Does Charity Make Up for Oppression?

[Jason]

Some conservatives claim they're not indifferent to the downtrodden. They simply say "We believe charity should be in private hands.". In fact, some of them claim to give huge sums to charity, while also pointing fingers at liberals who give nothing.

Myself, I don't really believe charity makes a difference. In fact, oddly enough, conservatives will praise charity, yet at the same time condemn it as a waste (with most money going to corrupt dictators).

So conservatives also believe that neo-liberal economic development in places like Africa is a better way to go, than say, rock star Bono giving out free aid.

Anyhow, I know the Communist take on this is very different.

[Skyhilist]

Mutual aid >> charities

I mean a voluntary mutual aid of the people of course, not of any government.

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

Charity simply treats the symptom rather than the cause.

If the conditions which cause poverty, for example, persist in a given area, then

poverty will persist until these conditions are changed.

[Ostrinski]

Capitalism can't redeem itself with its own manifestations and poisons.

[Let's Get Free]

What's important to remember is that most of the people involved in charities are genuinely trying to - and do - good things, but structurally what charity does, all it can ever do, is smooth out the roughest edges of capitalism and help to stabilize it.

[Weezer]

Hey man, real sorry for your exploiting your continent. But I'll buy you lunch sometime and give you some used T-Shirts.

[Avanti]

charity is far worse than oppression.

it is a way to spit on people. on rubbing their pride against shit.

"oh you poor little thing, you are so helpless and so cute, let us take care of you and spoon-feed you and change your diapers... have you btw heard of the amazing guy who lived 2000 years ago in betlehem?"

i fucking hate church charities. they are consisting of people who are so full of themselves and believe that everybody just want to be christian middle class do-gooders.

prefer apathetic and bitter welfare clerks who are obliged into giving me my monthly check so i can pay my rent.

charity is a way to subtly rape people and learn them that they are inadequate. welfare is the same, but less insiduous. because the charity folks love themselves. the welfare folks hate themselves and hate us, the recipients. that is far more honest, and i appreciate that more.

they don't view us as equals, but it is better to be viewed as a nuisance and a social pariah than as a helpless victim.

some masochistic twits are washing themselves in their victimhood. "look on me, baaaawwwwwl!!!!" they base their identity around how weak they are and how socially inept they are and view it as a great mercy they are allowed to live. and the middle class are loving such people, because then they can be the object for "goodness".

the one who gives "goodness" is superior than the receiver. that is why charity is really about the emotional exploitation of the receiver of the gifts. it would be far more honest if they could kick us and call us parasites and let out all their secret hatred and contempt for us in the open.

i think that would be liberating for them.

[graffic]

The capitalists and the super rich don't give to charity because they are immoral and actually believe some Ayn Rand like Libertarian bullshit that they are morally "correct".

It's a fact that the majority of charity money comes from middle class and working class people.

It's also a fact that religious rich people are more likely to to be more righteous and give more to the poor. (For example the Victorians, who generally more pious, re-distributed their wealth far more than the mostly secular super rich do today - see Ian Hislops "the age of the do-gooders".)

Which is one of the many reasons I actually respect the conservative traditional right more than bourgeoise liberals because, although they may be stuck in the 1850's, they actually have a conscience and believe, although they are wrong, that they are doing the right thing in societies best interests.

Bourgeoise liberals actually know what they are doing and they know they cannot possibly be doing right because they not only reject class struggle to tackle social injustice, they also reject morality and a social conscience which drives people to alleviate social injustice in a reformist way like the Church does for example. (This might shock some feminists on here but frankly I think people who spend their time legitimately helping the working class and oppressed deserve more respect than people who don't spend their time doing this, even if what they do or say is not right all the time.)

Charity is a healthy, good thing but it's not a substitute for class struggle.

[Jason]

Bourgeoise liberals actually know what they are doing and they know they cannot possibly be doing right because they not only reject class struggle to tackle social injustice, they also reject morality and a social conscience which drives people to alleviate social injustice in a reformist way like the Church does for example. (This might shock some feminists on here but frankly I think people who spend their time legitimately helping the working class and oppressed deserve more respect than people who don't spend their time doing this, even if what they do or say is not right all the time.)

When your speaking of "borgeois liberals", your actually referring to "moral liberals / economic conservatives" which are libertarians (the new trendy version).

No, borgeois liberalism cannot become a mass movement, cause they can't convince ordinary working people to join it. Even the right wing "anti-Chick Fil-a" thing was run by Christians, not "PJ O Rourke". It's the Christians who are a major voting block for the Republicans and tipped the elections for Bush and other candidates.



some masochistic twits are washing themselves in their victimhood. "look on me, baaaawwwwwl!!!!" they base their identity around how weak they are and how socially inept they are and view it as a great mercy they are allowed to live. and the middle class are loving such people, because then they can be the object for "goodness".



You must not be a Charles Dickens fan, lol.

Most of your social parasites are on drugs. I do have genuine respect for working people who are sober and are struggling.

[statichaos]

Of course charity doesn't make up for oppression. However, depending upon the charity, it can at least keep the oppressed alive and fighting until they are no longer oppressed.

[statichaos]

Most of your social parasites are on drugs. I do have genuine respect for working people who are sober and are struggling.

Before I respond to this, I would like to preface my comment by stating that I have lived on the streets for extended periods of time in my life, and therefore am not coming from some wishy-washy liberal perspective, but rather from a place of immediate and direct experience.

Your comment is ill-informed. Many of the "social parasites" to whom you refer are people suffering from serious mental illnesses, ranging from simple depression to paranoid schizophrenia. In America, our broken health care system does not provide these people with the immediate and comprehensive care that they require in order to live productive lives, and they therefore turn towards drugs and alcohol in order to minimize the effects of their mental issues. If you want to see struggle, try surviving on a day to day basis while simultaneously battling the voices constantly screaming in your head.

[Jason]

Before I respond to this, I would like to preface my comment by stating that I have lived on the streets for extended periods of time in my life, and therefore am not coming from some wishy-washy liberal perspective, but rather from a place of immediate and direct experience.

Your comment is ill-informed. Many of the "social parasites" to whom you refer are people suffering from serious mental illnesses, ranging from simple depression to paranoid schizophrenia. In America, our broken health care system does not provide these people with the immediate and comprehensive care that they require in order to live productive lives, and they therefore turn towards drugs and alcohol in order to minimize the effects of their mental issues. If you want to see struggle, try surviving on a day to day basis while simultaneously battling the voices constantly screaming in your head.

You could be somewhat right. I didn't mean to sound insensitive.

I think the problem with US society is that, unlike Cuba, it's not a revolutionary society. People are pretty much "thrown to the lions" in Darwinian fashion, and expected to fend for themselves. So many people just end up on dope, unless they become "born again Christians" or something.

It all boils down to "nature vs nurture". Western society does not treat people as a garden which needs watering, but a jungle where "individualism" reigns. For instance, in pre-Castro Cuba, little attention was given to the common people. So with all thier low self esteem and whatnot, they just never really "got with it".