Self delusion that perpetuates capitalism

[Blackscare]

Today, through that wonderful stumbleupon button of mine, I came upon this site: Hoongle.com

I had a momentary feeling that I wanted to change my home page to this because it's basically google.com+freerice, and it couldn't hurt, but I thought twice. I don't want to start doing little meaningless "good deeds" and become complacent.

To me, this seems like another attempt for (mostly liberal, though non-class specific) people to feel better about themselves by not actually doing anything productive to change things. In fact, you're not even donating money (straight up charity is bad in some ways as well though), volunteering, changing your lifestyle, or anything that can at least be considered a sacrifice (misguided or no).

This seems like part of a relatively new trend in charity: feel good about yourself for doing the exact same thing you've always done. Today "green" versions of the same old products are being snapped up by well-meaning people who aren't committed enough to their own ideals to actually cut back, for instance.

If classic charity is an example of the rich justifying their wealth through philanthropy, then this type of stuff to me is an example of people from every social strata trying to alleviate guilt from living in an exploitative world and not resisting. In this way people can feel better about living lifestyles they know are based on unfairness by putting an internal distance between themselves and the system that they are a part of.


This sort of 'passive activism' breeds complacency in people worse than normal charity IMO. At least when participating in charity work you're exposed to the realities of the people's lives that you're trying to help, which might get you thinking. This just gives people a vague sense of satisfaction for doing nothing and continuing life the same as ever.


Thoughts?

[Charles Xavier]

Today, through that wonderful stumbleupon button of mine, I came upon this site: Hoongle.com

I had a momentary feeling that I wanted to change my home page to this because it's basically google.com+freerice, and it couldn't hurt, but I thought twice. I don't want to start doing little meaningless "good deeds" and become complacent.

To me, this seems like another attempt for (mostly liberal, though non-class specific) people to feel better about themselves by not actually doing anything productive to change things. In fact, you're not even donating money (straight up charity is bad in some ways as well though), volunteering, changing your lifestyle, or anything that can at least be considered a sacrifice (misguided or no).

This seems like part of a relatively new trend in charity: feel good about yourself for doing the exact same thing you've always done. Today "green" versions of the same old products are being snapped up by well-meaning people who aren't committed enough to their own ideals to actually cut back, for instance.

If classic charity is an example of the rich justifying their wealth through philanthropy, then this type of stuff to me is an example of people from every social strata trying to alleviate guilt from living in an exploitative world and not resisting. In this way people can feel better about living lifestyles they know are based on unfairness by putting an internal distance between themselves and the system that they are a part of.


This sort of 'passive activism' breeds complacency in people worse than normal charity IMO. At least when participating in charity work you're exposed to the realities of the people's lives that you're trying to help, which might get you thinking. This just gives people a vague sense of satisfaction for doing nothing and continuing life the same as ever.


Thoughts?

I would argue this doesn't cause capitalism to continue or fall apart. However it is a false idea that buying green toilet cleaner you are making the world a better place. I think it is a waste of time and money and more than anything it is a marketing ploy rather than a mass mobilization.

[Blackscare]

Well, granted, capitalism won't live or die based on this, but it is something that contributes to complacency though.

[Poison]

Now how are we supposed to discuss anything when you go and say it all every time BlackScare? ;)

[FreeFocus]

Yes, it contributes to complacency, inaction and even arrogance. When viewed in the context that we do, however, it doesn't lead to these things. We have the framework through which we can critically analyze the effects of programs like this one.

The fact is, it represents a form a short-term survival. Of course, that is not what we aim for. What is required is the production for human need and patterns of distribution that fall in line with it, so that the scourges of poverty and hunger are eliminated. Nonetheless, if people can be kept alive with this food, or have their lives be made a little less hard, why deny it to them? There's no problem with doing this while also agitating and educating for free, prosperous, socialist societies.

[JohannGE]

Capitalism may not live or die by it but will any malnourished children get any more rice?

They currently claim 3,718,460 grains of rice which works out at 101.5 kg. Or suficient to feed 3541 children for 1 day.

