Fuck those who say revolutionaries should be wary about giving to charity

[graffic]

..

[Rafiq]

Fuck off

[Tenka]

Why aren't you banned yet....
Anyway,

First of all, it's important to remember
that statistics show the poor give much
more to charity than the upper class.

Do you have a source for this? Where are those statistics? For my part, I'm dirt poor and wouldn't dare give to a charity even if I believed they were worth anything.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Fuck charities. And fuck your bloody church, too.

[graffic]

I have a lot more in common with working class volunteers for catholic soup kitchens than I do with middle class wannabe pseudo intellectuals who ***** about capitalism on the internet or on campus , instead of actually engaging workers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

First of all, it's important to remember that statistics show the poor give much more to charity than the upper class. Let's do away with the myth that charitable giving is a phenomenon of the rich as a way of "dealing with their guilt" because it isn't happening.

The problem with charity is that it is a band-aid solution, addressing only the symptoms of a deeper problem. The better charities know this.


Secondly, the cynical excuse that charities are "mugging" you and the money is not going to the right place is both disgusting and disturbing at the same time. This is an often corny, lazy excuse used by rich people to justify being tight.

Well the fact is that some charities are better than others, but charity in general is not the solution to social problems.


There is no trouble finding the mainstream, recognized charities where you know that your money will go to a good cause like the "red cross". And anyway if you suspect the money might not be used in the "right way" is it morally justifiable therefore to withhold that money for yourself instead and spend it on a consumer item for yourself?

If one is working class, yes.


I think there is also a bad trend among leftists in general to underestimate the potential of charity to not only to improve working class welfare but to change the frugal attitudes of the upper class.

Do you know what "frugal" actually means?


The revolution isn't going to bring immediate help to hurricane victims or the homeless.

Charity does nothing to address the conditions that create homelessness or inadequate responses to natural disasters in the first place.

[helot]

As a precarious worker myself no matter how much i agree with a particular charity and what it does any spare funds i have are reserved not for charity but for organising and solidarity. Yes, charities can alleviate some problems but it never solves the root cause and it can never solve issues arising from the working class's lack of agency. While giving to charity is better than doing fuck all besides complaining it's better to focus your resources on organising.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Graffic, first I think you need to breakdown "charity". Do you mean induviduals being charitable - I don't know many leftists who do not support that, the only criticism is that while that might be a salve for induviduals, it's not a cure for the system. But other than that, if you have money to spare, then why not try and help other people either through direct giving or finding decent organizations.

First of all, it's important to remember that statistics show the poor give much more to charity than the upper class. Let's do away with the myth that charitable giving is a phenomenon of the rich as a way of "dealing with their guilt" because it isn't happening.Yeah and in the US, the rich are taxed much more at death if they don't give a certain percentage of money towards charities - even then regular people give more of a percentage of their wealth relative to what the rich tend to give. But I think this so-called "death-tax" and the philanthropy loop-hole reveal one of the reasons that people should be skeptical of philanthropy and charity organizations.

So basically the rich use this loophole as a way of privatizing taxes for the rich. Billionaires can directly choose where they want their money to go in society, rather than into a general fund where potentially democratic and popular pressures could force that wealth to go into areas that are not valuable to the rich - or actually hurt their power a little.

So billionaires, rather than having a percentage of their estate go to pay for public education after they die, they can give a much smaller amount to charities, and since what qualifies as charity has been loosened, this means they can give to charter school organization or any number of pro-business things that ultimately still go back to help them. I gave money to build this art museum... I also happen to own all the land in the surrounding area, so I will get higher property values!


