Charity is reactionary

[synthesis]

Discuss.

[Medvyet]

I think giving because your friends are watching and you want to make a good impression on them is pretty reactionary (for example, a publicized donation that costs more to advertise than was spent on the actual donation).
But if you see a starving homeless person sitting on the wet sidewalk and feel bad for them, so you run into the store and grab them something to eat, I don't think that's reactionary. I wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for people being charitable to me. Besides, we're supposed to help each other. :thumbup1:

[revolutionary praxis]

I've heard it referred to as being "like a chocolate laxative."

[El Rojo]

there should be no need for charity, peeps should be able to support themselves. charity is perpetuating the system of repression. also know as a band aid on a sucking chest wound

[ZeroNowhere]

I think giving because your friends are watching and you want to make a good impression on them is pretty reactionary (for example, a publicized donation that costs more to advertise than was spent on the actual donation).
But if you see a starving homeless person sitting on the wet sidewalk and feel bad for them, so you run into the store and grab them something to eat, I don't think that's reactionary. I wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for people being charitable to me. Besides, we're supposed to help each other. :thumbup1:
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4 that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

I'm with the Messiah on this one. I may be an atheist, but I am a godly atheist.

[Queercommie Girl]

Discuss.

Tell that to the people who literally cannot survive without it. Or are you just going to dismiss them as the "lumpen-proletariat"?

[Queercommie Girl]

there should be no need for charity, peeps should be able to support themselves. charity is perpetuating the system of repression. also know as a band aid on a sucking chest wound

That is in an ideal system, capitalism however is far from ideal.

[bricolage]

Tell that to the people who literally cannot survive without it. Or are you just going to dismiss them as the "lumpen-proletariat"?
I think its more that the concept of charity is reactionary in that it necessitates 'haves' and 'have-nots', the latter necessary for both initial exploitation and secondary charity (Zizek talks interestingly about 'liberal communists' such as Bill Gates who can seem benevolent by giving millions to charity but have only got those millions by massive labour exploitation).

This is not to say that giving someone food or a bit of cash is reactionary, rather it existing as part of system that leaves people reliant on such hand outs is reactionary.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think its more that the concept of charity is reactionary in that it necessitates 'haves' and 'have-nots', the latter necessary for both initial exploitation and secondary charity (Zizek talks interestingly about 'liberal communists' such as Bill Gates who can seem benevolent by giving millions to charity but have only got those millions by massive labour exploitation).

This is not to say that giving someone food or a bit of cash is reactionary, rather it existing as part of system that leaves people reliant on such hand outs is reactionary.

Then call the entire system (capitalism) reactionary, not charity specifically.

Secondary wealth redistribution (like charity) is obviously inferior to primary wealth redistribution (e.g. socialism), but it's still better than no wealth redistribution at all. Even a "liberal communist" like Bill Gates is still objectively superior to those Chinese capitalists who don't give anything to charity at all and run "black kilns" using slavery and child labour.

A good slave-lord is still better than a bad slave-lord. Of course, it's even better to have no slave-lords at all.

[bricolage]

bigger cages, longer chains...

I don't think there is any harm in calling charity reactionary, its used as a part of framing the boundaries of what is 'good' or 'bad'. Giving money to charity is 'good', trying to abolish money is 'bad'...

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

[RadioRaheem84]

charity is good for those who have to survive off it, i do not knock it in that regard. but overall it is reactionary as gives clout to the idea that if rich people had more money they can donate it to charity.

Andrew Carnegie canonized this idea and rich people live by it. "give or the people will take"

[#FF0000]

i agree because zizek

[Queercommie Girl]

bigger cages, longer chains...


But would you rather work in Microsoft or in one of those "black kilns" in China that uses slave labour?

I think most people in the world care the most about money and food, not abstract ideologies. Whoever can give people better living conditions, the people will support that person.

Discussing socialism in the abstract is ok, but if socialists cannot offer the poor masses of the world objectively better living conditions than the capitalists can, then many people would rather live off the charity of the big capitalists, and I won't blame them for it.

