Charity - The poll

[Invincible Summer]

So from what I understand, there's not really a consensus amongst RevLefters (and the "left" in general) as to what role charity plays.

Some say that it just gives the illusion that there is help for those who need it, some say that it should be available unconditionally, etc.

In my opinion, charity (as well as schemes such as fair trade and all that) aren't wholly harmful so long as they aren't blatantly lying, but I'll admit that those people who aren't too critical may very well assume that that's all that can be done for the disadvantaged peoples of society.

I find myself falling into the "the revolution will solve all these problems - leave society's ills be - for now" mentality often, but it's very discouraging to non-Communists to hear such rhetoric.


What is your opinion Revleft?

[Diagoras]

The notion that helping others now is only dampening some latent revolutionary outpouring is quite silly, and had its heyday amongst a number of Russian radicals at the end of the 19th century. It simply has no clear empirical basis. I find that this notion of revolution as some manner of eschatological end-point that will cleanse society of all vestiges of injustice is a harmful mentality. It castrates any rationale for actually attempting to achieve immediate social change (always belittling such "reformist" tactics as anti-revolutionary or bourgeois), build dedicated organizations for immediate victories, or construct vibrant networks of solidarity between overtly revolutionary people and people that identify themselves as more "main stream". It is the same problem many anarchists have with voting, even for local measures (like state-wide anti-gay bills)... it alienates potential allies, and serves no positive, tangible good for the people we are supposed to be fighting for. We shouldn't hold or express any illusions that charity (or voting) will solve the ills caused by capitalism (even at its best, charity maintains the elitist power relationship between the have and have-not, which is not the same as mutual aid). However, it can help keep people on the brink from falling over, and we shouldn't be so callous as to dismiss those people, just because they do not fit neatly into some revolutionary meta-narrative of poverty.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I have a problem with alot of charities being religious based. They seem to develop a "we'll help you, but only if you read this bible" sort of attitude. The charities designed to help children in third world countries seem to be the worse for that. They provide them with stuff, but among all things they also get a christian bible. That's pretty much screaming out that Christians are trying to preach to these children. I'm going to say it now: I can't fucking stand preachers.

[Invincible Summer]

I have a problem with alot of charities being religious based. They seem to develop a "we'll help you, but only if you read this bible" sort of attitude. The charities designed to help children in third world countries seem to be the worse for that. They provide them with stuff, but among all things they also get a christian bible. That's pretty much screaming out that Christians are trying to preach to these children. I'm going to say it now: I can't fucking stand preachers.


Exactly. My girlfriend is pretty into this charitable stuff (and I'll admit I buy into some of it as well.. I'm very bipolar when it comes to this stuff. "It's not a solution to poverty! Capitalism is the problem! But I want to help!!") and I once donated a hundred dollars or so to this charity to donate some livestock or medical supplies to a family in Ghana or something... and then I started receiving all this mail from some Mennonite foundation.

I was pretty upset that I had donated to a religious charity. I didn't want them to preach all that bullshit to impressionable young kids - it's almost like taking advantage of them.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I was pretty upset that I had donated to a religious charity. I didn't want them to preach all that bullshit to impressionable young kids - it's almost like taking advantage of them.

I know. It's sickening. The kids are dying so just help them for fuck sakes! That's why I won't donate to charities. I don't want any preaching going on. I have my own fair share of horror stories about people preaching.

[Oneironaut]

IMO, the problem with charity is its inefficiency. What typically makes charity so inefficient is it directs resources to areas that are not in need of assistance. People who are fortunate enough to give to charity have the supposed right to say where their money can go and as a result, it almost always goes to their own perogatives and not where society actually is in dire need of the resources. In the end, charity simply cannot solve any of society's problems.

I can not tell you how many groups of high school students from the United States come to Mexico with their church groups. To do what? Build a church of course! These kids will come into rural areas in dire need of money and spend thousands of dollars on construction materials for the church. They stay a week, sleeping with one another in a comfortable hotel or residence hall, with very little contact with any Mexicans. After their week, the kids go back home to their families in the States having done their good deed. Well, after a few years, these churches basically go to shit (not to mention that there are already plenty of churches here). The money that is spent on airfare, food, housing and construction materials would be put to much better use if it was simply handed over to us. But this is the way that charity works. It would be "rude" for us to criticize charity.

