Comrade-Z
5th April 2006, 01:15
The following is a copy of an article from CrimethInc.'s winter 2006 issue of Rolling Thunder. True to CrimethInc.'s instructions, I am editing it as I desire and re-broadcasting it here.
-------------
Word of the Issue: Charity
Charity is the means by which the bourgeois, having already snatched up almost everything else for themselves, attempt to corner the market on benevolence.
Individual charitable acts can be criticized for being aimed more at assuaging guilty consciences than actually solving problems, or for distracting attention from the roots of those problems--but charity itself, even at its most apparently effective and well-intentioned, is essentially a demonstration of power in a system based on competition and humiliation. In every act of charity, the subtext is that those who offer the handouts have their act together to such an extent that they not only can provide for themsevles--the ultimate measure of worth in our individualistic capitalist society--but also have enough left over to share with others, while those on the receiving end cannot even take care of their own needs. This is why such assistance is often not received with the groveling gratitude benefactors expect: in contrast to other gift-giving, charity glorifies the one who offers it, and humiliates the recipient. At bottom, the benefactor is not there to assist the one in need; the one in need is there to confirm the status of the benefactor. The philanthropist gives, but on his terms, thus emphasizing his property rights and position of priviledge: charity is the opposite of sharing.
In place of charity, we would do well to develop ways of assisting one another in which we share not only resources but also, more importantly, control over them.
----------------------
Thus, we can see the real subtext behind efforts such as those of the Catholic Church when it offers free food, along with a sermon about how much of a low-life you are and how much you need god in order to become "spiritually whole" and successful in life again: it ignores the real roots of the problem (capitalism and class society), thus guaranteeing the perpetuation of the problem and your continued visits as a customer. It also tries to place shame and guilt on you for being such an "incompetent" individual that you have to rely on handouts, and it tries to convince you that you yourself are powerless at solving your problems and instead need help and "guidance" from god (or some other elite authority).
The opposite of this is to say, "You want food? Why don't you have food in the first place? Of course, it's class society. Yet, in fact, you have the power to overthrow class society. Ally with enough like-minded equals, and you can do it. And I, for one, will band together with you as an equal in this endeavor." This is the message of a revolutionary.
I used some of these concepts in an assignment for English class. We had to write a paper on some aspects of Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel The Idiot. Here's part of what I wrote:
-----------------------
Is forgiveness really a gift, as this novel implies? In the end, pity and forgiveness are simply other forms of judgment. When one takes pity on another, there is a presupposition that what the other has done was wrong in the first place. The difference between pity and persecution is that, in the case of pity, one offers a charity of kindness despite the admission that the other person did wrong. Much better than charity, though, would be to assert that the other person did not even do wrong in the first place. The act of offering financial or emotional charity is a judgment that the person on the receiving end cannot take care of his/herself and needs this charity. Instead of being a friendly and empowering activity, forgiving and charitable actions humiliate their recipients and glorify the one being forgiving and charitable, regardless of whether that person desired such an outcome.
Thus, when Myshkin, in his alledgedly "Christ-like" manner, forgives Marie and Nastasya for their “mistakes,” (being seduced by men--and what kind of "mistake" is that in the first place?) is he really doing them a favor? Are not he and others saying to them, “We recognize you erred, but we are so benevolent and kind that we are willing to pardon you. Look at how glorious we are that we are pardoning you, and at how despicable you are, you who necessitate pardoning”? Even if Myshkin does not intend for this to be the message, how can this message not be conveyed? Would it not be more helpful (and commendable) to instead say to Marie and Nastasya, “What you did was never wrong in the first place. You need no forgiveness from me because you have no reason to feel ashamed in the first place”?
Similarly, General Epanchin admits during the confession game in Part One to stealing money. However, he claims that he redeemed himself by donating money to charity. In this instance one can see that his charity is little more than self-serving aggrandizement. His charity is a way to show off and exclaim, “Look how marvelously charitable and kind I am! Look how I have atoned for my mistakes!” In reality General Epanchin does not care very much at all about helping the people to whom he is donating, and in fact his charity to them highlights the fact that those recipients need charity and that they have not the power to take care of themselves as they would like without charity. It would be a far better gift to offer something to them that is actually empowering, such as a piece of productive land, for instance.