The people will support whoever can offer food to them, it's only natural. During the Chinese Revolution, most Chinese peasants, who were completely illiterate, didn't give a shit about all those "noble and high" ideas of communism in the abstract, they only supported the Chinese Communist Party because the communists enacted land reforms and took away the landlords' lands and redistributed them to the poor peasants.

[Barry Lyndon]

I think most people in the world care the most about money and food, not abstract ideologies. Whoever can give people better living conditions, the people will support that person.

Discussing socialism in the abstract is ok, but if socialists cannot offer the poor masses of the world objectively better living conditions than the capitalists can, then many people would rather live off the charity of the big capitalists, and I won't blame them for it.

The people will support whoever can offer food to them, it's only natural. During the Chinese Revolution, most Chinese peasants, who were completely illiterate, didn't give a shit about all those "noble and high" ideas of communism in the abstract, they only supported the Chinese Communist Party because the communists enacted land reforms and took away the landlords' lands and redistributed them to the poor peasants.

Left-coms and other ultra-lefts routinely dismiss those achievements in China and other revolutions that they disapprove of(virtually all of them, it seems). They claim its 'economism' to emphasize the food, healthcare, education, housing, and employment that Marxist regimes provided to the poor- I believe Zanthorus called Marxist-Leninists 'social democrats with a violence fetish'.
This basically exposes their petty-bourgeois mindset and reveals they do not actually give a shit about the poor.

In response to the topic, I don't think that charity is reactionary per se, just that its insufficient and only a short-term solution, not a long term solution. I'm not hungry or homeless, so I am in no position to condemn such a thing.

[Queercommie Girl]

This basically exposes their petty-bourgeois mindset and reveals they do not actually give a shit about the poor.


Yes, and that these people have never been poor themselves and don't know what it is like to be literally on the verge of starvation.

[Ele'ill]

Haven't read any of the posts here yet- here's my take

Charity is verticle- it comes from the top.

Charity still requires that a group of people (the poor) rely on someone in a position of power based on economic privilege to support or get them by (which often doesn't happen anyway). This is an undesireable power structure- and relies on a lack of community to begin with- to operate successfully itself. Many institutions and organizations use charity to balance out negative PR issues- if our communities were tight, autonomous and self-sustaining- charity would be useless.

Charity is a feel good activity- and a guilt remover- it doesn't however solve any problems. Charity is an activity for those people who don't see or don't understand that the system (Capitalism) needs poverty to operate. Charity is an activity for those people that believe the poor are just lazy- or that 'there will always be poor people' (which is true in regards to capitalism but they're not making this statement for that reason)

[bricolage]

But would you rather work in Microsoft or in one of those "black kilns" in China that uses slave labour?
I'm afraid I don't know what a 'black kiln' is but I hardly think conditions for those that make Microsoft products (incidentally in China) are likely to be much better; http://www.nlcnet.org/reports?id=0034&t=1


Discussing socialism in the abstract is ok, but if socialists cannot offer the poor masses of the world objectively better living conditions than the capitalists can, then many people would rather live off the charity of the big capitalists, and I won't blame them for it.
Neither would I and I'd do the same. Obviously seeing as socialists are a tiny percentage of the worlds population without access to the power, wealth, capacity etc of capitalists we cannot offer the same they can.

The point is that conditions in most capitalist countries are better now than they were in the past, obviously people are going to take that. As communists though our place is not to try and limit ourselves to these short term gains but to remain to a principled position about how we can abolish exploitation and oppression once and for all. Do I condemn those that exploit millions then throw money at them in charity? Yes. Do I condemn a system that necessitates such charity? Of course. Would I take this charity if living in poverty? One hundred percent yes. Hell would I take some charity now? Damn straight.

[praxis1966]

Secondary wealth redistribution (like charity) is obviously inferior to primary wealth redistribution (e.g. socialism), but it's still better than no wealth redistribution at all. Even a "liberal communist" like Bill Gates is still objectively superior to those Chinese capitalists who don't give anything to charity at all and run "black kilns" using slavery and child labour.