Secondly, the cynical excuse that charities are "mugging" you and the money is not going to the right place is both disgusting and disturbing at the same time. This is an often corny, lazy excuse used by rich people to justify being tight.Well with many charity organization this is a legitimate concern - and all the major North American disasters of recent years have also come with big scandles of the major charity organizations - Hurricane Katrina, the earthquake in Haiti, and now "Sandy":

NY Times: Anger Grows at Response by Red Cross (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nyregion/anger-grows-at-the-red-cross-response-to-the-storm.html)



There is no trouble finding the mainstream, recognized charities where you know that your money will go to a good cause like the "red cross". And anyway if you suspect the money might not be used in the "right way" is it morally justifiable therefore to withhold that money for yourself instead and spend it on a consumer item for yourself?Do what you have to do in the short-term, but ask yourself is charity going to solve any underlying problems? Is charity going to change how in the US inequality is growing and wages are declining? Is charity going to help people with AIDS in Africa if we allow the Pharma Industry to hold patents on AIDS medicine and prevent those drugs from being produced cheaply enough? Chairty is a band-aid. I have no "moral problem" with charity, and people being kind to eachother is something to higlight, but I do have a "political problem" if people argue that charity is anything other than a band-aid and a temporary salve.


I think there is also a bad trend among leftists in general to underestimate the potential of charity to not only to improve working class welfare but to change the frugal attitudes of the upper class. Capitalists aren't "bad" because they are frugal - in fact they generally aren't and are generally extravagant while most of us HAVE to be frugal. Capitalists can be the nicest people in the world, but to have their position, to be a capitalist means that they need to find the best way to extract more wealth out of workers - to use the best current methods for exploitation.

Aristocrats and Feudal Church bureaucrats may have personally been kind people - hell some of them are literally Saints:lol: - but even a nice church official was doing a job to help maintain a system where the rich took some of everyone's crops and kept the people at the bottom powerless.


The revolution isn't going to bring immediate help to hurricane victims or the homeless.FEMA and the Red Cross apparently aren't either.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

It doesn't matter if it's a bandaid, charities can and do help the working class, myself at one time included. If we're going to embrace the strategy of allowing the lives of people to get so bad that they have to fight for the right for bread, than lets just say it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It doesn't if it's a bandaid, charities can and do help the working class, myself at one time included. If we're going to embrace the strategy of allowing the lives of people to get so bad that they have to fight for the right for bread, than lets just say it.We have charities at the same time that people fight for bread - we couldn't have charities if people wern't fighting over bread. A band-aid is exactly what it is: helping one specific outbreak of a much more systemic disease.

No one is arguing that charity doesn't help the individual recipient - only that it will not "fix" the underlying problems that create the need for charities in the first place.

Charity or not, that really doesn't matter ultimately as much as how much workers can organize and fight for things. If worker's can't force bosses to pay a living level wage, if worker's can't influence who gets fired and under what conditions, if worker's can't force reforms to services, then it won't matter how much charity there is because we'll all be fighting over scraps of coal in a Dickensian tenament.

In the US there is much more charity now than in the 1960s, but there is also MORE POVERTY AND INEQUALITY. So it's not "charity" or misery - it's really charity and misery.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I understand that. I just don't see why you can't organize and give 5 dollars to disaster relief at the same time

[Drosophila]

There is nothing about being a communist that voids you from being involved with charity. However, if you think charity is the furthest we can go, then you are not a communist.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

duh....

[#FF0000]

i dunno i don't think anyone's like 'welp fuck charity' in earnest.

[#FF0000]

Do you have a source for this? Where are those statistics? For my part, I'm dirt poor and wouldn't dare give to a charity even if I believed they were worth anything.

actually

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html

[Jimmie Higgins]

I understand that. I just don't see why you can't organize and give 5 dollars to disaster relief at the same timeNo reason whatsover.

In Oakland when Katrina happened we tried to organize a grassroots donation drive. The Panthers had a lot of charity programs. Occupy Oakland did a hell of a lot of charity work and fed a lot of the homeless people who live in that park and in downtown. In NYC OWS has been able to kind of re-form as "Occupy Sandy".

However, Occupy Sandy, BPP, or even my little effort are linked to a larger sense of how we can get beyond charity and needing these ad-hoc self-charity efforts to make up for the indifference and neglect of the government and more importantly the inherent inequality and exploitation of the system itself.

