What exactly is the system EA's critics are seeking to change?

I think you're underestimating the level of hostility most socialists and communists have towards philanthropy and EA in particular. In my experience (online only) EAs receive consistent, active and preemptive hostility from leftist groups, including vicious attacks on personality and character rather than mere disagreement about ends and means. It's naive to think that small questions of framing would shift this relationship.

Of course it's important to frame things in such a way that a sizeable minority of leftists go along with us, but that's always going to be in opposition to concerted hostility from powerful people within the leftist ecosystem. And really this is more a matter of public-facing communication rather than stuff on this forum.

The goal for EA is not to engage against other ideologies

It's a perfectly valid goal. If other ideologies are wrong (or, to put it in subjective terms, if they contradict our own values) then we ought to defeat them - if that is in fact possible and the most effective strategy in pragmatic terms. There's nothing special about other people's ideologies that renders them immune to criticism and change like anything else.

EA can be framework for figuring out strategic ways to fulfill your values

It might be useful to promote this to other people in some cases, but as a concept of EA this view is philosophically untenable. See: https://philpapers.org/rec/BEREAH-3

Strongly upvoted. Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response.

Utilitarianism / widening of the moral circle is very similar to ordinary lefty egalitarianism. Don't lose sight of that just because some branches of the left don't think some particular EA method are the best possible way to save the world, and cite Failure to Challenge the System as the reason.

At least one leftist critique of EA has made the case while leftist political movements and EA can find common ground in the ideals shared between egalitarianism and utilitarianism, through an egalitarian lens, the framing of altruism should be seen by all leftists as problematic. From "5 Problems with Effective Altruism", by Connor Woodman, published in Novara Media in June 2016:

4. Solidarity is a better moral framework than altruism.

‘Aid’ has paternalistic undertones. Instead, we should be looking to support and join in transnational solidarity with movements in the west and Global South: indigenous peoples, landless peasants, precarious garment workers. As Monique Deveaux puts it: “By failing to see the poor as actual or prospective agents of justice [EA’s approaches] risk ignoring the root political causes of, and best remedies for, entrenched poverty.”

The best way to show solidarity is to strike at the heart of global inequality in our own land. There are an array of solidarity groups that seek to change western foreign policy and support modern-day national liberation movements. There are also various western NGOs which seek to injure the production of structural injustice in the west.

Words like solidarity – along with class, imperialism and exploitation – are scrubbed from the EA lexicon. Perhaps they should relaunch as Effective Solidarity.

"The System" is the power structures that emerged thereby. It includes concepts of private property, slavery, marriage (which was generally a form of slavery), social control of reproduction, social control of sex, caste, class, racism, etc - all mechanisms ultimately meant to justify the power held by the powerful. [...]

Despite resource scarcity declining due to tech advance, the bulk of human societies are still operating off those neolithic power hierarchies, and the attending harmful structures and concepts are still in place.

I'm aware of this. Some leftist critics of EA come from an essentially Marxist perspective (i.e., "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.") While not all contemporary Marxists, some leftists take this to a logical conclusion known as class reductionism: the idea other apparent kinds of oppression like racism and sexism are absolutely functions of classism, and so this is the only kind of anti-oppression politics leftists need or should prioritize (in spite of Urban Dictionary's contention, I'm aware this is a position in fact advanced by some people, although it's true the accusation as often levelled is unsound). Obviously, there are disagreements over class reductionism within leftism that have nothing to do with EA.

It's ambiguous whether EA's leftist critics are primarily talking about 'systemic change' in terms of economic class, or through an intersectional lens, and see race, sex, sexuality, or other dimensions of oppression to be just as important as economics in what in EA's approaches should change. So, my original question could have been formulated as: to what extent is leftist criticism of EA class reductionist, or intersectionalist?

2) Corporate environments maximize profit. Effective altruists maximize impact. As both these things are ultimately geared towards maximizing something that ultimately boils down to a number, effective altruist language often sounds an awful lot like corporate language, and people who "succeed" in effective altruism look and sound an awful lot like people who "succeed" in corporate environments. This breeds a sense of distrust. There's a long history within leftism of groups of people "selling out" - claiming to try to change the system from inside, but then turning their backs on the powerless once they got power. To some degree, this similarity may create distasteful perceptions of a person's "value" within effective altruism that is analogous to the distasteful perception of a person's "value" in a capitalist society. (E.g. capitalist society treats people who are good at earning money as sort of morally superior. Changing "earning money" to "causing impact" can cause similarly wrong thinking)

This is a major source of implicit distrust some leftists would have upon being introduced to EA that has been just below the surface of my thinking on this subject, but I've never seen anyone in EA articulate this point so well.