Bill Gates is a duplicitous piece of shit. Back in 2003 when I first joined here, I was a tech at a middle school in Florida. Upon my arrival at that job, October of 2002, I learned that the summer before the school had been audited by Microsoft. What that means is they actually sent representatives around to check every computer in the school to make sure that the school could provide proof of purchase (which generally was a hologram sticker with a serial number on the back of the user's manual that came with said software) for every computer that had Microsoft's software installed on it.

Now, every single one of those machines at some point did have such proof. All of our copies of Windows and MS Office and the like had been purchased legally. Unfortunately, and probably because nobody either expects an audit by Microsoft or even knew at the time they do such things, my predecessors hadn't kept close track of their documentation. As a result, a public school was fined by Microsoft to the tune of $12,000 for breaching the end user agreement. If it gives you an idea of how costly that was, the $12k was the equivalent of the whole of the annual technology budget for that school. Luckily, the school district ponied up the money for the expense so we were free to buy more Microsoft products throughout the year. The way I figure it, if that happened to us, it's probably happened dozens, if not hundreds of times, since then.

So just keep in mind the next time you hear about Bill Gates and Microsoft donating a few thousand dollars in computers to an inner city school with one hand, they're taking cash out of the pockets of other schools (who are already so strapped that teachers are being laid off en masse and schools are getting shut down left, right, and center) with the other hand.

[Barry Lyndon]

[QUOTE=bricolage;1882064] Neither would I and I'd do the same. Obviously seeing as socialists are a tiny percentage of the worlds population without access to the power, wealth, capacity etc of capitalists we cannot offer the same they can.

The point is that conditions in most capitalist countries are better now than they were in the past, obviously people are going to take that. As communists though our place is not to try and limit ourselves to these short term gains but to remain to a principled position about how we can abolish exploitation and oppression once and for all. [QUOTE]

Socialists may not have as much resources as the capitalists, but that does not matter as much as it's made out to be. The question is not the amount the resources at your disposal, but what you do with them.

It is easy to forget that the conditions for most workers in the United States in 1900 were very similar to those that workers in the Third World today live in. The conditions did not improve by the grace of the capitalists, but because the workers fought tooth and nail for that change. The capitalists had to make concessions due to that and they were also able to create a pampered 'labor aristocracy' through the profits accrued from outside colonial(and later neo-colonial) exploitation.

The fact that Marxist regimes were able to provide for people's basic needs in previously very poor and backward nations is one of the most damning indictments of capitalism and of the entire ideology that celebrates individual charity, because it shows that the suffering of the poor is not some 'natural' state that can only be alleiviated somewhat by the generous whim of some humane capitalist, like an incurable disease, but is in fact unnatural and preventable!

[bricolage]

Left-coms and other ultra-lefts routinely dismiss those achievements in China and other revolutions that they disapprove of(virtually all of them, it seems).
I'm sure there were achievements in living standards in China, just like there have been achievements in living standards in the UK. None of this is to say there has ever been socialism though.


They claim its 'economism'
To be honest I've been called out for 'economism' by Marxist-Leninists far more times than I've ever dished it out myself.


This basically exposes their petty-bourgeois mindset and reveals they do not actually give a shit about the poor.
I'm not sure how any of this is petit-bourgeois, It seems it gets thrown around as much as 'liberal' these days...


In response to the topic, I don't think that charity is reactionary per se, just that its insufficient and only a short-term solution, not a long term solution. I'm not hungry or homeless, so I am in no position to condemn such a thing.
Well obviously. People seem to be interpretating me as saying we should be calling for charities to stop giving charity or that poor people should stop taking charity, I've said nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that the system of charity is fundamentally based on hierarchy and exploitation, borne of a world that condemns millions to rely on this. I don't see why this is so controversial.

[synthesis]

Tell that to the people who literally cannot survive without it. Or are you just going to dismiss them as the "lumpen-proletariat"?