I know other sites are doing similar so the accumulative effect will be far more. All sorts of questions about effective delivery, what other budgets may be cut to cover the cost etc. But I think that 3541+ children a day has to make a case for at least some consideration before being automaticaly dissmised to the dustbin of ideology.

I don't swallow that complacency stuff myself. If anyones conviction were so easily paid off, it wouldn't be much of a loss.

I supose it's a question of how starving children measure up against the ill effects of liberal, corporate, trendy, charitable passive activism.

[Cumannach]

Who are these people? Are they a part of google? not much info on their site. If the rice is all paid for by Google why don't they just do it on Google.com?

[JohannGE]

Who are these people? Are they a part of google? not much info on their site. If the rice is all paid for by Google why don't they just do it on Google.com?

Hoongle is independant of Google.

"How it works
When you perform a search using Hoongle, your search is routed through Google. So the results you see are identical to Google’s. The difference is that when your query originates with Hoongle, Google shares a portion of its revenue with us. We donate our income (less necessary operating costs) to the United Nations World Food Program (http://www.wfp.org/), which carries out operations around the world to deliver food aid to those in need."
http://hoongle.org/howitworks.php

[Glenn Beck]

They currently claim 3,718,460 grains of rice which works out at 101.5 kg. Or suficient to feed 3541 children for 1 day.

Not even putting a dent in the 6 million children a year who die of hunger every year worldwide by most recent UN estimates. Not to say of the 36 million humans of all ages including children who die of hunger in a year.

I'd strongly suspect that a price subsidy amounting to 1 US cent less per pound of grain worldwide would dwarf the effects of these charity programs in an instant. If someone gets helped by individual acts of charity then great, but these are not real solutions to anything and for some individuals I have known serve as tremendous wastes of time and energy that they genuinely believe are making a significant difference. That isn't good.

[JohannGE]

Not even putting a dent in the 6 million children a year who die of hunger every year worldwide by most recent UN estimates. Not to say of the 36 million humans of all ages including children who die of hunger in a year.

I'd strongly suspect that a price subsidy amounting to 1 US cent less per pound of grain worldwide would dwarf the effects of these charity programs in an instant. If someone gets helped by individual acts of charity then great, but these are not real solutions to anything and for some individuals I have known serve as tremendous wastes of time and energy that they genuinely believe are making a significant difference. That isn't good.

Not doing it would put even less of a dent in those appaling numbers though. Even if that price subsidy were to materialise, there would still be sufficiant in need to benefit from this extra.

I don't think anyone has suggested this is a solution and how much time and energy is wasted by using a different search page anyway? I think the significance should be measured by how many more children would be fed rather than a direct and dissmisive comparison with what needs to be done to feed them all.

Those you mention who content themselves that their charity is sufficient are likely to always be so inclined. I think the interests of (however small a number) of starving children might take precedance over concerns about the self delusion of a few revisionist doo-gooders and the esoteric concerns of intelectual idealouges. (present company excepted of course)

Failing that I suppose we could advise them to hold out for the revolution, content that their starvation is 100% ideologicaly sound.

[brigadista]

its paternalism -to act like a father, or to treat another person like a child.

[Dean]

How does it contribute to complacency? These people know that there are impoverished people in the world, and they are doing something that (supposedly) helps those people. There isn't anything wrong with charity.

You can't blame productive organizations just because people use them as an excuse to feel good and not do something more meaningful to resist exploitation.

[JohannGE]

its paternalism -to act like a father, or to treat another person like a child.

True but if we can't be paternalistic toward starving children, when can we?

And what is it if we turn our back on assistance that we could easily give at no cost to ourselves simply because it is doesn't comply with our concept of what is ideologicaly sound? I can think of a few words far worse than paternalistic for that.

[Revy]

It's better than using plain old Google, in my opinion. So I'm using it now, for that reason. Maybe it's a little bit of rice, but does Google donate rice for searches? I don't think so.

Product (RED) is far worse though. It tries to make it seem like the AIDS epidemic can be solved with capitalism and consumerism. It's a ploy so people buy more stuff. It would be better instead to actually donate the money directly to a charity than to buy a product according to this scheme.

