I’d argue that at least until the advent of Longtermism, the actions taken in practice by EAs were mostly about transferring wealth and welfare from rich Westerners to the poor in Africa and Asia. This is still the case for a majority of EA funding (although the gap is narrowing).
You could counterargue that all of philanthropy is a smokescreen to protect the rich while giving a semblance of improving the problems of the poor. I agree in principle, but in practice I think there’s a trade-off between applying this reasoning to intra-country vs. inter-country inequality: money that Western rich individuals give as taxes almost entirely remains within rich Western rich countries. You can use funds to lobby Western governments to increase foreign aid (and it’s been done by EAs in Zürich and in the UK, for example), but that would still: (a) require funds, and (b) take the agency from the already-powerless recipients. So again, it’s a trade-off in terms of justice.
I’d argue that at least until the advent of Longtermism, the actions taken in practice by EAs were mostly about transferring wealth and welfare from rich Westerners to the poor in Africa and Asia. This is still the case for a majority of EA funding (although the gap is narrowing).
You could counterargue that all of philanthropy is a smokescreen to protect the rich while giving a semblance of improving the problems of the poor. I agree in principle, but in practice I think there’s a trade-off between applying this reasoning to intra-country vs. inter-country inequality: money that Western rich individuals give as taxes almost entirely remains within rich Western rich countries. You can use funds to lobby Western governments to increase foreign aid (and it’s been done by EAs in Zürich and in the UK, for example), but that would still: (a) require funds, and (b) take the agency from the already-powerless recipients. So again, it’s a trade-off in terms of justice.