Charity For Africa?

[ebeneezer]

I don't want to come across as heartless or anything, but I was just thinking that we have been giving charity to Africa for longer than I can remember.

And what has come of it?

What has it accomplished other than teaching Africans not to bother about self-reliance and not to bother about helping themselves out of their dire situation? I mean colonialism is finished. Why do we interfere? Shouldn't we let them run their own countries? What message does our interference send to incompetent third world countries? That they don't need to bother looking after their own people because Uncle Sam will save the day? It seems that way whereever you look in Africa. Things are going downhill and socialist compassion and charity is responsible.

You must admit this 'charity' is no charity at all in the long run as it nullifies the idea of self-reliance and nullifies the creation of entrepreneurial genius.

I say we cut charity forthwith to foster a spirit of free market entrepreneurial self-reliance which will one day help the impoverished out of their situations as it did in the advanced countries.

Please don't flame me :(

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:32 AM
What has it accomplished other than teaching Africans not to bother about self-reliance and not to bother about helping themselves out of their dire situation?
There's self reliance and there is attempting to scrape yourself out from under a landslide using a used condom. If you don't appreciate the metaphor I shall put it thusly:
Africa has been raped in every hole by europe and the climate there isn't helping much at the moment, this situation can be refered to as a 'clusterfuck' and no amount of 'boot stap' pulling will get Africans out of this mess. Even the country of my birth, Botswana, is still in something of a fucking hole and they are considered to be the luckiest of the African nations.


I mean colonialism is finished. Naturally the effects finished as soon as it did. You fucking clunge.

Why do we interfere? We don't, we give them ineffectual charity.
Shouldn't we let them run their own countries? This sounds mightly reasonable. Until you realise it's a euphamism for 'leave them the fuck alone and let them die due to drought and famine (not capitalisms fault) and supreme lack of infastructure (capitalism's fault I'm afraid.)
What message does our interference send to incompetent third world countries? Who gives a fuck 'what kind of mssage it sends'. That's the kind of talk adopted by neo-purtians arguing against people kissing each other and it makes me extremely uncomfortable. As for 'incompetent' third-world nations, you really have a shard of ice where your fucking heart should be don't you? And a lump of sponge where your brain should be. It is not 'incompetence' that has them in their current situation and you know it. Fuckwit.
That they don't need to bother looking after their own people because Uncle Sam will save the day? I've yet to see Uncle Sam do anything but throw money at the probelem and we can see the success that that is producing.
It seems that way whereever you look in Africa. Really? It's the same all over Africa - you've been to Congo? To Etheopia? Botswana? Zimbabwe? No? Fuck off then.
Things are going downhill and socialist compassion and charity is responsible. I'd say it was capitalist 'charity'. It's the lack of compassion that is getting nothing done there.


You must admit this 'charity' is no charity at all in the long run as it nullifies the idea of self-reliance Charity is not charity if it does not help somone, thrwoing money at corrupt governments helps no one.
and nullifies the creation of entrepreneurial genius. If charity nullified the creation of robber barons ("entrepreneurial geniuses" as you call them) I'd give everything I owned to a charity.


I say we cut charity forthwith I'm with up to about here, we don't need charity - we need to genuinley help.
to foster a spirit of free market entrepreneurial self-reliance which will one day help the impoverished out of their situations as it did in the advanced countries. and here our ways part, because not only are you wrong but you're grotesquely stupid. You think that having your robber barons will be any different to the warlords in some countries? You think that having entrepeurscum floating around Africa will help? As if the African people need any more sotolen from them.


Please don't flame me :( Please don't be a **** :(

[bcbm]

What has it accomplished other than teaching Africans not to bother about self-reliance and not to bother about helping themselves out of their dire situation?

This is not something charity has encouraged, or even a problem that Africans outside of the ruling elite are faced with.


I mean colonialism is finished.

No it isn't, it has merely adopted a less noticable (from our perspective) form, and is done more through corporations than countries. Africans still do not control African resources but, in a brief period following independence, most African states were able to pull themselves up and start becoming self-reliant and establish decent social services, all of which ended after the first intrusions of the IMF/WB.


Why do we interfere? Shouldn't we let them run their own countries?

"We" interfere (not through charity, mind you) because there is money to be made, but yes, we absolutely should let them run their own countries and control their own resources.


socialist compassion and charity is responsible.

Charity is a liberal concept. The socialist equivalent would probably be solidarity, which is exactly what Africans need in their struggle against neo-colonialism.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

As I understand it, a lot of the charity ends up funding dictatorships.

i.e It doesn't get to the people who need it. The solution is not to turn off the hose pipe, but to first hack away the weeds that prevent the plants getting their water.

