Slavoj Zizek on Charitable Giving

[Spikey00]

Another interesting RSA production with regards to charity; in basic summary it refers to how charity is only temporary, rather than a permanent and universal solution.

In this short RSA Animate, renowned philosopher Slavoj Zizek investigates the surprising ethical implications of charitable giving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

[vonduus]

Great video. Zizek has a great way of putting things. And the drawings and his accent makes it hilarious, even if it is a pretty sad story. What he is basically saying is: "We leave 'spiritually' satisfied knowing we have done some small good, all the while leaving intact the underlying systemic exploitation", as brianofoblivion puts it in his comment.

Thanks for sharing, I wasn't aware of the RSA Animate series.

[CogDissident]

Which is why charities don't do "one time" drives, but they are on-going things usually. Some charities are there to help those who through no-fault or decision of their own have a need/shortcoming. IE: Child's play, providing comfort to hospitalized children. If it manages to get enough of an endowment to be self sustaining, it can actually be a perpetual charity machine.

USA charity foundation laws require you to give away 5% of your total value yearly, but if you can make more than that through investing (with tax-free status, this is really really easy), then your charity becomes literally perpetual. And since the charity isn't rewarding bad behavior (ie: helping out druggies in getting clean needles, which in at least some small way does encourage access to more drugs), it doesn't cause the problem to worsen by existing.

So, my rebuttal is that "charity is permanent, if you have a good stock broker and plenty of initial capital".

[eRe4s3r]

Theres only 1 thing to be said about charity, it prolongs the problem it tries to solve. Always, at all times, universally.

In fact Charity also damages the social economic foundation that could potentially combat the source of the problems instead it ease the symptoms (and creates the causes) by drawing money from the economy itself. The 1 for 1 thing on your foot example is great, the absurd thing is that because they manufacture these things on your feet in like Bangladesh for 1$ a day wages the people there are poor and can't afford to buy things on your feet... so technically they are producing the things on your feet that we later "gift" them back. Or worse, gift them to Nations with fledgling thing on your foot producers who suddenly face massive influx of free things on your feet and go bankrupt - thus these free things on your feet LITERALLY create the need for the charity.

Thats not charity, thats cynicism.

In a proper capitalist society the concept of charity would likely need to be outlawed so that the society itself can solve the problems instead of trying to make them "disappear but not solve". A good example is any charity relating to health care or education. Something that are prime pillars of the responsibility of a nation itself.

[vonduus]

Thats not charity, thats cynicism.

You cannot outlaw charity, empathy seems to be soft wired into our socio-biological systems, according to this video: http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/05/06/rsa-animate-empathic-civilisation/

I myself prefer to let the state do the so-called charities, like social care and health care and building schools in Africa, conforming to some legislation. I call those 'charities' my democratic 'rights', and I pay for them through my taxes. In this way I avoid being a cynic myself . Of course, this immediately makes me a cynic big time, as I well know that my wealth in part is based on some guy somewhere in Asia making my things on your feet in a sweatshop for one dollar a day. But I have to buy things on your feet sometimes, and I cannot afford getting them handmade, so...

Therefore I am not a fanatic, I don't mind doing some collateral charity, like accidentally buying into a 'coffee ethics' or contributing to the donation of some computer games to sick kids.

In the German language it is possible to distinguish between Zynismus and Kynismus. According to Peter Sloterdijk, the first is the cynicism of the master, the second that of the slave. As citizens in the First World we cannot help becoming Zyniker in our relations towards the Third World, but we can fight it through Kynismus, typically by joking about it. Like in this little game:

http://www.molleindustria.org/en/oiligarchy

or this one:

http://www.mcvideogame.com/game-eng.html