Talk:George Soros

Russia
Hi, refs 4 and 5 don't suggest that Soros had anything to do with weakening Russia's economy, and 5 doesn't seem to mention Soros at all(?). It appears that Soros made public comments to benefit his funds, but it seems a bit of a stretch to give him so much credit.

I understand that it is (supposed to be) a joke, but it doesn't really make any sense. Am I missing the punchline? Is it supposed to be that Soros is blamed for things that he didn't do? In this case maybe a link to someone blaming him might help? Lgs (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Helping undermine the Soviet Union is not "innocuous."
Yeltsin is not liked in most post-soviet states. There are very good reasons this anti-democratic right wing nationalist isn't liked. He destroyed their country, balkanized it, started several wars, killed millions through the results of economic hardship due to ruinous mass-privatization of the people's democratically-controlled industry he had no right to sell, and also left the American empire in a position of supreme, unchecked, global, hegemonic power, with all the disastrous results that entails.

Anyone who tried to cause this, and don't pretend nobody knew what would happen when Yeltsin took office, is a mass murderer and an American Imperialist. Neither of those things are innocuous and liberalism is not a cruelty-free ideology. Russia is right to ban this enemy of the Soviet people.

Far too positive
What the heck?! This page is way too soft on Soros, he's an evil man who exploits the working class like all billionaires!!!!! Catgrrl37-0 (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dog-whistle your antisemitism much? Bongolian (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually anyone that accuses Soros of being an evil billionaire that exploits the working class usually have seedy undersides. This compels me to ask, what exactly is Soros doing? It's best you actually spend more time here explaining your position given this subject is swarmed with bad-faith anti-Semites, and if you fail to do so, you'll just be lumped in with the rest. 19:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All billionaires are bad. Period., You can't be a billionaru without oppressing the working class and being inherently sexist and racist, as capitalism is a n inherently racist and sexist system. It is terrible that these conspiracy theories about soros exist and he is bit better i guess because he's donated to soemhwat left wing causes but he still relies on the exploitation of other s for his wealth which is morally indefensible, and this article gives him a pass over other billionaires because of that Catgrrl37-0 (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * so other than him being a billionaire you've got nothing. provide sources if what any changes to article AMassiveGay (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * An exploitative billionaire should not be allowed to manipulate societies as he has. And that is *nothing* to do with any Jewish background he has. It is pretty scummy in fact to suggest all of his critics are anti-Semites. The exact same criticisms can be made of the Rockefellers, Bill Gates, Musk and co. who are not from that background. Gates' business practices, for example were so corrupt that even the US government took him to court, and now we're supposed to see him as a saint too. What's the old saying? A leopard cannot change its spots. And the spots on these guys' reputations are huge.


 * When Soros did the UK economy over he caused numerous people to suffer, regardless of his background. The idea that he somehow has the interests of ordinary people at heart is as ridiculous as claiming Donald Trump understands them. -Albannach (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Fake news
One of the usual clickbait providers came up with this Anna Livia (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Very one sided
Okay, this is not as bad as the Wikipedia article, which makes him sound like a modern saint, but this is still very one-sided. I'm old enough to remember when criticising capitalists or their undue influence on our societies was a LEFT wing sport, and wasn't automatically associated with anti-Semitism or being accused of being right wing. Can't we just admit Soros is a creep and it is nothing to do with Judaism whatsoever?

It seems pretty clear Soros has bought out large sections of the left, in what could be called a corporate take over. It never ceases to amaze me what he's been funding. I discovered recently that he is a major funder of the Open Democracy blog - I've been reading it for years. I suppose the big irony is that Open Democracy continually complains about "dark money" being poured into UK politics, but is not up front about where its own money comes from (several dubious foundations and the National Endowment For Democracy run by the US government)

Why would a man who spent his life as a callous businessman do this? My instinct would suggest that he wished to remould the left in line with his business interests (replacing pesky trade unions which campaign for higher wages with divisive identity politics). He may also wish to influence the right, by using the left. I really struggle to believe this guy does this out of the kindness of his heart, and not the bottom line. I'm not even convinced he is a champagne socialist

The globalist accusation is not without merit. I think he does wish such a thing, and that is down to his father who was a major Esperantist (and took the name Soros, which is an Esperanto word).

