Charity

[Dyst]

Discussing the effects of charity and sending money to poor countries I said that it can increase differences between rich and poor nations, because much of the money goes to the rich in the country. They are unlikely to spend the money on fighting poverty, but if they do they usually end up buying products made in capitalist countries anyways. That way capitalist nations actually gain profit from charity.

Is this correct?

[loveme4whoiam]

This has already been discussed here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45419&hl=charity), but I suppose not in this context. I disagree with charity for the reasons mentioned in that thread, but alos because, as you say, any money [B}that is sent to the rulers of the country[/B] will not be used for its intended purpose. Charities like Oxfam and the Red Cross (as far as I know) run their own operations in countries, seperate from the actual ruling people so they can actually help the people themselves.

[Ice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:56 PM
This has already been discussed here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45419&hl=charity), but I suppose not in this context. I disagree with charity for the reasons mentioned in that thread, but alos because, as you say, any money [B}that is sent to the rulers of the country will not be used for its intended purpose. Charities like Oxfam and the Red Cross (as far as I know) run their own operations in countries, seperate from the actual ruling people so they can actually help the people themselves. [/b]
and I also think that, charity will slow down the progress towards socialism to a great extent.

[loveme4whoiam]

Indeed; I am not in favour of charity but in favour of justice (see the thread), which to my mind is the very basis of socialism.

[rioters bloc]

from the other thread, it seems that you're talking about what is more preferable in a communist society - justice, or charity? in which case, i'd say that in a communist society, there would be no need for charity.

from the original post it sounded as though keiza was talking about whether charity, now, from a first world country to a third world one, is a good or bad thing, not if it's acceptable in a post-revolutionary society.

keiza, what do you mean when you say that the money goes towards the rich in a nation, not the poor? what kind of charity are you talking about?

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:32 AM
and I also think that, charity will slow down the progress towards socialism to a great extent.
how?

*genuinely curious, not just being antagonistic*

[Dyst]

keiza, what do you mean when you say that the money goes towards the rich in a nation, not the poor? what kind of charity are you talking about?
Well I was asking about it, so it kind of implies I lack knowledge on the subject.

Anyways, I meant that many organizations probably gives the money to the people ruling the country, thinking they are best fit to give it to the poor. I know that some organizations actually does the work themselves, gives food, clothing, etc. directly to the people in need.

My main argument against it was that it usually ends up with the poor countries buying products from the rich, capitalistic nations. Because there is no other alternative or because they actually have to buy it from the country which sent them money (this is a different type of charity, I know).

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:20 AM
Well I was asking about it, so it kind of implies I lack knowledge on the subject.

Anyways, I meant that many organizations probably gives the money to the people ruling the country, thinking they are best fit to give it to the poor. I know that some organizations actually does the work themselves, gives food, clothing, etc. directly to the people in need.

My main argument against it was that it usually ends up with the poor countries buying products from the rich, capitalistic nations. Because there is no other alternative or because they actually have to buy it from the country which sent them money (this is a different type of charity, I know).

so the argument being i guess that they're supporting the system which is fucking them over, due to there being no choice? the thing is though that we all do that in some way, especially us living in these rich, capitalistic countries. it's very hard to disengage with the system entirely while still maintaining class struggle [although it can be done]. in the end, we're in a somewhat better position to resist capitalisms tentacles than those who are literally starving to death. and i personally would be loathe to park my high horse in between the charity givers and takers because i felt that the takers should not support capitalism, when i did it myself every waking minute of my life. that's hypocrisy at its purest. particularly as i don't need to worry about being fed, sheltered, and clothed.

[loveme4whoiam]

from the original post it sounded as though keiza was talking about whether charity, now, from a first world country to a third world one, is a good or bad thing, not if it's acceptable in a post-revolutionary society.

Fair point, I guess I was being a bit obtuse :)


particularly as i don't need to worry about being fed, sheltered, and clothed.

Indeed, its all well and good for us to sit here and say "resist capitalist expansionism" etc, but when you aren't sure if you'll even eat today, class struggle becomes a bit harder I imagine. Still, I'd prefer to support charities that actually help the people rather than the rulers of the people.

I wonder if theres a Communist charity organistion - have some food, now throw off your oppressors, style of thing. Hey, it's an idea :D

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:50 AM
I wonder if theres a Communist charity organistion - have some food, now throw off your oppressors, style of thing. Hey, it's an idea :D
food not bombs :D

go teh dumpster diving!

but then, perhaps a rich fat bourgeois politician will claim that it's tasteless to offer perfectly good food from dumpsters to starving people...

