Charities

[hatzel]

So, OI, let's do this one! The rarely touched upon, but occasionally controversial topic of charities. What's the good, what's the bad and what's the ugly? I post this in OI because it might be more fun...

Why is this relevant? Well, I'm sure we all know that there is sometimes a bit of a leftist critique of charities going around here or there. Some of it seems justified, some...morally questionable, let's say. I think I've known one too many leftist who subscribes to the "charities are bad because they intend to help people, and if they help people then people might not be suffering any more, and if people aren't suffering any more, then they won't be encouraged to rise up against the state, because it's suffering which causes revolution, so we shouldn't support anything that reduces suffering, because it hinders our cause" idea. Okay, I might have slightly exaggerated there, but the basic framework is one I've heard before. There are other, far more convincing arguments against specific charities, but I thought it would be cool to see how it goes here, and if the socialists and non-socialists are split in opinion at all along political lines :)

[#FF0000]

Charities are better than nothing and it may be worthwhile to help out or donate, but it does nothing to fix the conditions the poor are stuck in. Sure, giving money to a charity that helps in Africa may feed and clothe a child and send that child to school until they graduate, but even though that child is successful, it doesn't change the fact that there are still poor people who rely on these charities.

So yeah. Better than nothing, but they don't "fix" anything in the sense that there are still people who live in terrible conditions, regardless of the existence of charity.

I get my opinions from Slavoj Zizek.

[RGacky3]

By all means, all Charity is good (except for Pat Robertson's), but personally I'd prefer giving money to organizations that organize people and fight for better conditions rather than just give them food and medicine organization, but both are great.

[kahimikarie]

it can do a lot of harm.

search "Alms Dealers" New Yorker

[Ele'ill]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/charity-christmas-appeals-t144600/index.html?t=144600&highlight=charity

http://www.revleft.com/vb/charity-reactionary-t142578/index.html?t=142578&highlight=charity


There's actually quite a few threads that show up when you search thread titles only

[Tommy4ever]

Charities stink a little too much of trickle down theory ...

There is also the issue that charities in the Third World are often as damaging as they are positive.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Charities have helped me when I've been homeless, but I want to live in a world where we don't need charities. Charities are small plasters on the gushing axe-wound caused by capitalism. It may help a tiny bit, but its clear that much more treatment is needed if we're going to get rid of the problems that justify the existence of charities.

[ComradeMan]

Charities have helped me when I've been homeless, but I want to live in a world where we don't need charities. Charities are small plasters on the gushing axe-wound caused by capitalism. It may help a tiny bit, but its clear that much more treatment is needed if we're going to get rid of the problems that justify the existence of charities.

I'm sorry you had a bad situation! Respect to you.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not charities that are the problem but the fact we need to have charities. I give to a lot of charities when I can but I think even the charities in question would freely admit it would be better if we didn't need to have them.

As long as we need to have charities I will give to them and try to do other stuff in order to bring about a change which will see their obsoleteness.
:thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't have issues with emergency humanitarian "charities" (rushing to save a life isn't a "charitable" act).

I'm increasingly leaning negative towards donated micro-credit, despite the supposed aim of self-reliance and the eight levels of charity. Google "micro-credit" and "neoliberal" to get an idea of the problems.

[Red Bayonet]

In my experience, charities are little more than for-profit fundraising enterprises. Most of the money donated to them goes to paying employee salaries. And only a small amount goes to actually helping people.

[Volcanicity]

In my experience, charities are little more than for-profit fundraising enterprises. Most of the money donated to them goes to paying employee salaries. And only a small amount goes to actually helping people.
There's a couple of homeless shelters near where I am that are facing closure because of cuts.I know for a fact through them helping me in the past that the workers there are running it purely on a voluntary basis and get nothing of monetary value in return and it's only through outside funding and generous donations from the general public that they are able to function at all.

[Red Bayonet]

Yes, there are exceptions. But I was speaking of the larger agencies like United Way, whose salaries and perks are greatly in excess of what they actually spend on helping people.

[Dean]

So, OI, let's do this one! The rarely touched upon, but occasionally controversial topic of charities. What's the good, what's the bad and what's the ugly? I post this in OI because it might be more fun...

Why is this relevant? Well, I'm sure we all know that there is sometimes a bit of a leftist critique of charities going around here or there. Some of it seems justified, some...morally questionable, let's say. I think I've known one too many leftist who subscribes to the "charities are bad because they intend to help people, and if they help people then people might not be suffering any more, and if people aren't suffering any more, then they won't be encouraged to rise up against the state, because it's suffering which causes revolution, so we shouldn't support anything that reduces suffering, because it hinders our cause" idea. Okay, I might have slightly exaggerated there, but the basic framework is one I've heard before. There are other, far more convincing arguments against specific charities, but I thought it would be cool to see how it goes here, and if the socialists and non-socialists are split in opinion at all along political lines :)

It's absurd to oppose genuine, effective relief efforts. End of discussion.

[hatzel]

If anything, I'd say charities do open our eyes to issues outside of our personal sphere. I mean, I know that giving a buck a week or something, to pay for a couple of vaccinations in Bangladesh or somewhere, doesn't do that much. But I do get a lot of paperwork through my door, 'our activities in the last month' and stuff like that. When they portray something as so easy ("it only costs this much to fund a village school in Africa"), it does make you wonder why it's not happening out there, and why the charity is needed. We could even argue that it could promote leftist sentiments amongst those who give to charity. If they don't think that just paying for a bag of rice for some poor family once a month is 'mission accomplished'. It's difficult to buy that one, though, as I've never known a charity to send a letter saying "we're good now, there aren't any more blind people needing help, stand down!" I guess it depends on why one gives...or, on the inverse, why one is a socialist...