3) EAs to some extent come off as viewing the global poor as "people to help" rather than "people to empower". The effective altruist themself is viewed as the hero and agent of change, not the people they are helping. There is not that much discussion of the people we are helping as agents of change who might play an important part in their own liberation.

This is essentially the criticism of EA I quoted above from the Novara Media article. You're right this is a criticism of EA that isn't inherently leftist, but it is one leftists tend to make most often. It's one I agree with. I look forward to your writing on it. Please feel free to reach out to me for help in writing it, or for proofreading, editing, or feedback on the draft.

I would strongly recommend not creating a false dichotomy between "EA" and "Leftists", and setting up these things as somehow opposed or at odds.

I'm aware of this, especially because criticisms of EA by leftists outside EA are confounded by the fact most of the EA community already is leftist, and critics often lack awareness of this. I was just utilizing this frame because it's one the debate has historically been situated in by how leftist critics of EA have imposed this dichotomy on the conversation between themselves, and the EA community.

Well, I think this is an unhelpful tone. It is, again, setting up EA as something different and better than leftism, rather than a way for us to fulfill our values - even if our values aren't all exactly the same as each others. This isn't particular to leftism.

I should have been more specific above. If I didn't think the was room for cooperation or collaboration between EA and any leftist political movements, I would have said 'most' or 'all' of them are ineffective, or countereffective, by the lights of overlapping principles of both EA and leftist politics. However, while it may not be most, there are at least some leftist factions I do think EA is qualified in asserting we are better than at providing people with opportunities to pursue their own autonomy and liberation. EA should be, and thus rightly is, open to an earnest and ongoing dialogue with leftist political movements, even some of the most radical among them. Nobody has to take it from me. No less than William MacAskill has said in a closing address at EAG that EA should be open-minded to diverse intellectual, political, and ideological perspectives, and thus should not assume something like Marxism is wrong on principle, in response to what he presumably saw as an insufficient degree of open-mindedness in the very movement he co-founded. Yet EA can't take that to a conclusion of undermining its own principles.

All variety of leftist ideologies from history are on the upswing today, as politics becomes more polarized, and more people are shifting leftward (and, of course, rightward as well) away from the centre. This has impelled some radical anti-capitalists to spread in the last few years as a propaganda the meme "liberals get the bullet too". If this was inspired by they ideology of, say, Leninism, then while even if EA shouldn't moralize in asserting ourselves as "better", this would be sufficient grounds for EA to deny a positive association with them, even if the line is meant only rhetorically or symbolically. This would be justified even if we would at the same time build bridges to other leftist movements that have shown themselves more conducive to cooperation with EA, such as those Marxists who would be willing to seek common ground with EA. Of course, as there are many ideologies on the Left, including whole families of ideologies totally incompatible with EA, I believe we must be clear about this. Like you yourself said, this isn't unique to leftists. With regards to the Right, EA could build bridges to conservatism, while nonetheless totally rejecting a notion we might ally ourselves with the family of rightist ideologies we could call "supremacism".

The goal for EA is not to engage against other ideologies, the goal (to the extent that EA ideas are good and true, which obviously they may not all be) is to become part of the fabric of common sense by which other ideologies operate and try to perpetuate their goals.

To reframe my last point in the context of your words, if EA is to become part of humanity's fabric of moral common sense, we must recognize there are ideologies that don't operate under that fabric in the perpetuation of their goals, and go against the grain of both EA and the fabric of common sense. For EA to be worth anything, we must on principle be willing to engage against those ideologies. Of course, EA can and should be willing to ally itself with those leftists who'd seek to expand the circle of moral concern against those who would seek to shrink it to get ahead, no matter what their original ideals were.

This is with regards to political ideologies where either the disagreement over fundamental values, or at least basic facts that inform our moral judgements, are irreconcilable. Yet there will also be political movements with which EA can reconcile, as we would share the same fundamental values, but EA will nonetheless be responsible to criticize or challenge, on the grounds those movements are, in practice, using means or pursuing ends that put them in opposition to those of EA. Current Affairs is a socialist/radical leftist magazine that I believe represents the kinds of leftist movements with which EA can find common ground. Yet when I was seeking the same kind of conciliation you're seeking in this thread, in another discussion of socialism and effective altruism, kbog impressed upon me the importance of EA's willingness to push back against those policy prescriptions that would fail to increase well-being as much as could be done simply because of a failure of effectiveness, if not altruistic intent. This conclusion is an unfortunate one even to me, as like myself I believe most of EA wouldn't want to have engage others in this way, but it may be necessary. I believe our willingness to live up to that responsibility is one of the few things that distinguishes EA at all from any other community predicated on doing good.