[brigadista]

True but if we can't be paternalistic toward starving children, when can we?

And what is it if we turn our back on assistance that we could easily give at no cost to ourselves simply because it is doesn't comply with our concept of what is ideologicaly sound? I can think of a few words far worse than paternalistic for that.


you may judge me but i am entitled not to take a liberal view on the matter as such aid is proven to be ineffective and it is not just a matter of what is ideologically sound

[JohannGE]

you may judge me but i am entitled not to take a liberal view on the matter as such aid is proven to be ineffective and it is not just a matter of what is ideologically sound

I am not judging you. I am simply trying to open up the discussion of the matter beyond the purly doctrinal viewpoint.

Can you reference anywhere that proves that giving rice to a starving child is not effective in preventing starvation? (rhetorical question obviously)

The question for me is not wether charitable giving can be an effective solution to starvation caused by the effects of capitalism. Thats a silly and pointless question. It is a question of will schemes such as this save lives and if so, can our ideology live with the compromise for the sake of those lives. We compromise our beliefs for lesser things every time we pay taxes, buy fuel or don sweat shop clothing. Can we then justify being so dogmatic on what initialy apears to be a clear cut life or death issue.


As you say, you are free to be as illiberal as you wish.

[Blackscare]

The point is that while this site may have paid for enough rice to feed a few starving children for a day (since it was founded? talk about a negligible effect), I believe the net effect of this and programs like this is negative. "Charity" on this sort of scale not only has no real benefit compared to actual charity that at least saves lives (they haven't even gathered enough rice to keep one child alive, only enough to feed a few thousand ONCE that will just die the next week anyway), but the cumulative effect that all of these programs have is to make people think that somehow they are making a difference when they are not. This is the danger.

I guess, being someone who is socially conscious, I should do this because it can't hurt, but there are many comfortable a-political westerners that just want the feeling of doing something good without any kind of commitment. As long as people are able to feel good about their lifestyle and the present system, they don't have to put much thought into it, and when they don't have to think about, they don't start actually doing things about it.

What things like this do is to me very similar to the old catholic practice of selling atonements (or whatever they're called), so that you can continue life as you know it but at the end of the day still feel good about yourself. Atonement in the form of pointless gestures of good will is being marketed to people as a product feature today.

And some people who have said "anybody who falls for this obviously can't be made to see the light" (basically) are wrong IMO. Many, many people are simply a-political if given the option to stick their heads in the sand. Capitalists know the damage they do and simply don't care, but the relatively comfortable working classes of the west (primarily) are the ones in danger of falling into complacency BECAUSE many hold no strong political convictions in the first place. People often choose the path of least resistence, and so long as this feel-good shit is being marketed as an easy way to "make a difference", many people will choose to remain passive.

[brigadista]

http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/default.asp?channel_id=2187&editorial_id=17648

[JohannGE]

but there are many comfortable a-political westerners that just want the feeling of doing something good without any kind of commitment. As long as people are able to feel good about their lifestyle and the present system, they don't have to put much thought into it, and when they don't have to think about, they don't start actually doing things about it.

Yes but you are not talking to them here.

I would like to think you are talking to people who are suficiantly politacly aware to see straight through such corporate sponsered social manipulation. I would also hope that they were suficiantly enlightened to realise that the life of even one child was worthy of such a tiny sacrifice of their ideological purity.

Go on...have a Hoongle, I won't tell anyone. ;)

http://www.hoongle.com/

[JohannGE]

http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/default.asp?channel_id=2187&editorial_id=17648

Thanks, I will read it later... I can't concentrate just now with all these screaming kids.
;)

[Blackscare]

Yes but you are not talking to them here.

I would like to think you are talking to people who are suficiantly politacly aware to see straight through such corporate sponsered social manipulation. I would also hope that they were suficiantly enlightened to realise that the life of even one child was worthy of such a tiny sacrifice of their ideological purity.

Go on...have a Hoongle, I won't tell anyone. ;)

http://www.hoongle.com/


I'm not talking about this in reference to the people on this board, I'm talking to the people on this board about the effects this shit has on the majority of average people. It's not about ideological purity, but if you read what I posted before saying that I may as well do it because it couldn't hurt and it wouldn't really sway me, you'd know that.