This article takes the line "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". In Soros' case, I really don't think he is. At least it mentions how he crashed the British economy (maybe it should mention a few other not very philanthropic things he has got up to). -Albannach (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck, those ppl only care about "dunking on the right", they don't want to promote knowledge or science like they claim to be, they're idiots. 2001:AC8:27:8:565A:D8B5:65B0:A0C6 (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's very hard to dig up dirt on this guy, but it's certainly out there, just well hidden. The Wikipedia article is even worse. (NB- I don't like web references as they don't last long.) I have incidentally pulled up several left wing acquaintances and friends for being involved with his projects, and they get very sheepish/embarassed about it. (Open Democracy particularly, which has the nerve to go on about American billionaires pouring money into UK politics - to me it doesn't matter if it's the Koch Brothers or Soros, it's the same phenomenon.)-Albannach (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki isn't AntiCapitalismWiki. Go start AntiCapitalismWiki if you want to go that direction. Per the mission, this article IMHO rightly focuses on the zillions of conspiracy theories associated to him (largely advanced by other rich guys via populist right-wing media.) Soros got rich by managing a hedge fund. From all that I've read (such as this article) a lot of his philanthropy is fueled by his experience with totalitarian communism in Hungary, and a viewpoint that (as GrammarCommie mentioned) extreme capitalism shares similarities with this totalitarian mindset. Ergo in his mind (probably truthfully to be honest), extreme capitalism bad for business. I suppose one can fault Soros for being hypocritical in getting rich by participating in an arbitrage oriented market system that in many ways is a sign of said extreme capitalism, and then pledge his wealth to his "open society" concept which goes against it. But there are worse ways to use your hedge fund wealth. An example of the damage a quant hedge fund manager can do is Robert Mercer -- we (correctly) don't have an article on him, because we aren't AntiCapitalismWiki. But he used his riches to provide funding for Breitbart, Parler, and the campaign of Donald Trump, all of which are in scope. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I question many of his motives. In this case, it is hard to avoid conspiracy notions altogether, since if someone is not up front with why they do something then assumptions do creep in. I do not think Soros is open about most of what he does and why. I understand why he dislikes Fascism - recent family history - but some of his other projects are a mystery and contradictory. We shouldn't just have a Wikipedia puff piece on him. My hunch is that the man likes disassembling and reassembling systems and countries.


 * As for Robert Mercer, yes I would be interested in an article on him. (There have been distortions about the Parler debate - it was blamed on the Capitol invasion, but AFAIK those people had Facebook accounts and did not organise it via Parler.) Mercer would certainly tie into issues of Qanon and media censorship which are relevant here.-Albannach (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You're clear to add criticism, so long as you can source it. Just don't go to far and claim that Soros controls everything or is the puppet master of the left. I'm no fan of Soros, but he doesn't deserve to be demonized. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is unclear what his motives are - I suspect in return he gets groups which won't criticise him and his economic policies, and if they do, they get their funding pulled. They also help undermine people on both the left and right who disagree with him. It is noticeable that today's left spends very little time on wages or labour practices, for example. He wouldn't be the first capitalist to try and tame the left.


 * I believe he has been involved in funding "fact checkers", which is also a form of social manipulation, but it is hard to dig out the information on it. I'm not keen on weblinks as references, they have a short shelf life.-Albannach (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done some digging on him in the past, and it seems pretty simple. Soros supports more social democratic policy because a stable economy is good for business. 14:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Those DA that allow criminals to go free in the name of equity are anything but harmless. It has nothing to do with a. war on drugs, and everything to do with. war on safety. His NGO also fund BLM, which are also not harmless.

I propose to rename the article to "Theories about G. Soros"
The article says almost nothing about a person, but only about theories about this person. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 178.207.207.2 / talk
 * They're not just "theories". It's conspiracy bullshit spouted out by wingnuts. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)