Larger liberal church and NGO organization are an end to themselves, they accept poverty and misary as fact and so become just fund-raising machines with no way out of the problems they are attempting to mitigate. This can be purely good-intentioned (and I'm sure most church and non-profit volunteers and low-ranking employees are doing this purely out of a desire for altruism). But it can also be just a bureaucratic machine where eventually some people will try and scam or they will put the health of the charity organization over sending money to where people thought it would go (as in Haiti and Katrina). Or it can be just a straight-up scam using the influence of money by rich people for other ends (like imperialism, corporate PR, or cover for a company coming in and screwing labor or resources).

So charity is fine, but self-organization is key to finally eliminating the need for any charity of the sort we are used to seeing.

[Sea]

aye...

Fuck those who use the "people are already giving enough charity" mentality to obscure the need for more powerful change. And while I'm at is, fuck those who say "fuck charity".

Charity can do good but doesn't take away the bad. That's how I see it anyway. If I have some pocket change you can bet your ass I'll dump it in the Salvation Army bucket, but I don't see it as making a real difference. I'm fine with people using charity to complement activism, but please please lease don't think you can replace one with the other.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The Panthers didn't have "charity" programmes - they did solidarity work, which is fundamentally different, and aimed at empowering people (as opposed to feeding cycles of dependence). In this sense, it's totally fine to give $5 to this or that cause if the cause, but organizations should be evaluated critically, and we should probably tell "charities", well . . .
. . . I will happily come out and say, "fuck charity" - not because I haven't been thankful for many a soup kitchen meal, but because charity plays a particular role vis-a-vis capitalism. I'd draw an analogy to the education system - I'm happy to say fuck school, though I appreciate having been taught how to read.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Fuck those who think that giving a dying child a scrap of your big-ass baguette that you're going to scoff is the proper way to go.

[#FF0000]

i think some people are kind of missing the point of what folks who are criticial (not really) of charities here are saying

[Let's Get Free]

I don't think charity is a bad thing. However, what is troubling is the way this culture focuses on charity rather than solidarity. One involves us feeling temporarily better about ourselves for having done 'a good thing', the other involves realizing why people are in the situation they are in and looking for systemic solutions to the problems.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I have a lot more in common with working class volunteers for catholic soup kitchens than I do with middle class wannabe pseudo intellectuals who ***** about capitalism on the internet or on campus , instead of actually engaging workers.
Don't make assumptions about the people you're debating with.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I don't think charity is a bad thing. However, what is troubling is the way this culture focuses on charity rather than solidarity. One involves us feeling temporarily better about ourselves for having done 'a good thing', the other involves realizing why people are in the situation they are in and looking for systemic solutions to the problems.
Agreed. But charity can be a lifeline for those of us who are poor.

[Ele'ill]

Don't make assumptions about the people you're debating with.

it's not really an innocent assumption it's a strawman

[Yuppie Grinder]

"The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves."

[Yuppie Grinder]

GGwcOCUxvmo
Charity begins at Starbucks.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

"The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves."

That's one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard.

[Conscript]

That's one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard.

Why? Bismarck is a pretty condemnable capitalist for adopting social democratic policies to sate workers and fend off socialists.

[Ocean Seal]

Why? Bismarck is a pretty condemnable capitalist for adopting social democratic policies to sate workers and fend off socialists.
This is quite honestly a pretty silly way of looking at it. Workers getting free stuff is good for the movement. A concession from the bourgeoisie can only be temporary.

[Conscript]

This is quite honestly a pretty silly way of looking at it. Workers getting free stuff is good for the movement. A concession from the bourgeoisie can only be temporary.

I don't see how it's good. It'll only convince people to stay with capitalism as long as workers get some share of the fruits of their exploitation. We can already provide each other with what bourgeois social dems offer, and more of it. The issue is capital, not the details of how it's used.

