Being charitable

[redflag32]

Being charitable is something i constantly think i should be if i am a "leftie" but sometimes i walk by the person selling big issue or collecting for a charity. I always debate in my head over the correctness of giving tips too,has anyone any thought s on this?

[RevMARKSman]

Being charitable is something i constantly think i should be if i am a "leftie"

Woah woah woah. Leftism is not "charity." Leftism is self emancipation in your material interest, period. It's not about "caring" or "love". It's about freedom from wage slavery, which is a really good thing for you if you're a wage slave.

[rouchambeau]

I think being charitable and tipping are always good things.

[Chavizta]

I think there should be a great sense of charity in any self-proclaimed leftist. We more than any other people should see the hardships caused by a capitalist economy and should be willing to help our fellow man in times of need.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:40 am

Being charitable is something i constantly think i should be if i am a "leftie"

Woah woah woah. Leftism is not "charity." Leftism is self emancipation in your material interest, period. It's not about "caring" or "love". It's about freedom from wage slavery, which is a really good thing for you if you're a wage slave.
I disagree. Leftism certainly is about love - love for your comrades, for the oppressed and exploited people of the world, and for Humanity itself.

But leftism is also about respect. We are not trying to "help those who cannot help themselves", as the liberals say. We are trying to make all people realize that they can help themselves if they join and stand together. We know that although the workers may be weak and oppressed as individuals, as a class they are the greatest force in human history.

Now, charity is good as an expression of love and solidarity with your equals, but it must never cause you to forget the importance of respect. Never let those who receive your charity believe that they owe you something. They owe you nothing. Charity is about giving people back a small part of what capitalism is stealing from them. The poor deserve every penny they receive.

[TheAdlerian]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. It was triggered by a friend whose church group went to New Orleans to help rebuild the area, for free.

Since Bush has been in, he has constantly pushed volunteering as an avenue to achieve social programs. That's because "charity" saves the rich capitalist from having to spend money on social programs that keep their version of society stable.

It is my opinion that all cooperation with charties should be stopped as it is the government's responsibility to maintain the country and it's people. It is not the job of the poor to do that for free.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I gave to "charity" per se - but not to local charities. I donated to an international humanitarian organization, wanting my funds to be used for emergency relief efforts (actually saving lives). As for the others, sometimes worse is better; they've gotta learn to fish, and not be given the fish.

[TheAdlerian]

Yes, but what about my argument?

How will people ever get the energy to challenge capitalists if volunteer organizations end up doing the jobs that the government should. It's a form of enabling as I see it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Things are going multinational, though. Besides, there are sufficient internal contradictions - PARTICULARLY THE TENDENCY TO MONOPOLIZE - for an inevitable structural breakdown. The "capitalist peace" (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore1.asp?sNav=ed&id=378) (right-wing website - a warning) is a utopian illusion because of the aforementioned particular contradiction.

Anyhow, in regards to CAPITALIST governments, I prefer to give to international humanitarian organizations rather than have tax dollars wasted on pork and/or corporate welfare.

[freakazoid]

How will people ever get the energy to challenge capitalists if volunteer organizations end up doing the jobs that the government should. It's a form of enabling as I see it.

If groups of people get together to do the job that the government should do then that would help get people to realize that they don't need the government.
I think that we lost a huge opportunity to gain support by not taking advantage of the situation in New Orleans. We should of mobalized the second the storm was over.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:15 am

How will people ever get the energy to challenge capitalists if volunteer organizations end up doing the jobs that the government should. It's a form of enabling as I see it.

If groups of people get together to do the job that the government should do then that would help get people to realize that they don't need the government.
I think that we lost a huge opportunity to gain support by not taking advantage of the situation in New Orleans. We should of mobalized the second the storm was over.
As much as this reeks a bit like Hezbollah, Hamas, and those far-right groups in Europe doing the same thing, such mobilization would've made our programme(s) more appealing.

Face it: not everyone here on this board is a dedicated litterateur (the job description Lenin gave to himself in answering various party questionnaires).

[TheAdlerian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:15 am

How will people ever get the energy to challenge capitalists if volunteer organizations end up doing the jobs that the government should. It's a form of enabling as I see it.

If groups of people get together to do the job that the government should do then that would help get people to realize that they don't need the government.
I think that we lost a huge opportunity to gain support by not taking advantage of the situation in New Orleans. We should of mobalized the second the storm was over.
I disagree.