There's a nice analogy. :)

-Alex

[Forward Union]

As a revolutionary, I am opposed to charity. Or at least, charity in it's current state. Trapping someone in poverty, and then giving them crumbs, treating them like toothless simpletons that are incapable of feeding themselves...

was it Geldof or Bono who said "We are standing here and performing for the people that can't even crawl" ...If he pulled his head out of his ass, he'd see that the people in the most impoverished nations are not only crawling, but standing and fighting against capitalism, and the hierarchies in their nations...

:angry:

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Additives - But surely you agree that there are instances where charity of some form has to take place to break the cycle, if you will? Bombay, for example. A friend of mine visited, and said that crowds of starving children immediately swarmed her, begging. These kids can't get themselves out of their hole, because their whole lives are dedicated to pure survival, and even then many of them don't make it, through disease or famine or other things. We need to give them a leg to stand on.

-Alex

[bcbm]

We need to give them a leg to stand on.


And the best way to do that would be to help them overthrow their oppressors (perhaps by overthrowing ours!), not giving them our spare change. As I said, solidarity is better than charity.

[Hiero]

The anti-colonialist movement was about self reliance. The aim of national liberation is the creation of a national economy that will fulfill the needs of the people of the new country and to create a national culture. Basically the indigenous people remove the settlers from position of power, and create their own state.

The begining of national liberation in Africal was opposed by the European nations. When the situation looked like it was turning bad for the Europeans, then they tried to negotiate. The European settler nation offered conditions which would not create a self reliant economy. The offered what is called neo-colonailism. If the nationalist party agreed then neo-colony conditions occur. Commodities would still be produced for the European nations. The profits would go to the nationalist bourgeois and the European bourgeois. But the African's would be given certian civl rights.

If the nationalist party declined, they would have to fight untill the colonailists become a spent force. New conditions are offered by the European nations to the new African republic. These of course were still neo-colonial. If the nationalist party declines, and attempts to make a national economy, either through capitalism or socialism, the European nations who were former owners,continue aggression against the newly liberated country.

Now they either bombard the country through sanctions and funding of rebels, such was the case in Mozambique, and in others in Latin America. Or they are able to fund a counter revolution, such as the case in DRC with Mobuto overthrowning Lumumba.

Your first mistake was that Africans need to be taught self-reliance by Europeans. Africans well know of self-reliance, the Europeans who want to invest in Africa opposed this. So if you support self-reliance for Africa, then you have to support the national liberation movements in Africa, and oppose European intervention.

Secondly European intervention, either through direct colonialism or neo-colonialism has caused under-developement. The Europeans only invested in what was to be sold on European markets. So Diamonds or rubber is being exported to Europeans countries while the people starve to death. So the African countries may not deserve charity, they however deserve billions of billions in reparations for the wars and underdevelopment caused by the Europeans.

[Morag]

Colonialism became neo-colonialism, and neo-colonism has hurt Africa. But how do you challenge neo-colonialism when your on your last legs from the AIDS pandemic? Charity is charity. I'm technically opposed to it. But when Sub-Sharan Africa has 14 million AIDS orphans, expected to rise to 20 million by 2010, and the generation that is supposed to parent and raise these children is being decimated from the disease, and the virus is only getting worse, and the life expectancy in some nations has dropped to less then 35 years, and that means that there are fewer and fewer people left to support those children, and people don't have the health to work in the economy, let alone tend their subsistence crops, and steady food and clean water and good health are the best defenses against AIDS deaths, next to a secondary education which drops your chances of getting AIDS by up to a quarter, but so few people can get an education because their are still school fees that few can afford and besides, there are few teachers because AIDS has decimated that group just as harshly as any other, and women especially need an education to combat AIDS, and if women have an education, they are 75% less likely to pass AIDS on to their children because they don't have to work as prostitutes and are more likely to be assertive in their sexual situations, and when the proper care for pregnant women with HIV/AIDS can drop mother-to-child-transfer rates to less then 1% but the current transfer rates are 30% because the money isn't there for those treatments, and up to 77% of women from 15-24 have AIDS, but only 10% know it....

Well, I can literally spout off statistics about AIDS in Africa, and Africa's economy situation because of it, all morning. I've done it before, but that would take up too much bandwidth. Here's the thing though; 20 million children will not raise themselves, and their governments do not have the ability to care for them. Call it charity or aid or a hand up. I don't care. But those kids need help, from anyone, and the ones who still have parents or caregivers need an education so that the pandemic can stop.