:confused:

Are you saying you read my posts as "dismissive of the lumpenproletariat"? If so, better read a little closer.

[Invincible Summer]

Why is this in Chit-Chat?

Anyways...
Obviously charity is only necessary in a system with inequalities. It may be humiliating (which is why a better system that provides for everyone is needed), but the sad truth is that lots of people depend on it.

What is total balls is that right-wingers will say that charity is the purest form of social assistance, as it's not coerced but voluntary. But I always say, if you've got a million loaves of bread, why just throw people crumbs? It seems hypocritical of right-wingers to detest welfare state measures for making people "lazy," yet will basically support doing the same just not through taxes.


Bill Gates is a duplicitous piece of shit. Back in 2003 when I first joined here, I was a tech at a middle school in Florida. Upon my arrival at that job, October of 2002, I learned that the summer before the school had been audited by Microsoft. What that means is they actually sent representatives around to check every computer in the school to make sure that the school could provide proof of purchase (which generally was a hologram sticker with a serial number on the back of the user's manual that came with said software) for every computer that had Microsoft's software installed on it.

Now, every single one of those machines at some point did have such proof. All of our copies of Windows and MS Office and the like had been purchased legally. Unfortunately, and probably because nobody either expects an audit by Microsoft or even knew at the time they do such things, my predecessors hadn't kept close track of their documentation. As a result, a public school was fined by Microsoft to the tune of $12,000 for breaching the end user agreement. If it gives you an idea of how costly that was, the $12k was the equivalent of the whole of the annual technology budget for that school. Luckily, the school district ponied up the money for the expense so we were free to buy more Microsoft products throughout the year. The way I figure it, if that happened to us, it's probably happened dozens, if not hundreds of times, since then.

So just keep in mind the next time you hear about Bill Gates and Microsoft donating a few thousand dollars in computers to an inner city school with one hand, they're taking cash out of the pockets of other schools (who are already so strapped that teachers are being laid off en masse and schools are getting shut down left, right, and center) with the other hand.

It also irks me that people hail him to be so generous and compassionate when his wealth is built upon the exploitation of others. Microsoft is notorious for using under-paid temps to pick up all the slack for the full-time employees and then not giving them any job security.

[#FF0000]

Yeah speaking of Zizek he said some interesting things about charity in this video I found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

[gorillafuck]

Charity isn't reactionary. It's not a solution by any stretch of the imagination, but it isn't reactionary or anti-socialist.

[synthesis]

Charity isn't reactionary. It's not a solution by any stretch of the imagination, but it isn't reactionary or anti-socialist.

I don't think it's the act so much as the philosophy of charity that I find to be reactionary.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I've heard it referred to as being "like a chocolate laxative."

Chocolate laxatives are disgusting.

Anyway..... I don't think charity givin from your heart with no outside gratification is reactionary.

[EvilRedGuy]

I forgot this but is Red Cross a reliable charity? I heard some say that no money goes down to where they're supposed to be.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah speaking of Zizek he said some interesting things about charity in this video I found.


I find Zizek's voice to be kind of annoying.

[brigadista]

to put it in context - it attracts tax relief

the rich never give anything away without getting something back

[Vanguard1917]

Discussing socialism in the abstract is ok, but if socialists cannot offer the poor masses of the world objectively better living conditions than the capitalists can, then many people would rather live off the charity of the big capitalists, and I won't blame them for it.

It is incredibly naive to believe that any significant rise in the living standards of the poor has anything to do with the generosity of capitalists. And while i'm sure that capitalists would prefer poor people to be the quiet, humble and grateful recipients of the kindhearted charity of the rich, charity-mongering has nothing to offer for those of us who believe that workers need to forcibly take control over their own lives in order to ensure any improvements to their living standards and those of future generations. As synthesis points out, it's the 'philosophy' behind charity which is conservative. It reinforces the fatalistic perception of workers as helpless, and the flattering view of the rich as saviours.