What's more, I'm pretty sure that the widespread acceptance of the basic building block concepts of effective altruism (such as, all people are equally important) are largely due to these leftist social movements. I don't think it's a stretch to say that EA itself is at least in part among the products of these social movements.

Agreed.

I wish I could even more strongly upvote this. I think the tension between EA and leftism is largely a product of mutual misunderstanding. In general, I think there is more overlap and room for cooperation than disagreement (particularly on things like open borders, decarceration, wealth redistribution/addressing inequality). I would encourage EAs to check out a Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) meeting in their hometown. Even if you strongly disagree with leftism/socialism, you'll see a very different method of organizing people committed to helping others, which I have found an educational contrast with how we do things at EA NYC. DSA is great at involving lots of members in impactful local campaigns (supporting policies like universal rent control or medicare for all, organizing tenants, or supporting electoral candidates).

For the people who think that the left is disorganized and ineffective, I would encourage you to read more about the DSA's electoral successes in the past few years (good overview of the DSA here: https://newrepublic.com/article/153768/inside-democratic-socialists-america-struggle-political-mainstream and a shorter piece by Nathan Robinson https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/05/why-i-love-the-d-s-a). Congresswomen AOC and Rashida Tlaib were DSA members and probably would not have won without the DSA's grassroots support. Tiffany Caban is a DSA-backed public defender who has a real shot at becoming the next Queens District Attorney, an extraordinarily powerful position. Queens has over 2M people and the DA can unilaterally decide a lot of criminal justice policy in their jurisdiction. If Bernie wins the primary and general, DSA will have played a large role in turning out grassroots volunteers.

I'm not advocating that EA actively engage in political campaigns or radically change the way its local groups are structured. I just think that EAs who are interested in policy change go to some DSA events, because I think the DSA understands how political change happens far better than almost everyone I know in EA. Even if you think their priorities are dead wrong, they have been massively successful on an annual budget of less than $1m (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/133109557).

Can you give an example of a concrete argument along the lines of this "type of thinking" that was or would be ignored?

Strongly upvoted. This highlights the difference between criticisms of EA it doesn't focus enough on systemic change that come from a particularly left-wing perspectives, and others which are based on empirical or ethical disagreements as opposed to political ones. This is a distinction I should have made clear in the OP, and I didn't. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm aware there are at least some critics of EA who by "systemic change" do indeed bother with the critical theory stuff, in addition to capitalism, as they see the other structures of oppression they're trying to point at as part and parcel with capitalism. I recall an article or two like this, but I don't specifically remember which ones right now. I will try finding them, and when I do, I'll respond with another comment.

Yeah, but I already acknowledged what they're usually doing. I want to know what the unusual leftist critics of EA think.

EA often celebrates individuals who give a lot of money, without recognising where that money comes from. We don't openly acknowledge how much money Britain and America have gained from the Global South, both in the past and right now

Have you asked EAs what they think about economic history? Why don't you do that before making presumptions about others' attitudes towards it?

Of course some (not nearly all) of America and Britain's wealth comes from interactions with the global South, and furthermore of course some comes from unfair interactions (though the magnitude of this is less clear). There, I openly acknowledge it, because it is banal. Presumably other EAs generally know about it too, so why would you demand it to be preemptively "acknowledged"?

Such demands are unproductive and silly. Otherwise we may as well demand that everyone "acknowledge" animal farming, and governance, and urbanization, and technological advances, and human cognition, and slavery, and everything else that has contributed to economic growth. But there are books for those things: if someone wants to know why the economy has turned out this way, they can go read those books. Or they can ask us, and we can tell them what we think or what sources to read. There's no reason to preempt this healthy intellectual process with a political game of collective atonement.

why are the rich rich, and why are the poor poor? EA is always very quiet about that

Because (a) that question has already been largely addressed, there is extensive economic and historical literature examining the issue, and (b) it's not really important for answering most of the questions that we have to answer.

Edit: less rude now.

I expect EA hasn't publicly acknowledged this is as much as we maybe should have in the past because:

1. Even if we were to assume the worst, and that all the gains of the Western world EA is giving away were originally ill-gotten, it wouldn't change how we think it is best redistributed to improve the world, including to do justice by the very people the wealth would allegedly have been expropriated from;

2. Acknowledging this can give opportunistic critics of EA the chance to back EA into a corner and pillory us as too ignorant of issues of justice to accomplish any good;

3. Even if we did acknowledged this, it's unclear we would reach a conclusion about what EA should do better than what we have now, since this is a question of the origins of wealth, a fundamental question of politics as hotly disputed in the world today as any, and not one I expect EA would be able to resolve to anyone's satisfaction.