You must admit this 'charity' is no charity at all in the long run as it nullifies the idea of self-reliance and nullifies the creation of entrepreneurial genius.


No, no, no. The entrepreneurial genius is still there, I promise. Some groups make so much money that they can feed themselves and still have a profit- which is promptly spent on aluminum coffins. AIDS is literally eating through the economy. Technically, it would be great if they'd kick all the multinationals out and the workers took control of the means of productive and all the immense wealth of Africa could be shared. However, from those I know, they're really focusing on other things at the moment. But goddamn, those kids who do survive are going to rise up, because they'll have shit all to thank any one for, and they'll know it.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

What? The? Fuck?

You all plundered Africa to hell, now you think it's illogical to give charity? If anything, you'd have to give loads and loads more of charity! :angry:


Please don't flame me :(

Go fuck yourself.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:11 PM
What? The? Fuck?

You all plundered Africa to hell, now you think it's illogical to give charity? If anything, you'd have to give loads and loads more of charity! :angry:


Please don't flame me :(

Go fuck yourself.
Charity is linked in with Liberalism and not Socialism and will never solve anything. It goes with the absurd idea that problems can be solved by generous rich people giving to the poor. Laughable!. These people don't need charity, they can create their own wealth, if given the opportunity.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Black banner - I agree, their dictatorships have to go before anything can even begin. But after that, they still need that leg, because they're still eating shit for breakfast, lunch and dinner. So my point stands, charity is needed.

-Alex

[Janus]

These people don't need charity, they can create their own wealth, if given the opportunity.
Yes, and we have seriously hampered that opportunity with the continued exploitation of Africa. Until these interventions stop, Africa will continue to be in trouble.

[theraven]

charity itself is nice. but its not always the best thing. I support aid to africa, however more importnatly something has to be done about the governments.

[Enragé]

Arm the africans with AK's and a good dose of revolutionary class consciousness


now thats charity!

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:45 AM
Arm the africans with AK's and a good dose of revolutionary class consciousness


now thats charity!
no thats a reciepe for....what we have now

[deadlyseven]

the charity needs to stop its not sustainable the longer it continues the worse it will be in the future they have everything they need to feed themselves but as we all know it all leaves africa and goes to the west what africa needs is a government who tells them to fuck their debt payment of course then theyd be subject to sanctions and all aid cut but it would pay off eventually once they nationalized all the oil diamonds gold food etc but the west will never be aloud to happen a socialist africa is new romes worst nightmare

[Enragé]

Originally posted by theraven+Aug 2 2006, 12:53 AM--> (theraven @ Aug 2 2006, 12:53 AM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 12:45 AM
Arm the africans with AK's and a good dose of revolutionary class consciousness


now thats charity!
no thats a reciepe for....what we have now [/b]
err no they lack the class consciousness

if they had that they'd only be shooting the assholes, not everyone ;)

[deadlyseven]

well education is the key to that their tribal diffrences are a big problem as well and they are ot shooting everyone! what makes you say that?

[theraven]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Aug 2 2006, 12:59 AM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Aug 2 2006, 12:59 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:53 AM

[email protected] 2 2006, 12:45 AM
Arm the africans with AK's and a good dose of revolutionary class consciousness


now thats charity!
no thats a reciepe for....what we have now
err no they lack the class consciousness

if they had that they'd only be shooting the assholes, not everyone ;) [/b]
except everyone disargees on who the assholes are

[Enragé]

Originally posted by theraven+Aug 2 2006, 02:59 AM--> (theraven @ Aug 2 2006, 02:59 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:53 AM

[email protected] 2 2006, 12:45 AM
Arm the africans with AK's and a good dose of revolutionary class consciousness


now thats charity!
no thats a reciepe for....what we have now
err no they lack the class consciousness

if they had that they'd only be shooting the assholes, not everyone ;)
except everyone disargees on who the assholes are [/b]
for fuck sake

i said CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS

so the assholes are the bourgeois who refuse to relinquish power

get it?

[ebeneezer]

Hmmm, it seems some of us have much in common with our desire to end charity. :) This is commendable. In fact, I am pleasantly surpised at this. Charity serves no purpose if there are insufficient property rights thanks to arbitrary dictatorships.

We need to invade the African nations, remove their incompetent 3rd world dictatorships, install private companies and take their oil and minerals. We will receive cheap minerals to develop our economies and no African will starve so long as they can be employed. Only then can starvation in Africa end. Our children will thank us, as will the Africans. I mean you think they don't regret the exit of the colonials?

Janus

Yes, and we have seriously hampered that opportunity with the continued exploitation of Africa. Until these interventions stop, Africa will continue to be in trouble.
Actually, the troubles began when the colonials left.