I don't mean to say that charity doesn't do good in some circumstances. But generally speaking, charity is an inefficient use of resources. It can sure make you feel good though!

[Revulero]

Yea most charities I know of are religous and sadly most of the money donated is cut from the charities to help pay for the minister's cars, house, bills, sex, and etc.

[ZeroNowhere]

Charities are basically the welfare states of the neoliberal age.

[Coggeh]

Some charities suck , i.e the ones that use your donations for bibles and yes they DO do that . In my gf's school they were asking for donations for bibles in India and called it helping people !

However I have worked with charities a good few times and some if not most do really good work (religiously motivated or not) .People who sacrifice their time to do work for the poorer sections of society is a good thing , it is those people who we need more in the movement for socialism .

Its absurd to say charity somehow deludes "revolutionary fervor" the people who i worked with in the past never had any delusions about charity every time i asked one of them do you think charity is the way to solve poverty ? they immediatied said no , that we will need a huge change to solve poverty ,but while were stuck in this situation were just trying to help .

So in conclusion charity is a good thing , but it by no means will ever solve the problem we face and its imature and simply ignorant of the scale of inequality in the world that it will .


Other.

[Rangi]

Charity is based on public relations ability and luck rather than addressing actual need.

[Pogue]

If they're genuine they're good. Charitable organisations wont just fade away when theres a revolution, although I'd like them to be absorbed and improved into the workers movement.

[apathy maybe]

Charities are basically the welfare states of the neoliberal age.

I have other comments on charity that I may or may not get around to giving, but for now...

The thing about the welfare state is that it replaced charities. Originally the state didn't provide schooling, health etc., but instead people went to (mainly) religious run institutions. One of the things about the enlightenment and the French Revolution, was to remove the church from the situation, and have an equal, liberal and free education for all (for example). When it came to handing out money to the unemployed, that again replaced the charities (or at least, was meant to), to systematise and to make universal the welfare. (The first welfare state, Germany under Bismarck, was introduced to help placate the workers, to stop them revolting.) The thing is, at the time it was good. Well, if you were a liberal.

To say that charities are then the welfare states of the neoliberal age, well. I guess I have to attack the term neoliberal in this context, but I'm not sure if I should, or how.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Also, alot of the money doesn't go to the people in need. It goes towards advertising instead.

[bobroberts]

The merit of charities varies, but fundamentally they only exist because capitalism is based on exploitation and incapable of fulfilling everybody's basic human needs. Charity, and welfare for that matter, is a way of subsidizing the worst abuses in capitalism and other exploitative economic and political systems.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The merit of charities varies, but fundamentally they only exist because capitalism is based on exploitation and incapable of fulfilling everybody's basic human needs. Charity, and welfare for that matter, is a way of subsidizing the worst abuses in capitalism and other exploitative economic and political systems.


Exactly. Once Capitalism is gone charity will no longer be needed. Charity doesn't help much anyway, with their preaching and spending much of their funds on advertising.

[Invincible Summer]

Would Food Not Bombs be considered a charity?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Would Food Not Bombs be considered a charity?

Probably. If they're an organization that aims to help the disadvantaged then they could be considered a charity.

[Decolonize The Left]

I have many problems with charity, here are a couple:
1) Charity is patronizing. It is the "I have, and you have not, and so I will give to you who is in need" mentality which betrays a better-worse value system.
2) Charity is insulting. If someone does not ask for help, and you give it to them anyway, you have just told them through your actions that they are incapable of helping themselves.
3) Charity perpetuates dependency. Charity solves very little - what it does do effectively is maintain a polarized system of wealth.
4) Charity provides the impression of good. Given our Christian value-background in the West, charity appears to be justified as 'good' and 'right.' Often it is not questioned on these grounds.

I voted 'other' as I did not feel as though the options adequately represented my feelings and beliefs on the subject.

- August

[BIG BROTHER]

I don't think charity solves poverty or misery, and at times is even humiliating. The root cause as we all know is capitalism, yet to a poor family that recives something from charity at the moment will probably appreciate it more than if you tell them "fight for socialism so you're not poor"

[Invincible Summer]

While it's true that charity can (and potentially is) patronizing/humiliating, I don't think it's great PR for people who promote Socialism and liberating the working class to basically say "Fuck off! Charity isn't good for you!"

