personal thoughts about charities and other type

[R_P_A_S]

I think it all started when the girlfriend asked me to sign up for that "LiNK" project. that "Liberty in North Korea" non-profict organization that helps refugees. Do you guys remember I posted a thread and link about it? anyways...

She asked me to join! and sign up so that I could start taking part in this project. But she was puzzled when I was hesitant. Something just didn't feel right, I went on the site and I wasn't really going for it, thats why I asked you guys for your thoughts and I got really good feed back that made me realize why I wasn't all for this "bourgeoisie liberal project". I guess I'm skeptical on how some of these organizations regardless of claiming to be non partisan or religious some how still attack and bash whatever they are against. in this case the North Korean state.

They don't offer any type of information that would help us understand the political issues dealing with the DPRK. they ignore many key facts and are fueled by an emotional rant and want to help and heal the surface of the problem while keeping people ignorant on the real situation.

I sometimes feel that people only do this things to feel good about them selves. Like they can sleep at night if they donated money to some starving child in Honduras. Or some people feel that god will give them something back if they also give something back. do you guys know what I mean?

My exgirlfriend loves to give out money like it's going out of style to any homeless guy that approaches her. She is very generous but I told her that she only does it because It makes HER feel good about her self. while she has no intention in understanding them or trying to identify the root of the issue.

She asked me, Well what do you do if you don't give them money?: I give them some change from time to time... But I always acknowledge them, look at them in the eye and sincerely ask them how are they and questions regarding their condition, what lead to it and what he plans on doing, etc. Just dishing your money out to "help out" to me is not real help and understanding is just a temporary solution, a quick fix.

Just like most charities that come around every year. Every year is a different cause and the bourgeoisie again want to feel good about them selves so they throw more crumbs off the table and it sickens me that people praise it up and down while the real problems are still consuming us and yet little is done to fix them.

also like that new but (RED) campaign. If you buy products from participating capitalist they will donate a portion of the money to help fight AIDS in Africa. Im sure you guys heard about this.
I guess its the same as giving a homeless person 50 cents? but obviously at a larger scale.

I just feel these and other types of charities and fund raisers are bullshit. generous? yes and mean well to a certain extend I guess but I refuse to participate in liberal capricious projects, and capitalist "lets change the world" phony charades!

[Marsella]

I once gave a homeless man $5 because I didn't have any change. I later saw him having an icecream. :lol: Did I care? Not really. Spare change is never going to help someone get out of poverty.

Personally, I think that we should give critical support to such charities. But organisations which advocate changing the conditions which allow homelessness and poverty should be given priority.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How about setting up a revolutionary alternative to charities, which not only helps people in need but also informs them about their economic condition?

Not that it would be easy, mind you, but it might be a good idea.

[Killer Enigma]

Marx made clear in his text, "The Attitude of th Bourgeoisie Towards the Proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch13.htm)" the defects of charity in certain contexts:

"The English bourgeoisie is charitable out of self-interest; it gives nothing outright, but regards its gifts as a business matter, makes a bargain with the poor, saying: 'If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery. You shall despair as before, but you shall despair unseen, this I require, this I purchase with my subscription of twenty pounds for the infirmary!'"

Certainly charity given for the sake of appeasement means nothing, though it might do some good. However, let us remember that even Marx himself was subject to the charity of friends and family during his years of writing, without which he would have almost certainly perished.

Charity is, at its core, man helping man. The reason behind it and the context from which it emerges determines whether or not the action is selfish or not. Making sweeping judgments denoucning all charities as "bourgeoisie liberal project[s]" is fallacious and generalizing.

[R_P_A_S]

i guess charity under this system is just a business matter. first, rather than an honest social gesture or responsibility.

[Tower of Bebel]

Of course it is bussiness, and it doesn't solve anything. Capitalists use it to become popular or even rich(!), singers use it to become even more famous and the Chuirch uses charity to have control over the people (linke in Katholic schools where charity is accompanied with Christian values).

Not everyone is bad or thinks of profit or mind control when he/she thinks of charity as a solution to the world's problems, yet even then it is no solution.

Giving bread and soupe to the proletariat during cold winters didn't creat the welfare State we know today. Only the workers -together with the victorious USSR as a serious threat to the bourgeoisie- made the Welfare State a possibility after a second devasting imperialist war.