(See because some of you flame me its impossible to have a rational conversation. Lets keep it civil huh? :)

[Janus]

This is commendable

I don't think we have the same replacement for it in mind. :lol:


We need to invade the African nations, remove their incompetent 3rd world dictatorships
That has already been done.


install private companies and take their oil and minerals.
That is already occuring.


We will receive cheap minerals to develop our economies and no African will starve so long as they can be employed. Only then can starvation in Africa end
Wow. You are so humane. :rolleyes:

What about places that have little resources. I doubt capitalists will put factories there and emply people for the hell of it.


Actually, the troubles began when the colonials left.
Right, so it had nothing to do with them. :rolleyes:

[ebeneezer]

Your first mistake was that Africans need to be taught self-reliance by Europeans. Africans well know of self-reliance, the Europeans who want to invest in Africa opposed this. So if you support self-reliance for Africa, then you have to support the national liberation movements in Africa, and oppose European intervention.
You are correct. I am in a slight contradiction. But I am out of it now. We should re-assume control of Africa and end starvation manually rather than relying upon tin-pot dictatorships. We can also make money as an inventive for staying there. The gentle hand...

Janus, you call me 'humane'. I am more humane than any of you. I hate to see starvation. I hate to see anything truly bad that endangers life.

What do you guys know about Malthusiansim? Capitalism has created geometric population growth thanks to geometric growth of industry. This will allow us to conquer the universe and set up a galactic empire. Muahahhahahahahahah. I'd like to see communism do that. Hell, id like to see communim full stop.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Aha, so the social darwinist, sadist, and compassion-phobe now decides he is more humane than any of us. That makes a lot of sense.

-Alex

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:32 AM
We need to invade the African nations, remove their incompetent 3rd world dictatorships, install private companies and take their oil and minerals. We will receive cheap minerals to develop our economies and no African will starve so long as they can be employed.
This only proves that you cappies don't care about autonomy. What you're saying only keeps them completely dependant on western economies, when they should be allowed to create and control their own wealth. If you want capitalist development then you could at least let an indigneous bourgoisie develop, but no you want the west to enslave Africa. Neocolonialism...

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Gold Against The Soul+Aug 1 2006, 08:53 PM--> (Gold Against The Soul @ Aug 1 2006, 08:53 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 07:11 PM
What? The? Fuck?

You all plundered Africa to hell, now you think it's illogical to give charity? If anything, you'd have to give loads and loads more of charity! :angry:


Please don't flame me :(

Go fuck yourself.
Charity is linked in with Liberalism and not Socialism and will never solve anything. It goes with the absurd idea that problems can be solved by generous rich people giving to the poor. Laughable!. These people don't need charity, they can create their own wealth, if given the opportunity. [/b]
I agree, but for the time being, charity is better than nothing. What should happen is indeed to stop the exploitation of Africa, and to give them back what rightfully belongs to them, but until that happens, I'd rather have them get charity support than nothing at all.

[bcbm]

We need to invade the African nations, remove their incompetent 3rd world dictatorships, install private companies and take their oil and minerals. We will receive cheap minerals to develop our economies and no African will starve so long as they can be employed.

This is pretty much exactly what has occured and is continuing to occur and starvation continues to exist. Why? Because IMF/WB "structural readjustment" has people growing cash crops instead of food, with food being grown at a substinence level, if at all. So if anything bad happens, there goes your food.


Actually, the troubles began when the colonials left.

No, they began when the colonials icame back.


I am more humane than any of you. I hate to see starvation.

So do we, and we recognize that its capitalism causing it.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:32 AM
I don't want to come across as heartless or anything, but I was just thinking that we have been giving charity to Africa for longer than I can remember.

And what has come of it?

What has it accomplished other than teaching Africans not to bother about self-reliance and not to bother about helping themselves out of their dire situation? I mean colonialism is finished. Why do we interfere? Shouldn't we let them run their own countries? What message does our interference send to incompetent third world countries? That they don't need to bother looking after their own people because Uncle Sam will save the day? It seems that way whereever you look in Africa. Things are going downhill and socialist compassion and charity is responsible.

You must admit this 'charity' is no charity at all in the long run as it nullifies the idea of self-reliance and nullifies the creation of entrepreneurial genius.

I say we cut charity forthwith to foster a spirit of free market entrepreneurial self-reliance which will one day help the impoverished out of their situations as it did in the advanced countries.