You're missing the point of all this, it's not about ideological purity or refusing to do a (marginally) good thing out of principle. The point is the net effect of these things on ALL OF HUMANITY is negative.

[fabiansocialist]

Not doing it would put even less of a dent in those appalling numbers though. Even if that price subsidy were to materialise, there would still be sufficiant in need to benefit from this extra.

I've heard these arguments before: that every little helps and that not doing it would cause things to be even worse. In my opinion these are all red herrings. Ameliorating the suffering of a few in a sea of want is precisely what philanthropy is all about: it ignores systemic change while accusing those who criticise its token efforts of not even doing that much. It does breed complacency and small-mindedness and the deliberate avoiding of looking at the big picture of systematic exploitation in favor of concrete token efforts.

Systemic change is what it's all about. The rest is sideshow and diversion.

[JohannGE]

The point is the net effect of these things on ALL OF HUMANITY is negative.

In the long term yes. As are many of the activities we all indulge in every day.

Meanwhile, back here in the short term...when offered the opportunity to save at least a few from starvation you suggest we should turn our backs, or even actively campaign against that opportunity being taken by others.

[Blackscare]

In the long term yes. As are many of the activities we all indulge in every day.

Meanwhile, back here in the short term...when offered the opportunity to save at least a few from starvation you suggest we should turn our backs, or even actively campaign against that opportunity being taken by others.

Yes, I'm referring the myriad campaigns that seek to market complacency to people, hoongle is just an obvious example.


And I'm not suggesting what people should do, I never told anyone not to do this. All I did was bring up a subject for discussion, namely the fact that this type of shit, meaningless augmentations to things we already do that offer a minimal benefit to society, are not good for society as a whole in the long term. Hoongle is part of a new wave of charity that doesn't even have a real benefit. It's like charity without the charity.

I think it's worth discussing the role these types of things play in society, I personally don't give a fuck if you or anyone else on this site participates in such activity. So stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I say. I mean, I said in TWO POSTS NOW, that I may even do it myself because it can't hurt. But the fact that it can't hurt doesn't always make it worthwhile, either.

This is the problem with liberals, they justify any token gesture by saying it's better than nothing.

And in reference to real charity, where people are helped in a significant way, I find it hard to oppose besides adding that people need to engage in more concrete action. At least people who participate in charity work are actually exposed to the real world, and even giving a donation requires that you actually put some thought into what you're going to donate to. There are at least some long term redeeming qualities to such short-term charitable activities, since undoubtedly some people have come out of charity work with a more socialist attitude.

What I'm talking about is shit that takes no commitment, no second thought, and offers very little in the way of concrete help to people in need. These types of things only really serve the purposes of capitalism, because it commodifies the feeling of self satisfaction, making people think they can buy/click their way out of responsibility.

So don't go preaching about helping people in the short term, because for all intents and purposes you're not even doing THAT while you use hoongle.com

At least donate time or money if you're going to pursue that type of argument, rather than all but meaningless gestures. And my point was that hoongle won't even save ONE kid. They're likely going to buy a few sacks of grain (or however they plan on doing this, which is another question that seems a bit fishy) and hand them out in a village somewhere. At best, it'll last a day or two, and then the people who are starving are back at square one, living in a world full of people who care enough to change their main search page but not change the system that got them there. The only way that hoongle could actually save a single life is if they picked one or two random kids and fed only them with the relatively tiny amount of rice they've raised, but they wouldn't do that because that would be sadistic and stupid (going into a village and feeding 2 kids well while the rest suffer).




Once again, use it if you like, I don't care. Just don't go acting all high and mighty about it. I'm only discussing the effects these things have on the world, not offering a course of action to counteract them.

[Revy]

I did some background check on Hoongle, couldn't find anything damning, except that one of the founders, Salmaan Ayaz, has "Defense & Space" listed under "Industry" on his LinkedIn profile. He's got 33 connections on there, but I don't think there's a way to access them.

But yeah. Pretty weird since what he's doing seems to be more of a non-profit, yet he put Defense & Space there.

