Exploitation

Transactional relationships with people can also be altruistic.

For example, paying a poor person 1000$ to wash your car. Surely, thats transactional, but it benefits poor person much more and person pays a lot more than he has to for car washing.

How many examples can you think of where exploiters in first world countries are creating problems just to sell the solution?

Wars, housing, healthcare, products designed to break down to increase sales rate, lobbying, pollution, obesity, depression, addiction-based design of products to increase sales rate.... Really, how many examples do you need?

Technology has improved and people are richer now than most earlier times in history

Some people are richer now, yes. The homeless arent.

Altruistic transaction is demanding person to do something but paying way more than its worth. So person learns work ethics and it isnt just free money.

A lot of people think Karl Marx was some lazy philosopher who just didn't want to work.

But they didn't see what Marx saw. In an unregulated capitalism, children as young as 4 were working 12 hours a day in a factory. Bosses were regularly sexually exploiting female workers. Capitalists intentionally reduced wages to force families to send their children to work as well. Working conditions were so horrible that you were lucky to merely survive a job without losing hand or finger.

That's what Marx saw, and just because after hundreds of years of government regulations, these types of exploitations reduced, it doesn't mean they wouldn't happen again if capitalism was less regulated, because it still happens again today in each country where capitalism is left to itself.

Maybe some exploitation is unavoidable, but government pretty much had to intervene to reduce exploitation for countless times in past few hundred years, because when left to itself, capitalism maximizes exploitation.

In any case, society where people help each other without seeking personal benefits each time is way better.

As far as I see, exploitative society necessarily produces exploitative parents, and then kids get worse living conditions and less opportunities.

Exploited is simply something all creatures despise to be. Such is the teaching of Taoism, which people will never understand, so their lives are cursed.

Yes — some of Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tales can reasonably be read as criticisms of capitalism, wealth inequality, and bourgeois society, although it would be anachronistic to call Andersen simply an “anti-capitalist” writer.

Andersen lived from 1805–1875, during the rise of industrial capitalism and modern urban society. His stories frequently focus on poverty, class hierarchy, wealth, exploitation, status, and the way wealthy or powerful people treat those beneath them. Scholars have specifically noted his criticism of social conditions and class inequality.

The clearest example: The Little Match Girl

This is probably the strongest Andersen story for a capitalist/inequality interpretation.

The girl is:

extremely poor,

forced to sell matches,

surrounded by people who have food, warmth and Christmas celebrations,

unable to participate in that prosperity,

and ultimately dies in the street.

The important contrast is between abundance and deprivation. She can see warm houses, food and wealthy people's Christmas decorations, but cannot access them.

The fact that she is literally selling a commodity to survive makes the story especially interesting from a capitalist perspective. Her economic value matters more than her wellbeing: she must sell matches or face punishment at home.

However, Andersen doesn't present this as a Marxist argument like “capitalism is the problem and socialism is the solution.” His response is primarily moral and humanitarian: society has become so indifferent to poverty that a child can freeze to death while surrounded by people enjoying prosperity.

The Emperor's New Clothes

This one is less directly about economics but strongly attacks status, hierarchy and social conformity.

The emperor has enormous wealth and power, yet he is essentially a fool. The people around him are afraid to tell him the truth because of his position.

Andersen is mocking a society where:

> wealth + status + authority = assumed superiority

That's a broader criticism of elite society rather than capitalism specifically.

The Swineherd

This is another strong example of Andersen mocking the aristocratic/bourgeois obsession with luxury, status and artificial sophistication. The royal court values expensive and fashionable objects while failing to appreciate genuine beauty and simplicity. Andersen's satire of the court has been interpreted as criticism of superficial upper-class culture.

The Ugly Duckling

This can also be interpreted economically/class-wise, although that's not necessarily its primary meaning.

The protagonist is rejected because he doesn't fit the standards of his society. His eventual transformation into a swan changes how everyone sees him.

That can be read as criticism of a society that judges people according to appearance, status and social value.

But there's an important complication

Andersen's stories aren't consistently anti-capitalist.

His own life is actually an interesting counterexample. He was born into relatively poor circumstances and eventually became wealthy and famous. One modern scholar specifically notes that his success coincided with the rise of capitalism in Denmark — and that his rise from poverty to wealth was itself enabled by the new capitalist society.

So I would characterize Andersen as:

Critical of:

extreme poverty

wealth inequality

exploitation of the powerless

social indifference

aristocratic/bourgeois arrogance

obsession with material status

treating people according to economic/social value

Not necessarily critical of:

private wealth itself

commerce

entrepreneurship

social mobility

capitalism as an economic system in the modern ideological sense

In other words, Andersen is much more clearly a critic of social inequality and human cruelty than a systematic critic of capitalism.