[Revulero]

give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, teach a man revolutionary communism and he'll eat for a lifetime

[Zurdito]

The reason for opposing charity is not that it "dilutes revolutionary fervour", i.e. a "the worse things are the better they are" logic. The reason to oppose charity is that it is not the responsibility of workers, students and the middle classes to pay out of their pockets to put band aids over the bourgeoisies mess. Organised charity appeals ask exactly for this: a "united effort" to overcome problems of poverty or humanitarian crisis when in fact there is no scarcity, and only political struggle aginst the bourgeosie can solve these problems. So charity as an ideology is completely reactionary and helps protect capitalism and perpetuate the same poverty it claims to wish to solve.

Having said that I may give money to someone begging sometimes. But I don't support charity as an ideology or any organised charities.

[AnthArmo]

I voted other but changed my mind, I should have gone yes instead.

There are way too many flaws with the charity system.

To begin with, many of them are created for illegitimate purposes. Religious charities are just fronts for them to spread their religion to poor countries and take advantage of the children there.

Others are just created to solve a demand in the market. People feel guilty about the third-world, so these charities are created so they can pay off their guilt so they don't have to worry about them.

Alongside this the majority of the money goes to things like Advertising and paying for the employers lifestyles.

Although with that said, I'd happily donate to charity if I found a suitable charity to actually donate to. Every little bit helps. We should always fight and support immediate gains for the poor and the working class. And the logic of doing absolutely nothing and allowing people to suffer until the revolution is just plain stupid.

[rioters bloc]

Is social security/welfare considered charity in the context of this thread?

Also, out of interest, how many people here (especially the ones voting against charity in its entirety) have been on the receiving end of charity or aid?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Is social security/welfare considered charity in the context of this thread?


I don't think so.


Also, out of interest, how many people here (especially the ones voting against charity in its entirety) have been on the receiving end of charity or aid?

I personally haven't been on the recieving end of charity, but my mom has used food banks and stuff when she couldn't make ends meet.

[Unregistered]

Ok.... First post and don't mean to ruffle some feathers but hey.

Firstly in regards to charities being religious and only helping those who read their bible ect

Thats generally a myth, especially with the major charities. I think you are confusing them with missionary's, who also do charitable work.

For example Christian Aid UK... Sounds like such a charity that would behave in such a way and i would imagine most people would assume such of them. In actual fact their employees are of mixed beliefs and they only occasionally send delegates overseas. They work through local NGO's instead, it's actually a very efficient way of handling things. They are essentially a middle man that divert the supporters funding to reputable local groups. So no stupid white man goes anywhere waving a bible or telling people what to do


Organised charity appeals ask exactly for this: a "united effort" to overcome problems of poverty or humanitarian crisis when in fact there is no scarcity, and only political struggle aginst the bourgeosie can solve these problems.

You might actually find you agree with alot of charities more than you think. Most apply political pressure and distribute very critical reports regarding things like the IMF and their privatization policies, transglobal companies and even the war on "terror", they may not quite be as left as yourself but hey they are planting seed's. Awareness play and important part and you will find that most of them don't portray themselves as means to an end.

And as for the money being spent on advertising. You are right. Most charities average about 1-3% on admin (peoples wages, bills ect) but around 15-20% fundraising (advertising, those people that call you at dinner time, or try and stop you in the street ect) sometimes more. May sound pretty bad but it has to be done...A necessary evil for now i'd say

All in all its not a means to an end but, in the mean time, being born into a wealthy nation i feel its and ethical obligation to support 3rd world development. Both in political activism and financially though charity.

[apathy maybe]

I strongly oppose religious charities, and top-down charities.

I strongly support community charities that attempt to help people, that encourage working together, that are based in the local community, that know the people, that don't try and push a religion (and aren't associated with a religion) etc.

I support mutual aid.

"Charity" is needed in many places where government services are not adequate. The thing is, the type of charity. It should be revolutionary, or at the least radical. It needs to challenge the status-quo, not merely try and make things acceptable.

An active local group that organises squats for homeless families is an example of a good charity (I was reading about such a group recently, but I can't recall where...).

Food not bombs also actively challenges "normality", there is so much wasted food, why not reclaim it and put it to use?

But to reject all charity as being "reformist" or similar, well, screw that. People need to eat. And while I've never needed a helping hand, I'm happy to know that if I'm homeless, there are people who would be willing to put me up sometimes, or whatever. If you reject all "charity", what do you propose instead?

tl;dr (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr): Mutual aid is good. Radical/revolutionary "charity" is good. People need to eat.