[Blackscare]

That's interesting. My point is that taken at face value, it's still damaging to society even if it isn't the result of some intentional attempt at keeping people complacent.

[Glenn Beck]

Failing that I suppose we could advise them to hold out for the revolution, content that their starvation is 100% ideologicaly sound.

Your straw men are getting a little tiresome. These charities started without our help and they don't need our political support to survive and do their work. Many charities and international relief agencies do great work for the people they manage to reach and some are quite politically progressive within the strict limitations on political expression required for them to be able to operate in the system we live under. Its an absolutely absurd proposition that we could somehow undermine or weaken these organizations by remaining ideologically committed to structural solutions and not wasting our POLITICAL (as opposed to personal) energies supporting charity efforts.

If you have time or money that you feel that you can give to charity then by all means do so, and be glad that on an interpersonal level you are helping relieve the suffering of another human being. But don't delude yourself by forgetting that these efforts will not solve the problems that made the charity necessary in the first place, or that there is any necessary connection between charitable acts and political change. And don't ignore the ways in which charity is used as a political weapon in order to pacify dissent, divert the energies of well meaning individuals, and foster dependency among the oppressed.

And yes, Hoongle.com is quite easy and takes no particular effort, and that is rather disturbing to me. The recent trends of ethical consumerism, green chic, and the like are politically and morally corrosive regardless of their (rather exaggerated) track record of helping those genuinely in need. To accuse those that point this out and criticise the self-serving uses to which the ruling classes often put charity in our society of somehow being complicit in the misery of those impoverished by the system because they refuse to hold their tongues or uncritically champion any charity on the block is in pretty poor taste.

[JohannGE]

Your straw men are getting a little tiresome.
...
Its an absolutely absurd proposition that we could somehow undermine or weaken these organizations by remaining ideologically committed to structural solutions and not wasting our POLITICAL (as opposed to personal) energies supporting charity efforts.

Perhaps because you are blowing in the wrong direction!

True, but I didn't propose it.


But don't delude yourself by forgetting that these efforts will not solve the problems that made the charity necessary in the first place, or that there is any necessary connection between charitable acts and political change. And don't ignore the ways in which charity is used as a political weapon in order to pacify dissent, divert the energies of well meaning individuals, and foster dependency among the oppressed.

Ok, I never would have anyway, I haven't suggested I would, but generaly speaking, sound advice.


To accuse those that point this out and criticise the self-serving uses to which the ruling classes often put charity in our society of somehow being complicit in the misery of those impoverished by the system because they refuse to hold their tongues or uncritically champion any charity on the block is in pretty poor taste.

The only thing aproaching an accusation (to strong a word imo) was my suggestion that blinkered ideology was preventing people from seeing the free lunch that was on offer.

[Revy]

I think the anti-Hoongle side has some good points. There is a word for this, "slacktivism".



Slacktivism (sometimes slactivism) is a portmanteau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau) formed out of the words slacker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacker) and activism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism). Sometimes considered a pejorative term that describes taking painless "feel-good" measures in support of an issue or social cause that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction, "slactivism" has been embraced by activists such as Todd Gitlin and Stephen Colbert as the new activism.
Examples of slacktivist activities include signing internet petitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_petition), the wearing of wristbands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wristband) ("awareness bracelets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_bracelet)") with political messages, putting a ribbon magnet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_ribbon#Middle_East_conflicts) on a vehicle, joining a Facebook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook) group, posting issue-oriented YouTube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube) videos or taking part in short-term boycotts such as Buy Nothing Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Nothing_Day) or Earth Hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Hour).

Earth Hour is actually tomorrow for many people, though it's already happened in some places. The idea is, you turn off everything in your house for one hour. It's actually ridiculous if you think about it. Because that one hour is not going to have much effect. People will just plug in everything again and think "Wow! I did something to stop climate change".



So I think that yes, there is the possibility that, people will see "slacktivist" things and not really go further than that.

[Cumannach]

I just find the whole thing so fucking disgusting. The life of some kid in Africa being decided on, by clicking your mouse on some search engine on a website (and spreading the good name of Google.) It's fucking heinous.