As for temporariness, I'm also at a loss. The capitalism we see today, a state directed, nationally oriented capitalism (and thus a capitalism that's very mediating between classes, like the state) has pretty much set into stone the idea of spending money on the commoners to sate them.

I'm not sure if I even call them concessions anymore. It's just a means for the bourgeoisie to create a loyal 'middle class' of workers who live beyond subsistence wages. This 'socialism' is turned against us.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard.Yeah, but in the US, that's essentially how the Southern eliete justified slavery. They actually argued as the war drew nearer, that slavery was kinder and more benevolent labor than industrial labor.

They make workers live in slums and tenements - we give them quarters and even their own land to farm in their "free" time.

All the mainstream representations of slavery presented it as gentle and the relationship of master and slave was presented as paternalistic. They even had doctors who created a mental condition to explain why some slaves, for some reason, were compelled to run away from such wonderful free room and board.:rolleyes:

I think literature and movies both over-represent brutality in the system and ignore other horrible features of it. I don't know - it might be like if there were representations of our time after a Revolution and they made it seem like every time you go to work a boss is standing over you all day saying: "faster! Make me more wealth!" and then you leave work and cops are driving down the road shooting at you for no reason. I mean it's true in a sense, and it happens every day somewhere, but really the system is internalized and normalized so that they can get us to work for them without always having to send cops after us or have a boss threatening us directly. I think Huck Finn is probably more accurate: the brutality is obviously bad, but the evil is in the banality and invisibility and general unquestioning acceptance of the horrors and tyranny.

But yeah if you had to be a slave, as an individual, having a figurative cracker with a softer snap or weaker wrist would definitely be more pleasant.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is quite honestly a pretty silly way of looking at it. Workers getting free stuff is good for the movement. A concession from the bourgeoisie can only be temporary.Yeah but the self-organization and ability to fight and force a concession from bosses can last longer and yield much much more potentially.

[Soomie]

I personally don't agree with charity that asks monetary value. I am not saying that charity, or all charities rather, are bad. It's just not always what I agree with. I have done a few charitable things, such as the christmas tree angels for children (during the holidays christmas trees are put in various locations with angel cards on them that have information about children and what they could use or would like for christmas. You can take a card, go out and get the gift, and then you return it to the place with the tree), as well as the salvation army. However, I don't always like going through a second person system. I much rather like going out into the community and doing something on a local level, reaching out to people and seeing the effect it has in real time. I've given money and food to homeless people that I've seen sleeping under blankets on community benches. I'm actually planning on making some thanksgiving dinner plates and taking them to Target and Walmart on Black "Thursday" night, because these workers are not going to be able to sit down with their families or have a thanksgiving dinner. I think that things like this are more important. Sure, you can donate to charities, and I don't think many socialists/marxists would object. But if you can't help your community, what use is helping someone far off in another state or another country?

[Ele'ill]

where is graffic?

[graffic]

Yeah but the self-organization and ability to fight and force a concession from bosses can last longer and yield much much more potentially.

You are too ideological. Communism is not absolute justice and capitalism is not absolute injustice. The principle of charity, helping those who are less fortunate than you are, is important whatever way that society is organized.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are too ideological.

You aren't ideological enough.


Communism is not absolute justice and capitalism is not absolute injustice.

Who made that claim? As far as I know, all that is being claimed on this forum is that communism will be a more just form of socio-economic organisation than capitalism, a relative claim with no absolutes being mentioned.


The principle of charity, helping those who are less fortunate than you are, is important whatever way that society is organized.

Perhaps, but don't you think it would be better if society was organised with an eye towards charitable principles in mind from the outset, rather than encouraging charity as a post hoc patch to a society which promotes austerity for the workers and Keynesianism for the rulers and their rich chums?

[human strike]

Yes, it is true the poor give the most to charity. But so what? The poor also work the most - doesn't mean we should be pro-wage labour.

[graffic]

Yes, it is true the poor give the most to charity. But so what? The poor also work the most - doesn't mean we should be pro-wage labour.