[Frederick_Engles]

Charity has its place-natural disasters, for example, would benefit greatly from charity.
But poverty and starvation as a result of centuries of imperialism and tyrany can only be solved by social change.

[cbm989]

well look. i think socialism is the best thing for society, and it obviously conflicts with the idea of charity. but that said i dont disagree with the idea of charity. how is helping other human beings something to be frowned upon?

[loveme4whoiam]

I don't think anyone here objects to charity per se, just that, in the long term, it is ineffective.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

no matter how you feel about whether charity is right or not in a communist society. It is fact that there are millions of people on the underside of capitalistic imperialism who risk starving to death, I think that in this society charity is necessary purely for the saving of lives of innocent people.

[loveme4whoiam]

What is better, to save those millions of lives, or give them the means to save themselves? Of course I advocate charity and aid when there is a clear and present need for immediate help, but when, as Frederick Engels said (not him, the RevLeft member :lol: - god that's a bad joke), these poor condition have been brought on by centuries of abuse by imperialism and tyranny, charity can't support the entire society, which is where justice (t'other thread which I mentioned before) and social change are required.

Charity is never out of place, but it can be ineffective.

[boosh logic]

Major charities like Oxfam tackle both issues of immediate aid and providing the means to support themselves. Both are needed, as if only immediate aid was given, then this would need to be constant and would not be as far reaching. If only the means was given, then by the time those crops were grown the community would have starved long before. Similarly with medical aid, as vaccinations are given as well as more sanitised conditions like clean water and non-infected toilets, with the intention of meeting short and long-term needs. Until the developed countries abandon all debt and put people first, charity is the best way to help, and I don't see there to be any arguement against fighting starvation and pandemics.

[Led Zeppelin]

Philanthropy

An aspect of advanced capitalist (imperialist) culture, where both the wealthy capitalist and the wealthy worker practices. Giving away money for the benefit of others is based firstly on having money, which for the capitalist is primarily extracted from labor in the form of surplus value. A small portion of what the capitalist has exploited from his laborers, is in turn given back as a sign of good faith. For the wealthy worker, she may give to charity a small portion of her wealth that is not needed to maintain her and her families' sustenance.

Philanthropy can be advantageous for certain capitalists and profiteers (petty-bourgeois). In much of Africa at the end of the 20th-century, massive philanthropist organizations – employing thousands of workers, administrators, owning a great deal of office space, equipment and goods – exist to funnel money from imperialist nations into the exploited nations, and to exchange that money for things like food or farm equipment (thus creating a profitable market for some industries where there would not otherwise be a market). Further however, with the population subsistent on foreign charity of food and equipment, multinational corporations and local bourgeois who own most of Africa's fertile land, instead of selling the food grown at a very cheap price on the local market, can export the "exotic" African foods to European and American markets for a much higher price. At the same time, Africa continues to starve because its food is being exported for great profit, which continues to bring in charity money to ensure that the cycle continues.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/h.htm#philanthropy

In other words; not a good thing.

[AK47]

I'm going to have to disagree with the premise that charity will be unnecessary with a socialist-communist society. Simply for one reason. Humans are fallible. I will not wake one day to a perfect world (Through revolution, evolution, Divine interference, or Alien intervention). I can only hope my actions will get all of us a little closer to that goal. There will always be natural disaster, political criminals, and just people who want to exploit. In a just society the people will have the right and duty to relieve those victims of their pain (or at least as much as humanly posable).

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:32 PM
This has already been discussed here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45419&hl=charity), but I suppose not in this context. I disagree with charity for the reasons mentioned in that thread, but alos because, as you say, any money [B}that is sent to the rulers of the country will not be used for its intended purpose. Charities like Oxfam and the Red Cross (as far as I know) run their own operations in countries, seperate from the actual ruling people so they can actually help the people themselves. [/b]

what about money sent to medical causes like cancer research or the terrence higgins trust (AIDS/HIV)? In my previous job I did charitable work that raised money for special needs babies as well as cancer. Id like to think some of the money reached the intended peope! :rolleyes: lol

[loveme4whoiam]

I'm taking so much flak for that statement :lol:

This is why I said in that post that independent charities, like Oxfam or the cancer research people, are fine and worthwhile organisations. But just sending money in an envelope to "The President of Mozambique, best regards" isn't going to do squat. This goes for both private donations and governments sending aid in a slightly bigger envelope.

Still, my idea for a Communist charity is worth looking into, eh? I mean, Christian organisations do it, educating the noble savage etc. We could do the same :D