Please don't flame me :(
charity is almost pointless. the point is to change the infrastructure, so dependence is eliminated.

of course, international corporations don't back african social-spending on the infrastructure.. instead, they gear the african economies towards "debt-repayment," so that they remain forever dependent. in that way, the instability associated with poverty results in certain.. groups.. to take control.

so, when the LRA is able to dominate parts of uganda, it's not out of righteousness, but simply because the people are generally ignorant, and sort of buy into the stupid millenial cult worship. and ignorance, naturally, is of the infrastructure.. this rule is rather universal.

changing the infrastructure means a lot of different things.. social programs, for one. real and lasting education. foreign intervention on the part of africa's daily tragedy, and not only in the form of temporary and insatiable gift-wrapped aid packages. charity helps, but it doesn't help absolutely.

the very incompetent dictators that you speak happen to be "friends" to america.. murder and all. this doesn't say much about the african people's plight, but it does more or less suggest that america gets some better friends.. yet, it won't. wherever there's a possibility for a profit, every ethic will be sacrificed.

[Janus]

Janus, you call me 'humane'. I am more humane than any of you. I hate to see starvation. I hate to see anything truly bad that endangers life.
Yes, you are so "humane" that you only see them as profit for rich, fat capitalist corporations whereas we want to immprove their conditions no strings attached.

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:53 PM

Janus, you call me 'humane'. I am more humane than any of you. I hate to see starvation. I hate to see anything truly bad that endangers life.
Yes, you are so "humane" that you only see them as profit for rich, fat capitalist corporations whereas we want to immprove their conditions no strings attached.
Ironically enough, you have to be cruel to be kind. The only thing that can stop them from starving is by integrating themselves into the developed economies.

And if we can make a profit as well as stopping the starvation, its a double bonus. If Africa wasn't such disease ridden wilderness, I would go in there and invest in some gold mines in say, South Africa. I could pay the people pittance and finally start to rake in the big man's dough.

I would make sure the workers were not starving because starving workers are frankly bad for business.


of course, international corporations don't back african social-spending on the infrastructure.. instead, they gear the african economies towards "debt-repayment," so that they remain forever dependent. in that way, the instability associated with poverty results in certain.. groups.. to take control.
If they borrow, they are honor bound to repay.


the very incompetent dictators that you speak happen to be "friends" to america.. murder and all. this doesn't say much about the african people's plight, but it does more or less suggest that america gets some better friends.. yet, it won't. wherever there's a possibility for a profit, every ethic will be sacrificed.
If they don't care for their own people, why should we? And ethics are not sacrificed for capitalism. Capitalism actually creates ethics.

Montesquieu: "If you are stranded in an unknown country and see use of money, rest assured you are in a civilised land".

He also states that the iniquities which sometimes arise from capitalism make possble civil law.

[Hiero]

The point your missing, or the history your ignore, is that Western intervention causes under developement. Western intervention backs dictators after the fall of colonialism. Western intervention, backs "tribal" differences and support succesion of the "tribe" who will allow foriegn investment.

What you are talking about has been tried, and has ultimately failed. The only gains of succes, which were short lived, were when the Europeans were kicked out.

What Africa needs is 1) the wealth that is owed to be paid by the colonialist European nations 2) Non Inteference, unless it is under control of an liberated African republic. 3) A socialist system, and if not possible a bourgeois that is controled by the proletariat. This way commodities will be produced for the consumption of the African nation.

Another else is neo-colonialism, which fails the proletariat and peasants every time.

[Janus]

Ironically enough, you have to be cruel to be kind. The only thing that can stop them from starving is by integrating themselves into the developed economies.

And if we can make a profit as well as stopping the starvation, its a double bonus.

Starvation is largely due to the famines they have there; something that you can't solve with capitalism.
If Africa wasn't such disease ridden wilderness, I would go in there and invest in some gold mines in say, South Africa. I could pay the people pittance and finally start to rake in the big man's dough.
Invest in gold mines and resources? That's what's supporting a lot of the wars there today because people care more about looking pretty than thousands of people dying.


I would make sure the workers were not starving because starving workers are frankly bad for business.
Yes, you will keep them healthy enough to work. How generous of you. :rolleyes:

[colonelguppy]

if we really want to help africa escape poverty, well stop the aid but end farm subsidies in our own nation, so that local farmers in africa can actually compete, so they can develope their own industry instead of relying on foriegners.

this of course only applies to countries without civil war and shit.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:37 AM

If they borrow, they are honor bound to repay.
So you support reparations to make up for colonialism and imperialism, then? Or does honor not matter when you steal?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:20 AM
Aha, so the social darwinist, sadist, and compassion-phobe now decides he is more humane than any of us. That makes a lot of sense.

-Alex
Well he is the epitome of a 'Krayon Krunching Kretin'