I think Jesus said something a long the lines a poor women who gave all she had gave more than the rich man who gave some of his wealth.

[o well this is ok I guess]

If you suspect the money might not be used in the "right way" is it morally justifiable therefore to withhold that money for yourself instead and spend it on a consumer item for yourself? Yes.
I don't see why you find this so difficult.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You are too ideological. Communism is not absolute justice and capitalism is not absolute injustice. The principle of charity, helping those who are less fortunate than you are, is important whatever way that society is organized.Ultimately one has to side with one of two contending classes irregardless of where you fit into society: workers or the capitalists. These are the only groups who can really organize society, other groups can create modified versions of the current system, but because their methods of producing (like small owners and artisans or professionals) are linked to the large capitalist system (EDIT: oops droped that sentance there) they have no way of creating a wholly new system around differnet class interests.

Communism is not about absolute justice and capitalism is not about absolute injustice, correct. But it's also not a question of one set of policies or laws or government and another - it's about what class has power and how they organize the basis of society. So ultimately, not helping workers to organize their own power in society, is not taking a side in that struggle between these two classes which is essentially the same as siding with the status-quo. This is what most people do because they don't believe (for various reasons) that workers can or should run society - even most workers think this currently. So charity is a responce to the injustice and natural inequalities of capitalism, but it ultimately doesn't help do anything about the larger situation and does nothing to stem the flow of povery and inequality - it just momentarilly helps those affected by it.

By way of another analogy: if there was a river that - say - once a decade over-ran its banks, would it be enough for the town on the banks to buy a bunch of mops for everyone and have a store of fresh water for when this happens? No, ultimately, that's just setting youself up for "cleaning up" disasters rather than trying to get to the root of the problem. In the short term, the best thing to do would be to try and build up emergency teams to build levees and fill sandbags for the next eventual flood - but really the logical thing to do in the end is re-organize and re-position the town in a place that won't periodically flood.

Charity is those mops - we know that the system creates poverty so ultimately the way to deal with povery and inequality is to change that system that always produces it.

[Guayaco]

i dunno i don't think anyone's like 'welp fuck charity' in earnest.

Fuck charity for able-bodied adults. Call me despicable, but when I see man with a sign, I think "you are a coward." No worker should sacrifice the the rewards of his labor to put a band-aid on capitalism.

In my country of origen, begging by people who are not either disabled or are children is unheard of. Yes, it is true that capitalism structurally creates and requieres a "reserve army of the unemployed." And for that reason, I am proud to say that I have worked all my life, except for times of unemployment, during which I have re-expropriated expropriated surplus labor.

[#FF0000]

Fuck charity for able-bodied adults. Call me despicable, but when I see man with a sign, I think "you are a coward." No worker should sacrifice the the rewards of his labor to put a band-aid on capitalism.

In my country of origen, begging by people who are not either disabled or are children is unheard of. Yes, it is true that capitalism structurally creates and requieres a "reserve army of the unemployed." And for that reason, I am proud to say that I have worked all my life, except for times of unemployment, during which I have re-expropriated expropriated surplus labor.

*puts on sunglasses and adjusts Big Dog t-shirt*

fuck homeless ppl i work for a livign!!!!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fuck charity for able-bodied adults. Call me despicable, but when I see man with a sign, I think "you are a coward." No worker should sacrifice the the rewards of his labor to put a band-aid on capitalism.

Fuck off you selfish prick, I'll be charitable if I want to be.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about bosses appropriating the surplus value of workers' labour, rather than workers feeling charitable to others who are able-bodied but may have issues elsewhere in their life?


In my country of origen, begging by people who are not either disabled or are children is unheard of. Yes, it is true that capitalism structurally creates and requieres a "reserve army of the unemployed." And for that reason, I am proud to say that I have worked all my life, except for times of unemployment, during which I have re-expropriated expropriated surplus labor.

So what are you saying? That it's better to be on welfare than to beg? What if welfare is unavailable? Especially these days when the shits in charge are slashing the social safety net.