[ZeroNowhere]

I strongly oppose religious charities, and top-down charities.
Of course, the 'top-down charities' generally have money appropriated by middlemen, and a mere pittance going to the poor just to make sure that they get tax-free status. Non-profit means free profit.
Unfortunately, most major charities are marketing themselves, and supporting crap like 'Make Poverty History' (I mean, I respect the intentions of many participants, but, as I've commented earlier, Ravan has a left face, and these movements only serve to prop up the existing system. Also, they support the goal of getting every child to primary school, the bastards). Though yes, more radical and helpful charities (more helpful, since they certainly don't spend as much money on advertising), that generally don't take the form of 'pressure groups' and such, would be worth supporting. Then again, I haven't seen that many, and not any yet in places like Sub-Saharan Africa, where the most poverty lies. I suppose that I do tend to refer to the more annoying charities by using the term 'charity' (for example, in my comment comparing them to the welfare state), but that's mainly because they got shoved into our faces during practically every day at school (Including Mandela's horribly annoying video about how the future of poverty is in the hands of... G8! Whoo!)
(God save the poor)

To give some credit to major charities, though, even Oxfam, one of the most moderate charities around, condemned the sheer uselessness of G8's actions after the overhyped conference.

The whole 'charity dilutes revolutionary fervor' thing generally takes the 'I hope your life gets worse' approach, and I'm certainly not going to oppose charities for it, just like I don't actively oppose the welfare state and want neoliberalism (what was your critique on the name, btw?) instead. On the other hand, one thing that charity does do is dilute music (http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=43588).

[apathy maybe]

Well, I guess you are right, there are some major charities that do good stuff, but in the main they aren't radical, and definitely not revolutionary.

And you are right, about the under-developed parts of the world. But, the question is, apart from major, mainstream charities, how do activists like ourselves get money to these areas of the world? I think the important thing about these parts of the world is not to (just) give them food, but to give them the means to educate and develop on their own.

"what was your critique on the name [neoliberalism], btw?"
Err, I wasn't sure. Traditionally, liberalism has been supportive of equality of opportunity at the very least (universal access to schooling for example). "Neoliberalism" is more, "small government at the expense of all else" which has never been a traditionally "liberal" ideal.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, you're referring to what is known as 'social liberalism' (universal healthcare, public schooling, etc). The other major current of 'liberalism' is 'classical liberalism'. Neoliberalism is basically just a continuance of classical liberalism ('deregulate more shit!'), except with some degree of influence from neoclassical economics. They would generally argue that a 'free market' would lead to equality of opportunity, from what I've seen. In fact, IIRC, 'classical liberalism' was generally represented by the word 'liberalism' until a bit later, when 'social liberalism' became the more popular use of the word. Hell, the CLs were against child labour laws and minimum safety standards for the workplace, so yeah. IIRC, the Austrian Schoolers are also counted as 'classical liberals'.

[Oswy]

It all depends on the nature of the charitable activity for me. Historically charity has been used as a form of social and cultural hegemony whereby those who benefit from capitalism subdue the worst effects it has on others by providing some basic provision to the exploited or alienated and usually in such a way which encourged deference and social subordination. In such instances charity actually perpetuates inequalities and maintains the economic and social structures which produce the inequalities on which charity acts palliatively.

Charity is not a bad thing on an individual basis, and I am occasionally charitable, but as a phenomenon within capitalism as a whole it often amounts to putting plasters on wounds which allow the causes of those wounds to continue.

[Sean]

I voted yes, its a good thing. However, perhaps not so much in europe but certainly among the rich in America, donating to charity has become some kind of indulgence, like a pissing contest among them to see who can be the most charitable. If you're giving don't brag about it so that everyone you know can give you a backslapping.
That said, a little competition wouldnt be so bad. I remember the tsunami appeal and I donated my entire wage, minus transport in my workplace at the time. The final amount, as announced over the tanoy, was that amount + £28 pounds something, out of a building of at least 800 people. I was fucking raging because everyone around me was backslapping as if they did anything, but I bit my tongue. And yes I know I just mentioned charitible donations to seemingly get social approval, but I was making a point.

