Philanthropic Efforts From Companies Like TOMS and Charities like Livestrong Should Not Exist.

First: Some terms should be defined. Philanthropy is a key term in this debate or argument, it's pretty straightforward. I don't mean philanthropy in the strict definition "love of humanity", rather what it's more commonly used for, the beneficial acts and contributions to maintaining someone, group of people, or countries and organizations when they cannot provide for themselves. Companies: Pretty straightforward, companies include the likes of businesses like the above mentioned TOMS, but also includes companies like Starbucks. Businesses also include hospitals since they have become increasingly, and terrifyingly, more like businesses than one would like to admit. Doctor's then can be seen as extensions of hospitals. Charities: Also straightforward, but for the sake of defining them here charities include organizations and "things" that are aimed at collecting and providing assistance to those that are needy in any and all aspects. These include Livestrong, (R)ed, etc. Cultural Capitalism: This one is not so straightforward, so here is how I define it and will use it in my argument. Cultural capitalism, essentially, is capitalism that's been reshaped to aide, almost in a contradictory way, those that are too economically weak, unstable, and unable to participate in large-scale, and or global capitalist systems through a seemingly beneficial cultural aid and development. An example of cultural capitalism is TOMS shoes. Buying one pair of shoes will in turn provide for a poor child to receive a pair of shoes somewhere in the world. TOMS is using capitalism, the selling of their shoes, in the hopes of providing aid via shoes, the cultural portion. Those are the main terms, I don't think that there will be anything else that I will use in my argument that wouldn't be clearly understood by us both. --- Over the past decade or so with so-called movements, that resemble haute trends more than true movements aimed at bettering the world, have sprung up all over the world, notably in the United States. One of these companies, TOMS, talks about their aim or goal as a movement. The TOMS company ensures that with every purchase a consumer makes through them a poor child, or person, will receive a pair of shoes that they can call their own. Superficially this only seems like it can actually do good. But what it actually does it perpetuate the very systems, political ideologies, and mindsets that allow for the existence of third-world countries and poverty. I will focus mainly on the Western societies and cultures, and the United States population in particular. Charities like (R)ed, supporting AIDS awareness and research, and Livestrong, supporting those affected by caner, are more like trends than actual charities. They resemble the diet fads of the '50s and '60s more than progressive and effective charity or political movements. People in the United States keep an eye out, waiting for the next pseudo-charity or business, or capitalistic, opportunity to arise that would make it easy for them to "help" those less fortunate in the world without any direct effort on their part. Because of this, companies like TOMS and similar charity groups and efforts under the umbrella of cultural capitalism needs to not only be completely severed from the world, and idea, of true philanthropic efforts because they only provide a means for people to console their guilt by having the idea that their materialist greed will be offset by the byproduct of their purchases. However, they do not realize that their participation in this vastly destructive and dangerous practice only serves to proliferate suffering and the condition for it to arise.