[Guayaco]

Fuck off you selfish prick, I'll be charitable if I want to be.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about bosses appropriating the surplus value of workers' labour, rather than workers feeling charitable to others who are able-bodied but may have issues elsewhere in their life?



So what are you saying? That it's better to be on welfare than to beg? What if welfare is unavailable? Especially these days when the shits in charge are slashing the social safety net.

If you don´t get the drift, re-read the sentence "re-expropriate expropriated surplus labor" and interpret it in the context that able-bodied males, by law, can´t get welfare.

[hatzel]

If you don´t get the drift, re-read the sentence "re-expropriate expropriated surplus labor" and interpret it in the context that able-bodied males, by law, can´t get welfare.

Nah you're still condescending and classist.

[Guayaco]

*puts on sunglasses and adjusts Big Dog t-shirt*

fuck homeless ppl i work for a livign!!!!!

Actually it is more like this:

*puts on sunglasses and adjusts Big Dog t-shirt*

Fuck begging because 1) I have too much pride and 2) I refuse to ask working people for money. If I end up in prison (for the third time), so be it.

Why would I hold anyone to a different standard?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you don´t get the drift, re-read the sentence "re-expropriate expropriated surplus labor" and interpret it in the context that able-bodied males, by law, can´t get welfare.

So you steal from the rich? What about those who can't, for various reasons?

The place you live must have a shitty welfare system if it legally cannot provide welfare to "able-bodied males".

Also, what about "able-bodied females"? Seems quite sexist to portray healthy women as being weaker than men, and/or to place such burdens on males because there is nothing physically wrong with their bodies.

[Guayaco]

Nah you're still condescending and classist.

I spent a night at a homeless shelter because I didn´t have a residence to parole to. I self-revoked my parole the following day.

Don´t give the story about unemployed people at the homeless shelter. 95% were long-term alcoholics, not displaced workers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I spent a night at a homeless shelter because I didn´t have a residence to parole to. I self-revoked my parole the following day.

Don´t give the story about unemployed people at the homeless shelter. 95% were long-term alcoholics, not displaced workers.

Workers displaced by their alcoholism.

[#FF0000]

Yeah no one's saying it's usually a good idea to give panhandlers money. They help they often need goes beyond money.

It's just stupid to look down on people like that and puff out your chest because "gubgubgubg IM NOT BEGGIN IM NOT ADDICT IM BETTER PERSON GUBGUBGUBGUBG".

[Guayaco]

Yeah no one's saying it's usually a good idea to give panhandlers money. They help they often need goes beyond money.

It's just stupid to look down on people like that and puff out your chest because "gubgubgubg IM NOT BEGGIN IM NOT ADDICT IM BETTER PERSON GUBGUBGUBGUBG".

Life can be very ugly and it is understandable that many will seek an escape from this reality in a bottle of liquor. However, it is counterproductive to apoligize for this response to the brutal explotation of Capitalism. These are defeated individuals who have become nothing more than sand in the machine.

People must be told that endurance in the face of adversity can only derive from the belief in a cause that is far more important than our personal tragedies. Only then a person will correctly channel the blame outward instead of inward. Only then a person will be prepared to sacrifice in a direct response to the crimes of the exploiters.

[#FF0000]

People must be told that endurance in the face of adversity can only derive from the belief in a cause that is far more important than our personal tragedies. Only then a person will correctly channel the blame outward instead of inward. Only then a person will be prepared to sacrifice in a direct response to the crimes of the exploiters.

Hm


Fuck charity for able-bodied adults. Call me despicable, but when I see man with a sign, I think "you are a coward."

Yeah, see, what we're saying is that it's stupid to say "PPL WHO ARE DRUNK N ADDICTED N HOMELESS N PANHANDLING ARE WEAK" and then say "THEY SHOULD CHANNEL THE BLAME TOWARDS THE CONDITIONS THAT CREATE THESE PROBLEMS".