I have written to several faiths over the years to suggest a twinning of towns during an appeal, something I think would both include anonymity and yet create that competitiveness that these things sometimes need. You twin a town of equal size as the reciever of all donations from that area, unless it needs to go to the Red Cross or other kind of spread out aid. You have people that inspect those towns and give your own town feedback on how they are doing, it dispells this myth (although occasionally true in the case of some missionary work from what a veteran of it told me) that all your money goes to the handful of people pretending to give a shit and working there. I never got a letter back from any of the people I contacted, something that pissed me off no end.

[JimmyJazz]

charity < solidarity.

[Poison]

Honestly, I don't care. Either we believe in the principles that brought us to communism (which should be concern for others) or we don't, and not living by your principles is just...bad.

However, I have a problem with charity as it exists right now. Religious charities/missionaries, charities that solicit huge amounts of money from people who want an ego boost then take most of it, these are the charities I have problems with. I prefer direct charity--like Food Not Bombs, or helping people in need grow their own food, etc.

[SocialRealist]

I think when it comes down to it, charity is a good way spreading wealth to those in society who would not have gotten it. It is shown to make lives better where it goes as well, I don't see a problem with charity at all.

To those who want to make charity due to the fact that it may be done by a religious organization I will say this to you, why would you have a problem with it being from a religious organization if they are attempting to help out people that need help to create a sense of common good?

[Poison]

My problem with religious charities is that (in my experience at least) there is a great deal of preaching involved, which I do not think is okay, as it is using the power of money and needed things to influence the poor to the viewpoint. That may not be the case for all religious charities but in my experience they act more like missionaries than actual charities.

[SocialRealist]

My problem with religious charities is that (in my experience at least) there is a great deal of preaching involved, which I do not think is okay, as it is using the power of money and needed things to influence the poor to the viewpoint. That may not be the case for all religious charities but in my experience they act more like missionaries than actual charities.

What is wrong with them spreading their point of views on humanities creation and purpose in this world and in the afterlife? Personally I think they have the complete rights to share their views when it comes to this. Over that though, religious charities are just a way for followers of Abrahamic religions to engage in giving the wealth back to the worker and many other unfavored members of capitalist society.

I'll give you a example of charity and its contributions. Lets look back at the tsunami, look at all of those people who had given money voluntarily for those they did not know at all. These contributions greatly helped out these people, and the people that did this were not forced to do it, out of the goodness of their hearts they decided to spread this money towards their fellow people in different nations.

[Poison]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I don't have a problem with people spreading their silly views, as long as they do it ethically and with respect to others.

But what charities, in my experience, often do is tantamount to handing a $100 bill to a starving parent, looking them in the eye, and telling them to vote for a candidate. It's manipulative and puts pressure on them. There's no reason they should have to preach if the purpose is really to help people.

[Yazman]

I voted for "Other (please explain)" and here is why:

I am opposed to charity as an institution because it essentially reinforces privatisation and capitalist free markets. Charity says, "we will not work to solve the problems nor will we attempt to build infrastructure and support systems."

Charity says, rather than building infrastructure and support systems, we will simply let the needy have whatever the comfortable decide to kick down to them.

Charity reinforces privatisation.

[pastradamus]

Charity and leftism are not something which are compatible but they are not something incompatible neither. The problems of the impoverished and deprived can not be solved by charity and patronage. There is no solution to their problems other than their emancipation from the poverty and deprivation itself as a whole. The main question at stake here is why do we have such a dramatic increase in Street beggars and charitable cases over the past number of years? This can obviously be pointed out that it is the failing of capitalist ideal, both its nature and nurture is the blatant cause of poverty. If we take the biggest individual case study - Bill Gates. Instead of being ashamed and feeling guilty, the western periodicals and magazines glorify this vulgar richness with arrogant and insolent pride.He (bill gates) earns more than 500 dollars a second. . His wealth makes him the 11th largest economy in the world. That means there are only10 countries in the world, which can claim to be richer than BillGates. This means that one individual has enough wealth to fulfillthe needs of more than one and half billion human beings living on earth. Which other system can attribute such heinous insult, tyranny and injustice to the teeming billions and human mankind other than capitalism?
However I will say I have lot of respect for all those who have honest motives andare in struggle for the welfare of the poor. I appreciate their efforts, in which some of them are involved beyond their means, for the improvement of aggrieved humanity. I want them to continue the said efforts. As was already said - they do aid the developement of the working class by ploughing funds back into it.

[brigadista]

religious charity i think it was jomo kenyatta that said it best-

"When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible."