charity

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Again, that's not socialism, not really. When we talk about socialism nowadays we are mainly focusing on support or help for those at the bottom at the expense of the more successful. Socialism isn't about supporting those who've sunk, it's about mutuality at a societal level. It's about the successes as much as it's about the fallen. It's about maximising participation in decision making and ensuring natural talent and ability can freely rise, unhindered by social or economic class. It's about removing age old inequalities (in power as much as in income) and organising society in a different way. It's about true democracy.

It's not possible, I don't think, in our world, to organise in a truly mutual fashion, except at a very small scale and in very small groups. It would require everything to be torn down and restarted. Not a pleasant prospect, not a likely one nor indeed a practical one. And for a lot of people, not a desirable one, and that's the rub. Unless everybody wants society to be organised along lines of mutuality, then such mutuality has to either attempt to coexist with the existing system (not possible) or must involve coersion (not desirable).

Of course, this is not exclusive to socialism. Capitalism also involves coersion and is imposed upon those who would wish to live in a differently organised society. The rise of Capital trampled on other ways of living and there were casualties.

i tried to read this post......but i'm either too drunk, or it was really all just .....bleh bleh bleh bleh bleh...

I think it might have been a combination of the two......when i re read this tomorrow, I'll know for sure.

[Cicero]

Lumberjim went out of his mind. But I like it.

[monster]

Originally Posted by classicman

I think of socialism as making unequal things equal.

Why do you think that? Wouldn't that be equalism?

Its penalizing those who are more successful and giving to those who are not.

Socialism is about operating as a society. it doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to be equal, but it is about everyone having and equal chance. how is that a bad thing? there's no penalty in it, unless you got your "success" through unfair means.

i think you maybe have some confusion with communism?

[Aliantha]

and anyway, what does that have to do with charity???

[monster]

if all things were equal you wouldn't need charity?

[monster]

but this charity idea.....

there seems to be a feeling here in the states that charity should hurt. If you want to give the money/whatever then it doesn't count. And that accepting charity is bad (that one ain't just American).

I propose we ourlaw the word Charity.

[Aliantha]

Personally I don't think it has to hurt in order to be considered charity. Giving to anyone of your own free will just because you know someone needs it is charity, and it's worthwhile for all concerned.

A lot of people have trouble accepting charity or help when they need it. I learned to ask for help when my mum was sick. If I hadn't, I'd never have made it through. What people did for me and mum during that time I would consider charity. It was people giving either time or sometimes money or prepared meals just in order to make our lives a little easier during a difficult time. I am eternally grateful for that, and hope that I've been able to thank all those who cared in some small way since then and I also have been more conscious of helping others in need and hope that the saying 'what goes around comes around' is fair payment in kind.

After that experience, I have come to believe that a lot of people who 'don't believe in' charity are those who've never had to ask for help before or had someone notice a need and tried to help them with it. If they had, I doubt they'd hold the opinion they do.