No one's saying charity is the answer or anything. Just that it's stupid to try and do this "im so superior" thing.

[Guayaco]

Yeah, see, what we're saying is that it's stupid to say "PPL WHO ARE DRUNK N ADDICTED N HOMELESS N PANHANDLING ARE WEAK" and then say "THEY SHOULD CHANNEL THE BLAME TOWARDS THE CONDITIONS THAT CREATE THESE PROBLEMS".

Bourgeois ideology says you are paid what you are are worth: if you ain´t got nothing, it is because you ain´t worth nothing (the blame is channeled inward). Therefore, bourgeois ideology combined with lack of success under Capitalism creates depression and feelings of lack of self-worth which some people subsequently drown out with alcohol (an inward response).

Proletarian ideology explains personal "failure" in its proper social context. As I said earlier, Capitalism structurally creates and requieres a "reserve army of the unemployed" to keep labor costs low and profit margins high (the blame is channeled outward). Proletarian ideology combined with lack of success under Capitalism fosters class hatred and desire to strike out at the exploiters (an outward response).

The rhetorical component is that it is important to link flattering adjetives with politically desirable behavior, and link negative adjectives (weak, cowardly) with undesirable behavior, since the idea is to influence peoples´ emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately their behavior. Appealing to a sense of courage and manliness is a proven tactic for compelling resistance and combativeness. Political rhetoric must be aligned with strategic objectives, and I believe that my position correctly balances these interests.

[#FF0000]

The rhetorical component is that it is important to link flattering adjetives with politically desirable behavior, and negative adjectives (weak, cowardly) with undesirable behavior, since the idea is to influence peoples´ emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately their behavior. Appealing to a sense of courage and manliness is a proven tactic for compelling resistance and combativeness. Political rhetoric must be aligned with strategic objectives, and I believe that my position correctly balances these interests.

Yeah, the thing is, though, that making people feel down on themselves doesn't compel them to change their behavior. Saying people who turn to drugs n alcohol are weak isn't going to make them think "NO I'M NOT WEAK! CAPITALISM IS WEAK". It is going to just drive the idea that they are powerless and worthless home that much harder. That's what we're saying here.

[the Leftâ„¢]

"charity is a woefully inadequate means of partial restitution"- Oscar Wilde

Its not that we don't support charities. Its just that charity under capitalism is like trying to solve a problem with its symptoms

[cynicles]

Fixing something with the left hand that you broke with the right hand. For god's sake is Graffic going on about his whole crap about being more in touch with the working class crap again? Get over yourself and stop stereotyping the working class and that goes for that toad dude aswell. The working class isn't some caraciture constructed by the media that's universally socially conservative, uneducated or what ever dumb fuck stereotype your functioning off of.

[Guayaco]

Yeah, the thing is, though, that making people feel down on themselves doesn't compel them to change their behavior. Saying people who turn to drugs n alcohol are weak isn't going to make them think "NO I'M NOT WEAK! CAPITALISM IS WEAK". It is going to just drive the idea that they are powerless and worthless home that much harder. That's what we're saying here.

In politics, the enemy will always try to paint a picture of us that furthers their ends. The worst possible mistake is to say and or do things that confirm their messaging.

The most damaging accusation that has ever been leveled against us is that the left seeks to steal the fruits of honest labor and redistribute them to lazy individuals and drug-addicts/alcoholics.

My first intervention in this topic was to extoll hard-work and its just rewards and to deny that able-bodied adults should ever take from another worker.

The response to my message (by respected, long-term participants) was nothing short of incredible. The notion of hard work was mocked and the insidious message of our class enemy was affirmed.

However valid the arguments in favor of long-term homeless alcoholics may be, the task of a revolutionist is to make his or her message resonate with the working class. This demands a great deal of political acumen that enables us to recognize when philistine humanitarian sentimentalism for marginal elements undermines our image before the working class. When countervailing interests put us on the horns of a dilemna, the lessor interest must cede before the greater. Failure to appreciate this truism and act in consequence will condemn our ideas to popular contempt and irrelevance.

[#FF0000]

This demands a great deal of political acumen that enables us to recognize when philistine humanitarian sentimentalism for marginal elements undermines our image before the working class.Maybe if you're one of those people that thinks "media opinion = public opinion". I'll tell you right now, though, that in my own experience what you're saying is total bullshit and it doesn't "undermine our image" at all.

And once again no one is saying "yo, just throw money at these people". We are trying to explain to you that to say "THESE PEOPLE ARE WEAK" instead of acknowledging that alcoholism and addiction are complicated things to deal with as social issues. I mean, uh, alcoholism, addiction, and homelessness aren't uncommon and a lot of the people I work with and went to school with in high school knew addicts, knew homeless people, or were addicted or homeless. And if you're trying to to political work in these working class communities where these are issues, you're not winning any points from anyone by throwing these people under the bus.

EDIT: And hey, while we're at it, are we gonna start singing the praises of the nation state and wrapping ourselves in the national flag when people accuse us of being unpatriotic?

[Rugged Collectivist]

I walked past a salvation army rep the other day. They tried to guilt me into paying them by ringing a bell to grab my attention, but I knew better.

[#FF0000]

Salvation army kinda sucks tho.

[RedAtheist]

It's not charity itself that is the problem. It is the mentality that is associated with charities and that they spread in order to promote themselves.

This doesn't even include the fact that charities often promote religion, including fundamentalist forms of it, which teach workers to not make a fuss about their impoverished conditions because they have the 'love of god' and that people should have an attitude of 'humbleness' and 'meekness' (i.e. low self esteem and submissiveness.)

But setting religion aside, here's a scenario which illustrate my problem with charity more generally.

Greek (or substitute in any other wealthy countries that's currently going through an economic crisis) worker: Oh man! I'm being fucked over by the government's austerity
Charity representative: How dare you complain about your conditions! You such just be grateful you're in a rich country, where you have food, water and clothing. You're so selfish and it's your fault kids are starving in Africa, because you buy too much stuff.
Greek worker: But it's the corporations that are screwing poor countries over.
Charity representative: They're only doing that because you make them do that by buying that stuff. If western people weren't naturally selfish and just had enough condescending affection for people in the third world to give money to OUR charity, we could make the world into a place of sunshine and rainbows, but people like you are so mean and only wanna focus on how you're being mistreated.
Stop complaining about austerity and think about those kids in Africa, blah, blah, blah, evilness of human nature, blah, blah, blah, be grateful for what you have, blah, blah, blah.

I'll admit, my portrayal of charities is exaggerated, but this is in essense what they promote and it completely dulls the class consciousness of workers in the west, who are told that because there's a group of people being screwed over worse by capitalism than they are, that makes the complaints of people in the west illegitimate. I agree that people in poor countries are worse off than people in wealthy countries, but that doesn't mean workers who are being screwed over in western countries should shut up and be grateful.

Charities treat the citizens of a wealthy nation as one big homogenous group and ignore class distincts within countries, thereby blaming everyone in the west for the poverty of the third world.

[helot]

I think we can also point out how disgraceful charities are towards paid low-level staff. Any desire for a pay rise or better conditions is met with emotional blackmail.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Salvation army kinda sucks tho.

Exactly.

[statichaos]

Salvation army kinda sucks tho.

The Salvation Army is simply terrible. Their homophobic, Christian fundamentalist outlook is an example of the worst of America (and, I would assume, the worst of the other nations where they have a presence), and the "charity" that they provide comes with so many strings attached that it is nearly impossible for those with serious mental illness or substance abuse issues to receive any sort of legitimate, constructive care.

[anarchomedia]

When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why people are hungry, they call me a Communist.
- Dom Helder Camara

Charity is okay but, at best, it just treats the symptoms of the disease not the causes. If you are communist you are interested in solving the cause not just treating the symptoms.