Charity

[freakazoid]

So there I was in the religion thread looking through the Were You brought up Religious. When I came upon I'm a Tiger, awesome avatar by the way :), saying that charity is stupid. In the hopes to keep the other thread on topic I made this thread. And to catch you all up on the conversation http://www.revleft.com/vb/were-you-brought-t58883/index.html?p=1146014#post1146014 ;

freakazoid:
Quote:
Charity is the worst kind of reformism.
Yeah, fuck the poor?


I'm a Tiger:
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakazoid http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1145996#post1145996)
Yeah, fuck the poor?

Fuck your pitying attitude born from your own superiority and hiding the fact that only class struggle, on their behalf, is going to change their condition and the future condition of their class.

Fuckwit.

freakazoid:
Quote:
Fuck your pitying attitude born from your own superiority
ROFL

Quote:
and hiding the fact that only class struggle, on their behalf, is going to change their condition and the future condition of their class.
And in the mean time, fuck the poor. Right? House destroyed during hurricane Katrina, or during the Greensburg tornado, etc, well your just fucked because we haven't had our class revolution yet and so I'm not going to help you.

I'm a Tiger:
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakazoid http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1146003#post1146003)
And in the mean time, fuck the poor. Right? House destroyed during hurricane Katrina, or during the Greensburg tornado, etc, well your just fucked because we haven't had our class revolution yet and so I'm not going to help you.

Wow, if you keep on inventing shit like that in your head you'll be able to start your new religion.

I said that the act of charity is a reformist one - it does not get at the heart of what actually causes poverty, and how to eliminate it.

By all means, go out and organise tin-rattling exercises.

I am interested in a permanent change in society, not one of your pitying sacrifice of several dollars.


I remember once a long time ago TAT was making the same kind of statements and was wondering how others felt also.


Wow, if you keep on inventing shit like that in your head you'll be able to start your new religion.

Inventing what in my head? The Greensburg tornado or hurricane Katrina?


I said that the act of charity is a reformist one - it does not get at the heart of what actually causes poverty, and how to eliminate it.

You said it is the worst kind of reformism. Just because it doesn't get to the heart of the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it also.


By all means, go out and organise tin-rattling exercises.

What is that even supposed to mean?


I am interested in a permanent change in society, not one of your pitying sacrifice of several dollars.

And I am not interested in that? So your to good then to donate a few dollars or your time to help those less fortunate than you?

[Demogorgon]

This childish sort of attitude is ridiculous. There are people here who think if the world cannnot be perfect it should be as bad as possible. Charity does not solve the causes of poverty but it does no harm either and does provide help for the worst off. For what it is, it is a good thing, even if it often is simply a way for people to buy themselves out of guilt.

[Marsella]

You said it is the worst kind of reformism. Just because it doesn't get to the heart of the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it also.

No it means that communists shouldn't pursue it.

There are dozens and dozens of organisations which have their purpose of donating money to poor people.

There is no need for communist organisations to dedicate their ends for such means.

(And indeed, if you are serious about donating money, then you will get more 'bang for your buck' donating to official charity organisations which are far more efficient than a 16 year old Trot-newspaper-seller).



And I am not interested in that? So your to good then to donate a few dollars or your time to help those less fortunate than you?


Nope.

I've worked with Save the Children and the Salvation Army and a bunch of other charity organisations whilst I was living in a shelter.

Those groups offer band-aid solutions. So, like all reformist groups (well, they aren't even reformist since they don't advocate a reformist approach to capitalism) they should be ignored by communists.

Shock Horrors!



This childish sort of attitude is ridiculous. There are people here who think if the world cannnot be perfect it should be as bad as possible.

No one argued that you fucking moron.

[eyedrop]

It depends. Newly my state sent a lot of money down to Zimbabwe and what where the results? Practically all of it where used to buy seats in the parliament for Mugabe. Most charity is just used to reinforce the ruling state and corporations.

One can also look at Burma where the junta tried to be the ones to give out all the aid so they would be the benefactors and strenghten their hold on the people. (Take this with a grain of salt as I haven't been paying to much attention and mainstream media has ignored it for some time)

The right kind of charity isn't so bad.

[Killfacer]

Slagging off charity? I commend your bravery, its a particuarly difficult thing to criticise.

I'm a Tiger you called demogorgon a fucking moron but what he said actually summed up your opinion pretty well:

You dont agree with charity because it doesnt solve the heart of the problem

Sounds pretty smilar to what demogorgon said. Also your an fucking prick. Thought id pre-empt you.