And even fear of the workers didn't create a solution to capitalism. Today -with the USSR gone and capitalism in crisis- the bourgeoisie is trying to take away our welfare. There is no solution under capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

i treat charities with caution because they almost act like a big welfare state, only at a national level. Bribing the poorest out of revolutionary aspirations, like a financial band aid.
This is why theyre so popular with neo-conservatives so that they dont have to live with their guilty consciences!

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about multinational humanitarian organizations? I don't donate locally, because many of the intended recipients are lumpenproles. On the other hand, I know that the intended recipients of humanitarian aid aren't such.


Originally posted by Marx
If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery.

Ah, but on the other hand, the recipients of humanitarian aid on the other side of the globe can't "trouble" me in the first place.

Thoughts? :huh:

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:50 pm
What about multinational humanitarian organizations? I don't donate locally, because many of the intended recipients are lumpenproles.
if youre referring to UNICEF, Amnesty etc, theyve all jumped on the charity bandwagon, you seem them trying to accost people every day in my home town with their clipboards and puppy-dog eyes.

[Revolucija]

This can be ok, if it is a non-NGO project. We shouldn't "appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois" and doing such reactionary stuff. It is better to do sth nice by local organising; like helping invalids, blind etc. But we must always ask ourselves why poor are poor.

[Lenin II]

Generally speaking, the "freedom of speech" <_< permits religious organizations to give to the poor of any given community or country independant of any government programs, but locally-driven “compassion” creates the distinct potential for unequal treatment of similar problems because of religious biases taking precedence over general standards. Not to mention the use of charitable religious groups administering social programs violates the principle of separation of church and state.

As for petty-bourgeoisie charities, they are businesses, run by the same old capitalist structure. While they are not our enemies, they are usually not our allies either. Charities are almost exclusively religious and/or for the benefit of the ruling classes&#39; guilt.

[Lynx]

Do you believe in micro loans to small entrepreneurs in third world countries? It is something you can do online and gives the opportunity to form a more personal connection with the person you are helping.

If you have lots of money to donate, then anonymous donations are probably more efficient. If not, helping out locally may be a more rewarding choice.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:04 pm
Do you believe in micro loans to small entrepreneurs in third world countries? It is something you can do online and gives the opportunity to form a more personal connection with the person you are helping.

If you have lots of money to donate, then anonymous donations are probably more efficient. If not, helping out locally may be a more rewarding choice.
I have considered it, but wouldn&#39;t that moreso make ME a petit-bourgeois (the fact that I&#39;m now employing finance capital on a small scale, plus the fact that the intention is for the recipient to solidify his/her petit-bourgeois position)?

[Moreover, isn&#39;t the concept of saving lives from the brink of death more important than either "teaching how to fish" or seasonal charity? That&#39;s why I prefer humanitarian aid over local charities.]

[Faceless]

Do you believe in micro loans to small entrepreneurs in third world countries? It is something you can do online and gives the opportunity to form a more personal connection with the person you are helping.

If you have lots of money to donate, then anonymous donations are probably more efficient. If not, helping out locally may be a more rewarding choice.

I thought about that. But then I thought I&#39;d nationalise the big banks and force THEM to give out cheap loans instead.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:25 pm

Do you believe in micro loans to small entrepreneurs in third world countries? It is something you can do online and gives the opportunity to form a more personal connection with the person you are helping.

If you have lots of money to donate, then anonymous donations are probably more efficient. If not, helping out locally may be a more rewarding choice.

I thought about that. But then I thought I&#39;d nationalise the big banks and force THEM to give out cheap loans instead.
^^^ The problem is that you&#39;re still creating masses of petit-bourgeoisie and solidifying their position. On the other hand (and I&#39;ll disagree with left-communists here for a moment), even Africa by itself (like the old COMECON plus China) is incapable of transitioning into "proletocracy" (the DOTP).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

> personal thoughts about charities and other type, of fund raisers, etc.

A sad indication of our society is there being a difference between charity and labor.