This isn't to say EA shouldn't do better on this issue. It's just in my experience the conditions set up when people debate these questions in public, including with regard to EA, aren't set up to give EA a chance to learn, respond, update, improve, or change. I.e., most instances when this subject is broached it is a political debate set up for rhetorical purposes by 2 sides EA is caught between, and who exploit EA's reception to criticism to use it as a springboard to advance their own agenda.

While I didn't upvote kbog's comment for being rude, and I agree with you he didn't need to be that rude, I didn't downvote it either because I think he is reaching for a valid point. While I express it differently, I share kbog's frustration with how sometimes effective altruists say we should extend so much charity to anti-capitalist critics of EA, while it may not be a majority of them, there are lots of kinds of anti-capitalism it seems EA should not actually want to reconcile with. I expressed that point without the rudeness of kbog's comment in another comment reply I'll excerpt here:

All variety of leftist ideologies from history are on the upswing today, as politics becomes more polarized, and more people are shifting leftward (and, of course, rightward as well) away from the centre. This has impelled some radical anti-capitalists to spread in the last few years as a propaganda the meme "liberals get the bullet too".

If this was inspired by they ideology of, say, Leninism, then while even if EA shouldn't moralize in asserting ourselves as "better", this would be sufficient grounds for EA to deny a positive association with them, even if the line is meant only rhetorically or symbolically. This would be justified even if we would at the same time build bridges to other leftist movements that have shown themselves more conducive to cooperation with EA, such as those Marxists who would be willing to seek common ground with EA. Of course, as there are many ideologies on the Left, including whole families of ideologies totally incompatible with EA, I believe we must be clear about how we're going to tow this line. Like you yourself said, this isn't unique to leftists. With regards to the Right, EA could build bridges to conservatism, while nonetheless totally rejecting a notion we might ally ourselves with the family of rightist ideologies we could call "supremacism".

[...]

If EA is to become part of humanity's fabric of moral common sense, we must recognize there are ideologies that don't operate under that fabric in the perpetuation of their goals, and go against the grain of both EA and the fabric of common sense. For EA to be worth anything, we must on principle be willing to engage against those ideologies. Of course, EA can and should be willing to ally itself with those leftists who'd seek to expand the circle of moral concern against those who would seek to shrink it to get ahead, no matter what their original ideals were.

This is with regards to political ideologies where either the disagreement over fundamental values, or at least basic facts that inform our moral judgements, are irreconcilable. Yet there will also be political movements with which EA can reconcile, as we would share the same fundamental values, but EA will nonetheless be responsible to criticize or challenge, on the grounds those movements are, in practice, using means or pursuing ends that put them in opposition to those of EA.

[...]

I believe our willingness to live up to that responsibility is one of the few things that distinguishes EA at all from any other community predicated on doing good.

From my viewpoint, to the extent the systemic change criticism of EA is correct, EA should internalize this criticism, and should effectively change socioeconomic systems better than leftists ever expected from us, and perhaps better than leftist political movements themselves (lots of them don't appear to be active or at least effective in actually changing "the system" they themselves criticize EA for neglecting). If that's the case, I think what we've been doing is mostly lip service, or bending the activities we currently support out of shape to look like the systemic change leftists criticize us for not engaging in enough. It's plausible something like EA donations to Givewell-recommended charities like GiveDirectly or the AMF taken to their logical conclusion leads to the best systemic change we could reliably seek to enact. Yet I don't think we've done our diligence to check that is in fact the case, or there is a kind of effective systemic socio-political/socio-economic change we should participate in.

While EA is quickly moving toward policy work, a comprehensive and legible slate of what the global EA efforts in this regard are doesn't exist. I could tell you most of what's going on in EA on the fronts of global poverty alleviation; mental health; animal welfare; AI alignment, and other x-risks. I'm not confident I could map out even a minority of the policy work going on in EA if someone asked me.

To the extent the systemic change criticism of EA is incorrect, as EA enters the policy arena more and more, we will once again come in friction with leftist (and other political movements), unlike EA has since its inception. The difference this time is we would be asserting the systemic change we're pursuing is more effective (and/or in other ways better) than the systemic change other movements are engaging in. And if that's the case, I think EA needs to engage the communities of our critics just as critically as they have engaged us. This is something I've begun working on myself.