And that distinction matters. A modern reader can legitimately find anti-capitalist themes in The Little Match Girl, but saying “Andersen's fairy tales are anti-capitalist” would be too broad. His deeper recurring message is closer to “a society that possesses wealth but lacks compassion is morally corrupt.”

No one in this thread is denying that, the argument is that exploitation is better than inaction.

Exploitation includes inaction. Read The Little Match Girl I mentioned.

So everyone is obligated to give all their excess income to charity?

No, just give all extra until there are no more poor people. After you eliminate poverty, there is no one to give extra of income to, and nation enters golden age.

Pretty much anyone who tries that will go broke long before poverty is eliminated.

Not really. You don't have to give all your money, just extra. So you won't ever go broke. And the nation will not go broke. In fact, nations with more donations consistently rank better in life quality, because apparently helping others somehow rewards the person who helps too.

Yes—donating money can improve the donor’s quality of life, although it depends on the person and how the donation is made.

Research generally finds several possible benefits:

Greater happiness: Giving to others can produce a “warm glow” and positive emotions.

More meaning and purpose: Donating to causes you care about can make life feel more meaningful.

Better social connection: Giving can strengthen relationships and a sense of belonging, especially when done through a community.

Less focus on oneself: Generosity can shift attention away from personal worries and toward helping others.

Life satisfaction: People who regularly give to others often report higher overall life satisfaction.

There is an important limit, though: donating money that you genuinely cannot afford can reduce quality of life because financial stress can outweigh the psychological benefits.

A useful principle is:

> Donate enough to meaningfully help others while keeping enough financial security for yourself.

Interestingly, the benefit doesn't necessarily require giving a huge amount. Even relatively small donations can provide psychological benefits when the donor feels that the money is genuinely making a difference.

Yes, donating can improve social relationships, particularly when the giving is connected to other people.

It can help by:

Building trust: Generosity can signal that you're cooperative and caring.

Strengthening friendships and family relationships: Giving to people you care about can reinforce bonds.

Creating social connections: Donating to a community, charity, or group can introduce you to people with similar values.

Increasing reciprocity: People may be more inclined to help and cooperate with someone they perceive as generous.

Improving your reputation: Generosity can make others view you more positively.

However, there is a distinction between healthy generosity and giving to gain approval. If someone repeatedly gives money mainly because they fear rejection or expect something in return, it can actually create unhealthy relationships.

So, in general: generosity tends to support social connection, but the quality of the relationship and the motivation for giving matter.

You said until poverty is eliminated.

Yes, but it doesn't mean you give all your money to others. You still need part of money for your own food and house.

I was asking if individuals, without state backing, were obligated to give all their excess money to charity.

I think both individual and state have obligation to help others. If you wouldn't let a child in front of you drown, why would you let child somewhere else starve? Starvation is probably worse than drowning. I say if individual earns 100000$, but only needs 50000$ to cover basic expenses and secure long future, the idea of keeping 50000$ for personal use seems terribly selfish. One can donate to charity or invest in business to create jobs, or just help people he knows need the help. However, if someone is entirely self centered, then who will solve poverty?

I guess you think they are, so I guess from a hard utilitarianism view, exploitation is suboptimal.

Well, there are different forms of exploitation. Some is a lot worse than other.

But I still think the optimal utilitarian path might involve exploiting some people in order to use the profit to help others.

I don't believe in "harm one to help another" approach. Maybe some exploitation is necessary for economy to function, but such must be so minimal that it can be barely called exploitation.

Except exploitation isn't harm since it's better than nothing.

I think it is harm, because the goal of eliminating poverty cannot be achieved by maximizing exploitation.

In fact, not exploiting would be helping less than you could be since you wouldn't have the money to help others.

If your goal is helping others, then surely money you make can be used to help the people you exploited first, so it stops being exploitation.

The problem in "maximizing profit to help others" lies in the fact that each extra money can be further used to make new investments and maximize profit. So maximizing profit actually never ends in cycle and money never reaches people.

At some point, person must stop re-investing money, and instead donate it.

However, opening a business and donating extra from business income is usually easier and doesn't necessarily require exploiting anyone.

Owning non-exploitative businesses and also helping others with extra income is the most optimal approach, because no one in that system lives in poverty.

Also, the idea that a lot of money is needed is actually not true.

If each American donated just 10$, they would raise around 2 billion dollars, enough to solve all homelessness in USA.

I don't even need to say what they could do if each American donated 10$ each month.