[Faceless]

^^^ The problem is that you&#39;re still creating masses of petit-bourgeoisie and solidifying their position. On the other hand (and I&#39;ll disagree with left-communists here for a moment), even Africa by itself (like the old COMECON plus China) is incapable of transitioning into "proletocracy" (the DOTP).
In many parts of the world the petty bourgeoisie are still the majority in the form of small peasants. They ought to be the natural allies of the working class. You can not imediately nationalise every small shop and every small plot of land without creating utter chaos. It may not be "ideal", but nationalising the banks and giving cheap loans for workers to improve their homes and for small family businesses and peasants will bring other lower sections of society to our side. With the major banks and corporations in the hands of the working class, pettier manifestations of capitalism will gradually disappear anyway.

[Sam_b]

also like that new but (RED) campaign. If you buy products from participating capitalist they will donate a portion of the money to help fight AIDS in Africa. Im sure you guys heard about this.
I guess its the same as giving a homeless person 50 cents? but obviously at a larger scale.


I&#39;m extremely skeptical of campaigns such as this. I guess I kinda have a vested interest in HIV campaigning after working in India as a care worker volunteer with people living with the condition.

We have to question exact nature of the RED project (which says on its website that it isn&#39;t a charity but a &#39;business model&#39;). Is it merely a publicity tool? From just a brief look, its merely a fundraising front for the Global Fund. I don&#39;t know too much about this particular NGO, and I hope some comrades will help me out if they do, but from looknig at their website it is full of bureaucratic talk and &#39;action plans&#39;, none of which will help people who are affected by the HIV virus.

Its also interesting to note that 25% or so of their aid seems to go to Governments? And I wonder what percentage of their funds are &#39;processing fees&#39; and the like?

My thoughts would be that it is much more effective giving to more transparent, grassroots campaigns and NGOs rather than big multinational organisations (17% of OXFAM&#39;s aid, for example are &#39;processing fees&#39; and will not be given to projects).

I worked with Sahara Aalhad in Maharashtra India, hope some comrades would be interested in donating as I think they now have Paypal (www.aalhadpune.org).

[Lynx]

So it would be good to help entrepreneurs in third world countries? If Africa is insufficiently developed to undergo a transition, then what alternative is there? Humanitarian aid tends to be the type of aid that reacts to situations. Preventative aid is important too&#33;

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:33 pm
So it would be good to help entrepreneurs in third world countries? If Africa is insufficiently developed to undergo a transition, then what alternative is there? Humanitarian aid tends to be the type of aid that reacts to situations. Preventative aid is important too&#33;
That is an important point. Propping up small businesses and developing market infrastructure, though socialists may find it appalling, is exactly what a continent like Africa needs. Remember, even Marx praised the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie in ousting the aristocracy from power and leading liberal democratic revolutions. Such is the inevitable next step.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Killer Enigma+October 22, 2007 05:08 pm--> (Killer Enigma @ October 22, 2007 05:08 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 09:33 pm
So it would be good to help entrepreneurs in third world countries? If Africa is insufficiently developed to undergo a transition, then what alternative is there? Humanitarian aid tends to be the type of aid that reacts to situations. Preventative aid is important too&#33;
That is an important point. Propping up small businesses and developing market infrastructure, though socialists may find it appalling, is exactly what a continent like Africa needs. Remember, even Marx praised the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie in ousting the aristocracy from power and leading liberal democratic revolutions. Such is the inevitable next step. [/b]
Your post reminded me too much about a recent Web reading of mine regarding Brezhnev&#39;s "theory" of national-democratic revolution. :mellow:

But yeah, that plus the immediate need for subsidized trade with developed countries (no restrictions on Third World exports, save for those relating to safety concerns, while the Third World imposes reasonable tariffs on Western goods coming in).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It doesn&#39;t hurt to, you know, get directly involved. I&#39;ve always found throwing money at people ineffective.

[lilo32]

in my opinion the problem with charities is that the money they get or food goes directly to the gov first. such as darfur, all the food we send or money goes to the gov.. what does that mean that the refugess either dont get the help or they sell it to them. WE need more missionary help. direct help

[RbG]

Hey man. i feel that if you really want to help out people, then any kind of help is good. even if its not much. :blush:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:21 am
Hey man. i feel that if you really want to help out people, then any kind of help is good. even if its not much. :blush:
:redstar2000: