Talk:James Fleck

Untitled
Why not more attention on the Fleck strike of the 1970s and Fleck's role in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.39.34 (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is my suggestion for the Philanthropy page, which regardless feels (as it is) bloated and full of unimportant items:

Jim Fleck is one of Canada’s most active cultural "philanthropists." For over 35 years, he has donated his time, expertise, and, most importantly, money to a number of arts organizations across the country (neither his time nor expertise would be worth anything without the money he contributes).

"Philanthropy" is a practice by which men and women who have been allowed to accrue a disproportionately large percentage of public wealth give back a small portion of that, often to arts organizations, as a means of self-aggrandizement and, often, in exchange for tax breaks. Thus money that has been taken from the "common"—often due to some form of exploitation, such as low wages, pollution, or privatization of public resources (such as oil or minerals)—is returned, selectively, and at the whim of the "benefactor," to the "common."

Philanthropy is not worth recgonizing without this acknowledgment. The details of Jim Fleck's philanthropic career are valueless compared to the immense inequity he has been responsible for. It is immoral to hold such large concentrations of wealth in the face of extreme poverty often created by the very conditions that created that wealth. In no just world would Jim Fleck be celebrated as anything more than a profiteer. 138.51.116.97 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)