bath water. Free trade! Outsourcing! Globalization! It is not a conspiracy theory that those at the top would wish government dead at some point. Until then, we are stumbling along with inverted totalitarianism. I believe we are in a transitory stage in their coup d'état. Witness: Citizens United.

Chris Hedges, who is one of my journalistic heroes (although he seems to believe all hope is lost), summarizes Sheldon Wolin's concept of inverted totalitarianism:5

Inverted totalitarianism represents "the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry," Wolin writes in "Democracy Incorporated." Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure. They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible.

If you have made it this far, now for the treat. Peter Krämer, the multi-millionaire from Germany who is criticizing the "Giving Pledge."6 I am going to block quote the original and offer some thoughts that align with the rest of this diary.

SPIEGEL: Forty super wealthy Americans have just announced that they would donate half of their assets, at the very latest after their deaths. As a person who often likes to say that rich people should be asked to contribute more to society, what were your first thoughts? Krämer: I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable.

Mr. Krämer cuts right to the heart of the issue. I agree, the rich are making a choice not to advocate for paying higher taxes, but instead use the tax deductions to not only avoid paying their fair share. To take power away from the state. With a smile and the expectation of public adoration for their generosity. In this case, the state in question is one that is supposed to be "for, by, and of the people." A representative democracy, a Republic. So it is not as if they are witholding taxes from King George, but from us.

SPIEGEL: But doesn't the money that is donated serve the common good? Krämer: It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?

This man is on roll. The real Straight Talk Express, 200 km/h ICE style. Legitimacy of the rich is gospel to many Americans. No, Mr. Krämer appears to acknowledge that when that amount of money is moving around that we should all have a say in how it is spent. That we, as the sovereign people of a nation, have the right to channel this level of funding. He, nor I, am persuaded that this is all about philanthropy and not a transfer of sovereign powers.

SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day. Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.

Ah, the "it is their money and they can spend it the way they want to" line. A good question though, a failsafe for capitalists the world over. What does he mean by "runs counter to the democratically legitimate state"? I believe he means that, again, when this unprecedented amount of money is being moved around, that the state should have some say in how it is used. Especially in a democracy. Pet projects, or hobbies, may have some common good, but on this level they smack of ego-driven aristocrats attempting to frame their legacy. In my opinion, the idea that the super-wealthy know how to spend their money better than the nation, the democratic nation, knows how to spend money is bogus. What is the difference between a modern-day mega-wealthy human spending billions of dollars and the mega-wealthy humans of old doing the same?

Nothing.

They did not earn their money in a vacuum of self-generation. We paid for the education, infrastructure, and security that allowed them to make their money. We all did. Does that mean we have a right to take all their money? No, but it does mean they must pay their fair share.

SPIEGEL: Do the donations also have to do with the fact that the idea of state and society is such different one in the United States? Krämer: Yes, one cannot forget that the US has a desolate social system and that alone is reason enough that donations are already a part of everyday life there. But it would have been a greater deed on the part of Mr. Gates or Mr. Buffet if they had given the money to small communities in the US so that they can fulfil public duties.

Very good question and answer. I'll let Mr. Krämer's words speak for themselves. Read it twice.

Desolate social system. Check. Brought about by a continued campaign for over 30 years to destroy the state. Check.

SPIEGEL: Should wealthy Germans also give up some of their money? Krämer: No, not in this form. It would make more sense, for example, to work with and donate to established organizations.

In the actual article, Spiegel informs us the charitable donations of large portions of super-wealthy estates to established organizations inside Germany itself. The form that the "Giving Pledge" takes must have set off as many alarm bells with the super-wealthy in Germany as it has with me for Mr. Krämer to come out with such full force against it.

I would like to take the rest of this diary to inform the reader that I am not implicating Bill Gates or Warren Buffett in any conspiracy to overthrow the democratically elected government in the United States. Please think about these issues critically and with a mind to history. We have had one coup planned and luckily unveiled before in our nation's history. We have thousands of years of human history to draw on that says that democracy for, by, and of the people is precious. This same history tells us of the corrupting influence of money and power. History also shows that the democratic state has been under fire from "self made" industrialists and capitalists since the Industrial Revolution. This does not mean that all capitalists and all wealthy people are hungry for political power and domination. But it does mean that there are individuals out there who do crave power, even in America. We must take the blinders off and be willing to stand up for the democratic state that we have enjoyed.

Putting our iPods on and tuning out while corporate power reaches through all levels of our government will only guarantee inverted totalitarianism.

Thanks for reading.

Spiegel Online International, "Negative Reaction to Charity Campaign," Spiegel Online, http://www.spiegel.de/...

This is also the title of Ralph Nader's latest book. I have not read the book, but have read reviews.

Sally Beatty, "Gates Foundation Sets Its Lifespan," The Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/...

Tom Phillpott, "Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag," Grist Magazine, http://www.grist.org/...

Chris Hedges, "Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction," Crossposted on CommonDreams.com from Truthdig.com, http://www.commondreams.org/...

I am hoping that the legal team from Spiegal Online does not come after me here for reprinting their interview since I am giving them full credit and not engaging in any profit-making activity.

Mandatory Reclist Edit: Wow! I wrote this hoping that I would spark off some discussion, never thought it would wind up on the Reclist. I am trying to keep up with comments and moving the discussion along for the time that I have.

Thank you so much. Hopefully I do not receive a strongly worded email from Spiegel about copying the whole interview.

If I might add, let us try to keep this clean and away from "meta" issues.

2nd Edit: I would like to thank everyone for their thought provoking discussion and putting me on the Reclist for the first time. It sure has been nice to see everyone's responses and disagreements. I hope the point was not lost on everyone. I would have written more and spent more time fleshing out my argument, but sometimes you just want to post something.

It is getting late in the evening here in Finland and I am going to sign off and have dinner.

Peace.