Imagine if no private person came to help out in New Orleans. The government would be forced to focus dollars to rebuild and hire people to repair the area.

Basically, that would require the US government to act in a socialist manner or let a major city fall into a miserable condition, and allow its population to either be displaced or live in greater squalor than it already was.

I hazard that charities, many of which are secret capitalist organizations to begin with, act as a method (maybe by accident) of releasing pressure from capitalist governments, who ideally would let "losers" rot. If they were left to their own devices the capitalists would either be shown to be the heartless greed-based things they are, or be forced to transform into a more socialist model.

This is really something to consider.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by TheAdlerian+April 08, 2007 03:19 pm--> (TheAdlerian @ April 08, 2007 03:19 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:15 am

How will people ever get the energy to challenge capitalists if volunteer organizations end up doing the jobs that the government should. It's a form of enabling as I see it.

If groups of people get together to do the job that the government should do then that would help get people to realize that they don't need the government.
I think that we lost a huge opportunity to gain support by not taking advantage of the situation in New Orleans. We should of mobalized the second the storm was over.
I disagree.

Imagine if no private person came to help out in New Orleans. The government would be forced to focus dollars to rebuild and hire people to repair the area.

Basically, that would require the US government to act in a socialist manner or let a major city fall into a miserable condition, and allow its population to either be displaced or live in greater squalor than it already was.

I hazard that charities, many of which are secret capitalist organizations to begin with, act as a method (maybe by accident) of releasing pressure from capitalist governments, who ideally would let "losers" rot. If they were left to their own devices the capitalists would either be shown to be the heartless greed-based things they are, or be forced to transform into a more socialist model.

This is really something to consider. [/b]
You mean how the government was socialist when after 5 days people were still drowning, starving and standing on their roofs? You can't wait for anyone to come for you and if there was a huge leftist movement to help there it would have kicked major ass but it wouldn't have been reported anyways. Only the people that were helped would have known.

[TheAdlerian]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+April 09, 2007 05:16 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ April 09, 2007 05:16 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:19 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 04:15 am

How will people ever get the energy to challenge capitalists if volunteer organizations end up doing the jobs that the government should. It's a form of enabling as I see it.

If groups of people get together to do the job that the government should do then that would help get people to realize that they don't need the government.
I think that we lost a huge opportunity to gain support by not taking advantage of the situation in New Orleans. We should of mobalized the second the storm was over.
I disagree.

Imagine if no private person came to help out in New Orleans. The government would be forced to focus dollars to rebuild and hire people to repair the area.

Basically, that would require the US government to act in a socialist manner or let a major city fall into a miserable condition, and allow its population to either be displaced or live in greater squalor than it already was.

I hazard that charities, many of which are secret capitalist organizations to begin with, act as a method (maybe by accident) of releasing pressure from capitalist governments, who ideally would let "losers" rot. If they were left to their own devices the capitalists would either be shown to be the heartless greed-based things they are, or be forced to transform into a more socialist model.

This is really something to consider.
You mean how the government was socialist when after 5 days people were still drowning, starving and standing on their roofs? You can't wait for anyone to come for you and if there was a huge leftist movement to help there it would have kicked major ass but it wouldn't have been reported anyways. Only the people that were helped would have known. [/b]
I'm not sure what you're saying there.

[The Grey Blur]

Well charity is a good thing I would say. It shows that the "human nature" argument is bullshit at least.

I don't give to charity but I am interested in doing volunteer work in Africa or somewhere else that Capitalism has royally fucked over. I would disagree with Revmarksman as well, love/charity/compassion is clearly a huge part of being a leftist; if you don't feel solidarity with the oppressed then how can you help in their liberation?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:48 am

I'm not sure what you're saying there.
I am saying that you said "if no private person came to help in new orleans than the government would have been forced to rebuild and become more socialistic". Nothing would force the government to do anything. If no private people would have came it wouldn't have made the government clean up it's act. Shit, it wasn't even forced to send rescue helicopters when the people were drowning.

[Janus]

It's really a personal issue rather than an ideological one. Obviously, it doesn't hurt to help another human being out and sometimes it does feel good but little practical change is effected through such gestures. Communists don't seek charity but the empowerment of the oppressed in order to change things for themselves rather than rely on charity from the ruling class.