-------------
Word of the Issue: Charity
Charity is the means by which the bourgeois, having already snatched up almost everything else for themselves, attempt to corner the market on benevolence.
Individual charitable acts can be criticized for being aimed more at assuaging guilty consciences than actually solving problems, or for distracting attention from the roots of those problems--but charity itself, even at its most apparently effective and well-intentioned, is essentially a demonstration of power in a system based on competition and humiliation. In every act of charity, the subtext is that those who offer the handouts have their act together to such an extent that they not only can provide for themsevles--the ultimate measure of worth in our individualistic capitalist society--but also have enough left over to share with others, while those on the receiving end cannot even take care of their own needs. This is why such assistance is often not received with the groveling gratitude benefactors expect: in contrast to other gift-giving, charity glorifies the one who offers it, and humiliates the recipient. At bottom, the benefactor is not there to assist the one in need; the one in need is there to confirm the status of the benefactor. The philanthropist gives, but on his terms, thus emphasizing his property rights and position of priviledge: charity is the opposite of sharing.
In place of charity, we would do well to develop ways of assisting one another in which we share not only resources but also, more importantly, control over them.
----------------------
Thus, we can see the real subtext behind efforts such as those of the Catholic Church when it offers free food, along with a sermon about how much of a low-life you are and how much you need god in order to become "spiritually whole" and successful in life again: it ignores the real roots of the problem (capitalism and class society), thus guaranteeing the perpetuation of the problem and your continued visits as a customer. It also tries to place shame and guilt on you for being such an "incompetent" individual that you have to rely on handouts, and it tries to convince you that you yourself are powerless at solving your problems and instead need help and "guidance" from god (or some other elite authority).
The opposite of this is to say, "You want food? Why don't you have food in the first place? Of course, it's class society. Yet, in fact, you have the power to overthrow class society. Ally with enough like-minded equals, and you can do it. And I, for one, will band together with you as an equal in this endeavor." This is the message of a revolutionary.
I used some of these concepts in an assignment for English class. We had to write a paper on some aspects of Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel The Idiot. Here's part of what I wrote:
-----------------------
Is forgiveness really a gift, as this novel implies? In the end, pity and forgiveness are simply other forms of judgment. When one takes pity on another, there is a presupposition that what the other has done was wrong in the first place. The difference between pity and persecution is that, in the case of pity, one offers a charity of kindness despite the admission that the other person did wrong. Much better than charity, though, would be to assert that the other person did not even do wrong in the first place. The act of offering financial or emotional charity is a judgment that the person on the receiving end cannot take care of his/herself and needs this charity. Instead of being a friendly and empowering activity, forgiving and charitable actions humiliate their recipients and glorify the one being forgiving and charitable, regardless of whether that person desired such an outcome.
Thus, when Myshkin, in his alledgedly "Christ-like" manner, forgives Marie and Nastasya for their “mistakes,” (being seduced by men--and what kind of "mistake" is that in the first place?) is he really doing them a favor? Are not he and others saying to them, “We recognize you erred, but we are so benevolent and kind that we are willing to pardon you. Look at how glorious we are that we are pardoning you, and at how despicable you are, you who necessitate pardoning”? Even if Myshkin does not intend for this to be the message, how can this message not be conveyed? Would it not be more helpful (and commendable) to instead say to Marie and Nastasya, “What you did was never wrong in the first place. You need no forgiveness from me because you have no reason to feel ashamed in the first place”?
Similarly, General Epanchin admits during the confession game in Part One to stealing money. However, he claims that he redeemed himself by donating money to charity. In this instance one can see that his charity is little more than self-serving aggrandizement. His charity is a way to show off and exclaim, “Look how marvelously charitable and kind I am! Look how I have atoned for my mistakes!” In reality General Epanchin does not care very much at all about helping the people to whom he is donating, and in fact his charity to them highlights the fact that those recipients need charity and that they have not the power to take care of themselves as they would like without charity. It would be a far better gift to offer something to them that is actually empowering, such as a piece of productive land, for instance.