Also, I am a big fan of cost-effective charity. I don't think all charity is equal. Homes for homeless and shelters for homeless are really two different things.

But as far as I know, average American donates less than 1% of their income to charity. To put things in perspective, if average American donated 20% of their income to charity, they would raise 12 trillions each year, and that's pretty much enough to solve any damn social issue in whole USA. Right now they only raise about 600 billion, but a lot of that goes to church building.

If every American donated 20% of their income, the amount would be enormous.

Using the latest full-year figure available, U.S. personal income was about $26.1 trillion in 2025.

Calculation

$26.1 trillion × 20% = $5.22 trillion per year

So roughly:

💰 $5.2 trillion per year

💰 $435 billion per month

💰 $14.3 billion per day

🇺🇸 About $15,300 per U.S. resident per year, using the 2025 population of 341.8 million.

That's roughly one-fifth of all personal income in the United States being redirected to charitable causes every year.

For comparison, $5.2 trillion is more than 20% of U.S. GDP, so it would be an extraordinarily large redistribution of resources—not simply a modest increase in charitable giving.

If you want, I can also .estimate **what $5.2 trillion/year could accomplish globally** (poverty, hunger, housing, healthcare, education, etc.)

If the hypothetical $5.2 trillion per year were coordinated and spent effectively on global development, it could have an extraordinary impact. The key point is that $5.2T is so large that money alone would stop being the main constraint in many areas; infrastructure, governance, skilled workers, conflict, and logistics would become major constraints.

For scale, the ILO estimates that low- and middle-income countries need about $1.4 trillion additional spending per year to achieve universal social-protection floors and essential healthcare.

A plausible allocation of $5.2T/year

Area Annual funding Potential impact

🏥 Healthcare $1.2T Massive expansion of hospitals, clinics, medicines, vaccines and preventive care

🍚 Food & nutrition $700B Large-scale food security, nutrition programs and agricultural investment

🏠 Housing & basic infrastructure $800B Housing, electricity, clean water, sanitation and roads

🎓 Education $700B Universal basic education plus huge expansion of secondary/vocational education

💵 Poverty/social protection $800B Cash transfers, pensions, disability support and assistance to extremely poor families

🌱 Clean energy & climate $500B Renewable electricity, grids, storage and climate adaptation

🕊️ Humanitarian/refugee assistance $200B Enormous expansion of assistance during wars, disasters and displacement

🔬 Science/technology $200B Medicine, agriculture, energy and other technological development

Total $5.1T

That would leave roughly $100B for administration, emergency reserves and other priorities.

The humanitarian side alone would be transformed

For perspective, UNHCR's entire 2025 global appeal was about $10.25 billion.

So $5.2 trillion is roughly 500 times that amount.

The UN's humanitarian system has recently been operating with dramatically less funding; humanitarian funding fell from about $47.5B in 2022 to $33.3B in 2025.

So $5.2T could theoretically fund humanitarian operations on an entirely different scale.

Healthcare could be particularly powerful

The WHO/World Bank report says approximately 4.6 billion people lack access to essential health services, while 2.1 billion experience financial hardship from healthcare costs.

And the World Bank currently estimates that government and donor spending in low-income countries is less than one-third of the $60/person benchmark considered necessary for essential health services.

A sustained $1+ trillion annual investment could therefore dramatically expand:

Primary-care clinics

Maternal and infant healthcare

Vaccination

Malaria/TB/HIV prevention and treatment

Clean-water infrastructure

Medicines

Emergency medicine

Mental-health services

Medical training

Hospitals and laboratories

Poverty could potentially be reduced enormously

The ILO's estimate is especially striking: $1.4T/year is estimated to be enough to close the social-protection financing gap across low- and middle-income countries.

That includes support for:

Children

Older people

Disabled people

Unemployed people

Mothers

Essential healthcare

So even allocating $1.4T annually could theoretically address a huge portion of the basic social-protection deficit.

Over 10 years

If the money were sustained:

$5.2T × 10 = $52 trillion

That's enough to potentially finance a generational transformation of living standards in poorer countries.

It wouldn't mean simply handing everyone money. A more effective approach would be to build productive capacity: electricity, clean water, schools, hospitals, roads, agriculture, housing, internet access, businesses and education.

In other words, the most powerful effect might be moving billions of people from "helping them survive" → "giving them the infrastructure and human capital to become economically self-sufficient."

And importantly, $5.2T doesn't mean $5.2T of pure benefit automatically. Dumping that much money into the world economy could cause inflation, corruption, waste, asset-price increases and shortages if spending outpaced the ability to actually produce goods and services. The challenge would shift from finding money to deploying it effectively.