[Marsella]

Slagging off charity? I commend your bravery, its a particuarly difficult thing to criticise.

I'm a Tiger you called demogorgon a fucking moron but what he said actually summed up your opinion pretty well:

You dont agree with charity because it doesnt solve the heart of the problem

No Demogorgan said:


There are people here who think if the world cannnot be perfect it should be as bad as possible.

Which was nothing that I argued - I haven't argued that we should wait for all hell to break loose.

I maintained that communists should constantly outline class struggle and not become charitable organisations.


Also your an fucking prick. Thought id pre-empt you.

Oh wow. Isn't that cute?

You can't even string a coherent sentence together, can you? :lol:

[Kami]

Firstly; I agree, yes, charity can not solve the problems apparant in society. It seems we're concentrating on Charity to help the poor, though; what about ones that help, say, those with special needs?
I collect for a charity called SNAPPS (Special Needs Advocates). They provide support and information to those with special needs and their families. What possible reason could I have to oppose this? Class Struggle won't make special needs go away; scientific advancement might, but that takes time, and people somewhat need to live in the mean time.

EDIT:
Thought id pre-empt you.
Thank you for that laugh ^^ where do you exchange your unused apostrophes for extra hyphens?

[Kronos]

What I think is uncool is if the working classes are taxed as much as the capitalists, for money that is used by the state for welfare programs, if any.

This is kind of an awkward situation- somehow it would have to be argued that the middle working classes do not have any affect on the joblessness of the lower classes and their reliance on the welfare system. A majority of this lower class still could not afford proper, bare minimal lifestyles, even if they worked, since the average wage for unskilled labor is so low. This puts the weight of the state of homelessness not on other working classes, even if they differ to degrees of middle, lower, higher, whatever, but on the owners of production who pay so little to the workers who happen to provide the labor for such unskilled work that has no job market value at a given time.

In turn, the capitalist cannot complain for being taxed by blaming the homelessness on the failure of the state, since taxes are collected from everyone, and therefore equal burden is on all citizens. In the capitalist system there has to be services which take care of classes which are so low and indignant...nobody will hire them...and if they do....they will make very small wages.

If a class is to be blamed, it cannot be the class which does not relate to the lower classes which are as they are because of joblessness and lack of any vocational skills. The working class cannot have the same responsibility over the lower classes as the capitalist upper class, because the working class neither provides, or fails to provide, a work opportunity to any of them.

Any system that uses charity and the welfare system should not be funded by taxes on the working class. Only the capitalists...and it would be determined by percentages of various ratios- how much was spent on materials, cost of labor...how much was made in profit, and how much time did that profit take to be made. Those that made the highest overall profits would be taxed more. I dunno, some Chinese guy will think up a formula one day to express what I'm saying here.

The point is, unemployment is a consequence of being denied a job by a capitalist business owner. The capitalist must accept in principle that the capitalist system creates this dilemma, but it is a legitimate ethical dilemma that places the responsibility of certain disadvantageous situations (such as lower class joblessness) on those who are using the privilege of such a system to own business. In principle, again, the direct result of a job market is unemployment- a direct result of capitalism is the job market. Therefore, the problems in the job market, which contribute to lower class poverty and joblessness, are caused by the business owners....not the working class. As a worker, if I willingly submit to a socialist system, I don't have to be responsible for problems in this system, now, that are consequences of a job market conflict, or any other conflict which affects those indignant citizens.

How you like me now?

[Phalanx]

Which was nothing that I argued - I haven't argued that we should wait for all hell to break loose.

I maintained that communists should constantly outline class struggle and not become charitable organisations.

Ok, but in the meantime, while you're working on revolution, why is charity a bad thing? The revolution isn't going to bring immediate help to Katrina victims or tornado victims.

[Marsella]

Ok, but in the meantime, while you're working on revolution, why is charity a bad thing? The revolution isn't going to bring immediate help to Katrina victims or tornado victims.

Revolutions aren't something that are 'worked on' like a car.

Anyhow, what do you mean by 'bad thing'

I didn't say they were 'bad' or morally wrong.

I said they were reformist. Yet no one has actually challenged me on this. Indeed, most have agreed.

I didn't say that charities should suddenly disbanded or stop the work they are doing.

I did say that communists shouldn't regard their plight as a charitable one which essentially drives off this religious shite that poor people should be pitied. And Freakfuck forgot to mention that I was in fact criticising someone's following of Islam based on the idea that Islam is against poverty!

[Killfacer]

I'm a tiger, stop criticising a typo. If thats the basis for your argument then you are a fucking idiot.

Your basically arguing that communists shouldnt help charities because there job is to wait for the revolution. Ah shit your not actually. Sorry i didnt read all your statements. My bad. I still mantain your a fucking idiot though :)

[Marsella]

I'm a tiger, stop criticising a typo. If thats the basis for your argument then you are a fucking idiot.

Your basically arguing that communists shouldnt help charities because there job is to wait for the revolution. Ah shit your not actually. Sorry i didnt read all your statements.

I criticised one typo. That wasn't the basis of my argument.

And yeah, the rest of your argument is unfounded as your useless brain has figured out. Clap, clap.


I still mantain your a fucking idiot though :)

Do the world a favour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangman_noose) (or some charity if you're so inclined).

[Lector Malibu]

I'm a Tiger is pretty much on the money. Charity does nothing to change things. It's like pouring gas into a fuel tank that a leak in it. Yes it will run but you have to keep refiling it.

[Kronos]

while you're working on revolution, why is charity a bad thing?

It is by default a bad thing simply because it is, because it is necessary, because there is even the issue. From a communist perspective, this argument is one which is valid only insofar as its efforts are revolutionary or counterrevolutionary. If charity is provided exclusively by capitalists, it is revolutionary, because it is taking advantage of the capitalist to treat problems that are the result of capitalism. If it isn't, and welfare is a system run through equal taxation of any kind, it is counterproductive, I think.

Why should a middle working class give away his money when he himself needs financial help?

A good analogy would be "tipping". A worker/consumer is paying twice for what he gets- first the price of the cheeseburger, and then a tip. The waitress should be making sufficient wages so not to rely mostly on tips. She isn't, but why should I be expected to help her out by tipping? I'm in her class....I'm struggling like her.....where is my tip?

"Tipping", this informal meritocratic system of good manners, is an excuse used by the Capitalist. The paying twice for the burger is like taking care of two people in your class- yourself and the homeless indignant, and your taxes are your "tip" to those classes. Fuck that. Let the capitalists take care of them.

[Plagueround]

Why should a middle working class give away his money when he himself needs financial help?

A good analogy would be "tipping". A worker/consumer is paying twice for what he gets- first the price of the cheeseburger, and then a tip. The waitress should be making sufficient wages so not to rely mostly on tips. She isn't, but why should I be expected to help her out by tipping? I'm in her class....I'm struggling like her.....where is my tip?


So because others are suffering, but you are too...fuck 'em? :rolleyes:

Oh by the way...the wages servers get paid are typically lower (allowable by law) because they get tips. Go ahead and make your stand against the man by refusing to give someone bending over backwards to serve your food a few extra dollars.

[IcarusAngel]

Once again, freak has failed to convey a coherent, rational point.

The problem with private charity alone is this: if the demands of the extreme poor exceed what the private charity can provide, then what do you do? If you're a capitalist, this is just the "natural order of things."

It's that basic "science" of economics capitalists claim justifies their exploitation.

A capitalist, or right-winger in general, sees a so-called "wealth redistribution" system as an inherent evil. A leftist sees a society in which many people are poor to the point they can't even feed themselves an inherent evil, especially because some scientists have claimed there are enough resources to feed the world three times over. If you don't believe that figure, cut it in half, which would mean there is enough to feed the world one and a half times over (one and a half plus one and a half = 3, for those Libertarians a bit slow on the uptake). Still, a travesty by any means, especially when about half the world can't get enough to eat and about a billion or so don't even have clean water.

Capitalists apparently don't give a moment's thought to the concept that by hoarding resources, capitalists themselves are the ones inflicting an injustice on society, and engaging in their own "wealth redistribution" towards the upper class by the LTV.

Definitely it is one of the most injust systems, ever. Some leftists claim it's the "best system so far."

Disagree on this end. Democracy came far before capitalism.

But what was your exact point, freak? How is your point 'leftist,' with these 'private charities.'

[Lector Malibu]

So because others are suffering, but you are too...fuck 'em? :rolleyes:

Oh by the way...the wages servers get paid are typically lower (allowable by law) because they get tips. Go ahead and make your stand against the man by refusing to give someone bending over backwards to serve your food a few extra dollars.

Tips are not required. It's a sham. The company get's a way with exploiting workers.

If you detach yourself emotionally from the issue it will become clearer.

By tipping the employee you are enabling the employer.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I'm interested, do other countries aside from America use tipping as a regular practice?

Because I've never done it (or expected it when I was a waitress - even though I did sometimes get generous tips).

[Kami]

In Britain, it very much depends on the restaraunt. Generally one does in european ones, but not in east asian ones (indeed, they often display signs asking you not to ^^).

[Demogorgon]

No one argued that you fucking moron.
That is precisely what you argued. You refuse to engage in anything that will not, in your view, lead to perfection and hence are happy to let all sorts of horrible stuff happen so you can be a puritan.

Incidentally your talk of reformism in this case makes no sense, and leads me to believe you are just throwing a buzzword you don't understand in to boost your argument. Reformism is a style of political movement that seeks to change society bit by bit by reforming it. Charity has absolutely nothing to do with that and is rather an act of giving fairly independent from politics.

Incidentally your talk of how Communists should ignore all reformist movements is daft. If you ignore all progressive movements, you will quickly find that people ignore you.

[Dros]

I think that a lot of what charity is about is making wealthy people feel better about their role in the world.

That said, I don't think that all charity is necessarily reactionary. I have done some charity work. But when it is proposed as the solution to poverty or as evidence that capitalism is good... That's bullshit.


Welcome back I'm a Tiger!:)

[Plagueround]

Tips are not required. It's a sham. The company get's a way with exploiting workers.

If you detach yourself emotionally from the issue it will become clearer.

By tipping the employee you are enabling the employer.

The company is going to exploit it's workers whether you tip them or not. If everyone stopped tipping I highly doubt companies would raise wages across the board. If we pursue social change and servers no longer depend on tips to survive, you won't need to worry about it, similar to charities being rendered useless.

Call it an emotional response if you like, I wouldn't disagree with that because my girlfriend is a waitress...but the fact remains that tips are how these people make their livelihood, not their pitiful wages.

Tipping is of course a choice, but I have a hard time believing part of creating a social change and promoting one's ideals includes "fighting the system" by not tipping and having these people going home wondering how they are going to pay their bills,buy food,provide for children,etc.

[Plagueround]

I suppose since the thread was originally about charity and I've helped derail it to being about tipping, I'll add a bit of my thoughts. Charity is not ideal because it's the result of a capitalist system and it feeds the notion that people like Bill Gates actually care about the working class because they donate a tiny portion of their money to schools.

However, I can't help but feel a bit suspicious of those that look for any and all excuses to help their comrades because it's "reactionary".

That being said I am usually suspicious of large scale charities because they're the ones we usually see being exposed for corruption and I try to be smart about who and what I donate to when I can afford to.

[Dean]

Communists should be about utilizing the labor and means at their disposal to help create a situation where more people benefit from our economy than do now. Charity is directly about that: to each according to their needs. Yes, more goes into Communism than simply aid. It is an entire socio-economic restructuring. But the reality of human existance can never be removed from that equation.

Communists, if they are indeed interested in making communism a reality, should start by making whatever changes they can. That definitely includes helping those in need.

[Phalanx]

I think that a lot of what charity is about is making wealthy people feel better about their role in the world.

That said, I don't think that all charity is necessarily reactionary. I have done some charity work. But when it is proposed as the solution to poverty or as evidence that capitalism is good... That's bullshit.


Welcome back I'm a Tiger!:)

Agreed, some charity is about wealthy people feeling good about themselves. Then again, some Communists are just middle- to upper class people feeling good about themselves.

And, like you said, it's not necessarily a bad thing. If change means it's gonna come through people feeling better about themselves, so be it.

[freakazoid]

Revolutions aren't something that are 'worked on' like a car.

Actually now that you say that, how is it not? When a car is broken you replace the broken parts to get it working again, or you put in better parts to make a working car perform better, or you simply remove everything in the car and rebuild it to something different. Which is what a revolution does.


I maintained that communists should constantly outline class struggle and not become charitable organisations.

Why can't we do both?


It seems we're concentrating on Charity to help the poor, though; what about ones that help, say, those with special needs?

Actually charity in general. Doesn't have to be only about poor people.


And Freakfuck forgot to mention that I was in fact criticising someone's following of Islam based on the idea that Islam is against poverty!

My name on this site is "freakazoid", you child. And what do you mean by the rest? What is the link to this conversation so I can find out?


Once again, freak has failed to convey a coherent, rational point.

What, you didn't understand what I was saying? If so then how where you able to make such a large response?


I'm a Tiger is pretty much on the money. Charity does nothing to change things. It's like pouring gas into a fuel tank that a leak in it. Yes it will run but you have to keep refiling it.

And if you stop putting gas into the tank it runs out. Why can't you be putting gas into the tank to keep it from running out while at the same time also patching the leak?



By tipping the employee you are enabling the employer.

What do you think is going to happen when you stop giving tips? The employer isn't going to cover it. That and I will also tip if the service was exceptionally good.

[Lector Malibu]

And if you stop putting gas into the tank it runs out. Why can't you be putting gas into the tank to keep it from running out while at the same time also patching the leak?

Because the old tank is faulty. There's no guarantee the patch will work. We need a new tank. We have the ability to get one as well.


What do you think is going to happen when you stop giving tips? The employer isn't going to cover it. That and I will also tip if the service was exceptionally good.

If enough workers aren't compensated enough for long enough they will be forced to work elsewhere. Take away a employer's employees you take away the power of the employer.

The employer will have to compensate sooner or latter.

I don't have the money to carry the wait staff on my shoulders. Actually I hardly eat out as it is.

[freakazoid]

Because the old tank is faulty. There's no guarantee the patch will work. We need a new tank. We have the ability to get one as well.

Patch, get a new one, :P. While I agree that getting a new one would be better, but that takes time. Might as well help keeping the current one filled tell then.


If enough workers aren't compensated enough for long enough they will be forced to work elsewhere. Take away a employer's employees you take away the power of the employer.

While I understand the reasoning, but I think that there are better ways to get the same thing done without having to resort to hurting the workers in the process, at least not to where they are forced to quit and hope they can get another job.


I don't have the money to carry the wait staff on my shoulders. Actually I hardly eat out as it is.

Your not supposed to carry the entire burden yourself. If we all chipped in just a little it can go a long way.

[Lector Malibu]

Patch, get a new one, :P. While I agree that getting a new one would be better, but that takes time. Might as well help keeping the current one filled tell then.

And ultimately continue to extend the suffering of the working class.



While I understand the reasoning, but I think that there are better ways to get the same thing done without having to resort to hurting the workers in the process, at least not to where they are forced to quit and hope they can get another job.The capitalist pigs have already envisioned this and have prevented the ways an employee can get a strong foot hold. Change will not come about until the employer is forced to make a change.


Your not supposed to carry the entire burden yourself. If we all chipped in just a little it can go a long way.We are all chipping in already.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/Nateskin/IWW-capitalism-pyr.gif

[Dean]

And ultimately continue to extend the suffering of the working class.


The capitalist pigs have already envisioned this and have prevented the ways an employee can get a strong foot hold. Change will not come about until the employer is forced to make a change.

Charity is about helping those in dire need. It is also a part of a balanced diet of socialism. :lol:

Consider that socialism is about utilizing all the resources at our disposal to help as many people as possible - "to each according to their need." That's a pretty good argument for charity.

It's also important to realize what your argument can lead to. If today's suffering of the working class is necessary for the development of socialism (though I don't think it is) then refusing to do charity work on that premise can lead to supporting reactionary measures by the state - after all, those measures can only help induce the working class into becoming more class-conscious. In fact, I would argue that, by using your own economic power (money) on yourself, rather than those who probably need it more, you are directly acting against the interests of the working class. Its like a group of "marxist capitalists" refusing to give to charity because they just want the working class to rise up. In fact, this puts any rich progressive in a real dilemma: should they try to help those in need, or should they "help the revolution along" by hoarding their money?

Really, charity is about "to each according to their needs" when it somes down to it. I am very sad about the responses in this thread. Nobody should have to suffer if they don't have to.

[Lector Malibu]

Charity is about helping those in dire need. It is also a part of a balanced diet of socialism. :lol:

Consider that socialism is about utilizing all the resources at our disposal to help as many people as possible - "to each according to their need." That's a pretty good argument for charity.

It's also important to realize what your argument can lead to. If today's suffering of the working class is necessary for the development of socialism (though I don't think it is) then refusing to do charity work on that premise can lead to supporting reactionary measures by the state - after all, those measures can only help induce the working class into becoming more class-conscious. In fact, I would argue that, by using your own economic power (money) on yourself, rather than those who probably need it more, you are directly acting against the interests of the working class. Its like a group of "marxist capitalists" refusing to give to charity because they just want the working class to rise up. In fact, this puts any rich progressive in a real dilemma: should they try to help those in need, or should they "help the revolution along" by hoarding their money?

Really, charity is about "to each according to their needs" when it somes down to it. I am very sad about the responses in this thread. Nobody should have to suffer if they don't have to.

Dean

What self economic power? :lol:I have no money. I've been in the poverty bracket for my life thus far. Actually I was on the streets for about a year and a half and was lucky to get out somewhat intact.

I know exactly what it is like to suffer. I'm not talking about making yourself seem poor because that's cool nowadays. I'm talking about having no options whatsoever.

I did not get off the streets by people's charity. I got resourceful and damn lucky.

And a part of me is still there after all these years.

I understand the noble sentiment of helping those with less than.

And I think that is commendable. I also understand that sometimes the best way to help people is to force them to help them self's

[Dean]

Dean

What self economic power? :lol:I have no money. I've been in the poverty bracket for my life thus far. Actually I was on the streets for about a year and a half and was lucky to get out somewhat intact.

I know exactly what it is like to suffer. I'm not talking about making yourself seem poor because that's cool nowadays. I'm talking about having no options whatsoever.

I did not get off the streets by people's charity. I got resourceful and damn lucky.

And a part of me is still there after all these years.

I understand the noble sentiment of helping those with less than.

And I think that is commendable. I also understand that sometimes the best way to help people is to force them to help them self's

If you have no substantial excess money, I don't have a problem with you not giving to charity. That isn't the point. The point is that those who do have a little extra should give extra. I make ~1000 dollars a month, and I ahve to pay rent, car insurance, gas, etc., so I barely have money left over. But I do try to give whatever is left after I have taken care of basic necessities and limited luxuries. So, I give 10$ a month to AI right now. Of course, if things got any worse I would have to stop that, but my point is that it is important to help out if you can.

[RGacky3]

Charity is the same as giving pain killers to a cancer patient without treating the cancer.

[Killfacer]

If a cancer cannot be realistically treated then giving the patient painkillers seems like the most benevolent thing to do.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's an interesting fact people making $70K-$200K actually donate more of their income towards charity than people making over $10 million. "Philanthropist" my ass. :laugh:

[freakazoid]

Charity is the same as giving pain killers to a cancer patient without treating the cancer.

That is why you only don't give. You also work to solve the problem.

[abrupt]

Most of the money you would donate to sponser a child or give to a charity gets lost in administration fees. You have to be very careful about where you give your money. Many are christian companies and will only help a child if the child converts thier religion.

And to sponser one child can fuck over that one child in the community. Think about if you are mad poor in these countries and someone in your village starts getting sponsered, you would probly resent them and wonder why the fuck you are not getting help also

It is better to find grassroots operations were they help whole communties and your money goes directly to them.

Be careful in the organizations you trust your money with, look for some that are not religion based and help whole communities at a time.

[freakazoid]

Yeah, if you donate money to a charity definitely do some research on them first.


Many are christian companies and will only help a child if the child converts thier religion.

Are there? :( That is sad, if they do that then they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites! grrr... :cursing:


It is better to find grassroots operations were they help whole communties and your money goes directly to them.

Local things are always good. I especially like how the Black Panthers did things. :)

[Robert]

Many are christian companies and will only help a child if the child converts thier religion.

Really? They don't sound Christian. Anyway, can you identify one of these "many" christian companies?

[Awful Reality]

That is why you only don't give. You also work to solve the problem.

Which is of course impossible without class struggle.

What is your idea of solving the problem? What's this great utopian plan you and Reagan dreamed up back in the 1980's? De-regulation? Union-Busting? Theocracy? Who fucking knows? It's like a game! Who can guess whether he's *****ing about capitalism or communism? I can't tell.

There's no middle ground, please face that.


Welcome back, I'm a Tiger!

Why was she banned in the first place?

[careyprice31]

I agree, charities are reformist. But while there wont be a revolution for a long time yet, charities do help people (just like a bandaid helps your cuts, it doesnt cure but it does help)

I'd warn people to be careful though when supporting charities. I want to issue a warning because some people who collect for charities or who call you looking for money on behalf of a charity are actually working for a business who oftentimes makes more money than the said charity.

If you donate to a charity, go directly to their main offices in their buildings to donate.

So while charities are reformist, they do help a lot of people, so I agree with working for them or donating to them and stuff.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Microcredit or humanitarian "charity" (multinational relief organizations) are better. :)