So Carl, keep it simple – do you think fair trade has made a difference? Do you advocate more or less of it.

Sorry, but I didn’t quite pick up the tone of your piece. I wondered why no smilley after:

> so until the systemic inequality between nations has ended (no date has yet been decided)

Zizek has a logic?!

No, this is spot on. Make lots of money by fucking everyone else over, then have a conscience. Its the American Way! Carnegie Hall, built on the back of murdered trades unionists and crushed workers should be draped in black as a memorial to the oppressed instead of feted as a bourgeous venue.

Chicago-school capitalism has handed over so much power to so few, mostly Americans. Turning back that tide is the greatest challenge the left faces.

Carl Packman OP: “The 7th of March marks the end of fair trade fortnight; and what a noble campaign it is too…”

Fair Trade Reality does not equate to Fair Trade Brand.

Fair Trade Reality means dismantling all of the laws and taxes that prevent open trading of goods. It means providing producers access to honest markets. It means breaking down the purchasing cartels that manipulate selling prices.

Fair Trade Brand helps some producers. Primarily, it is middle class conscious absolvement in developed countries.

Carl Packman OP: “The philanthro-capitalists’ desire for data and control also directs the lion’s share of resources to the biggest and most accessible NGOs that can absorb large amounts of foreign funding, not the social movements that can pressure their own governments to perform in the public interest and mobilise large numbers of people to defend their rights.”

That was an unnecessarily long sentence, wasn’t it?

Philanthro-cpaitalists direct their funds through big NGOs because they think mechanistically. Big NGOs are organised, they have massive management teams, so if you believe that problems are solved by logic or organisation, that is where you would spend your money.

We really should not pay too much attention to these lads (they are predominantly male) and certainly should not trust them.

What do Bill Gates and George Soros feel guilty about?

Socialism has worked so well for Zimbabwe, hasn’t it? Or is Zimbabwe another Marxist-ruled state that the Marxists will disavow, just like all the others?

somewhere between the start of the yuppie revolution and the bursting of the housing bubble/financial meltdown of September 2008, some very wealthy white men decided to pursue philanthropy

Um, US philanthropy from the very wealthy started in the 80s? Really?

I guess I must’ve misread my history books, I could’ve sworn it started with people like Benjamin Franklin before the UDI

Its the American bWay!

Yup, it is, and always has been.

in creating this new nation, Americans were acting on behalf of, and for the benefit of, all mankind. “This” he wrote, “adds the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism.”

So, sorry Carl, can’t quite take an article seriously that’s predicated on attacking a new phenomena when the phenomena itself, rich Americans giving their money away, is one of the founding principles of the country and one of the objectives of the constitution and declaration.

Sure, there’d be better ways of doing things, but it’s the American Way, and while we don’t have to like it, that’s fine, we’re not Americans.

Michael Edwards wrote, “national health systems in Africa have been damaged by too much of a focus on getting drugs to people with HIV”. Later he wrote, “It’s time to pour the generosity of the rich and famous into national development funds under democratic control”. Bit illogical?

Not to mention that the money fountain might dry up if the philanthropists aren’t allowed to contribute where they see fit.

And that it seems illiberal to decide what to do with someone else’s money.

Incidentally Carl, are you a mind reader? I ask because there appears to be no evidence to support these statements of assertions about the motivations of philanthropists:

The charity element is a way to conceal the truth, a way to appease guilt, or at least to be perceived as appeasing guilt. … guilt-ridden exploration by fat cats, engaged in an ‘alms race’. …Charity may well be the means by which the rich West pretends to do something in order to sleep at night…

“statements of assertions?” Of course I mean one or t’other.

“indifferent middle class westerners ” “But the sort of indifferent charity ……”

You really don’t like indifference, do you? Anyway, how do you know that the people who contribute to charities in the West are all indifferent? You self righteous, patronising idiot.

“A rather simplified version of its history is as follows ……”

“Simplified” is one way to describe your version. “Somewhat at odds with reality” would be another, as would “total bollocks.” Rich people giving away money is a phenomenon born post 1980s is it? That assertion is so stupid it’s barely worth contradicting.

“…. wealthy white men ….”

Ah, the three deadly sins. You just need to use these words and we know something sinister’s going on.

“Bill Gates and George Soros the Chief Executives of Google, IBM, Intel and eBay. What is so unique about these characters is that they perceive themselves as philanthropists first and businessmen second”

The bastards! Fancy them handing over truckloads of cash to charities. Obviously they’re up to something. Obviously, at some point in the future, the definitive proof that the money they donated is actually causing irrevocable harm will be uncovered but, for the moment, let’s just keep pointing out that they’re rich white men. The implied sentiment in this refrain should be enough to make sure everyone stays on their guard.

“the social movements that can pressure their own governments to perform in the public interest and mobilise large numbers of people to defend their rights.”

Yes, and they’ve been spectacularly succesful so far, haven’t they? I mean, they must be the reason there’s no poverty in the world anymore.

This article is one of the more idiotic I’ve seen on this site, and it’s up against some pretty stiff competition. Having a go at a few rich people because they choose to make themselves slightly less rich by giving some of their, probably ill – gotten, wealth to the poor seems moderately stupid. Tacking on the “white – male” epithet for effect makes it rather more stupid. Labelling ordinary people who donate to charity “indifferent” and implying that their actions are making the lives of the people they want to help worse is stupidity of the first order. Well done.

It does seem racist and sexist to single out “wealthy white men” for attack rather than blacks and women too. There are after all a number of black philanthropists – why are you ignoring them?

It’s not clear what the OP is getting at, but its probably way off the mark.

What’s been interesting is some of the reaction to the Band Aid for arms allegations. A lot of people seem to have been confirmed in their view that there is no point to charity. The palpable sense of relief at not facing the moral quandary: to give or not to give, shines through the vitriol. Mean-spirited, yes. Wishful thinking, yes. So what is new?

The OP I think is the left-wing version of the same mean-spiritedness. Charity isn’t political, therefore it is a collaborator. Any excuse to not give.

Not that I’m in any position to have a go, I’m not a big giver either.

Re 7

Zimbabwe’s got nothing to do with Marxism, stop trolling and go actually read some Marx.

@14 I’d say, based on a possibly flawed understanding of Marx, that the former Soviet Union, China (either under Mao, immediately post – Mao or now), Yugoslavia, North Korea, Albania etc etc had/have little or nothing to do with Marxism either. They do, however, all have something in common.

But of course- don’t forget Zizek is a communist who doesn’t disavow the past but is quite happy to say that Stalin was ok and what we need now is a purge.

That’s the problem with this Carl- even your posts are to assuage Western guilt, your western guilt- the real issue is what are you going to do? The capitalists believe for whatever reason that the processes of capitalism lift people out of poverty and would cite examples of that happening- they would also suggest that charity helps in some circumstances. What model do you think would lift people out of poverty, how would you implement it, what would you actually do? Zizek has never come out with a proper program- what’s yours? Or do you like Zizek prefer to piss about on the outside, making oh so clever comments to an adoring audience of middle class intellectuals who are all feeling equally guilty, without ever thinking about how to build a well or construct an economy.

Re: 15

They certainly have dictatorship, corruption and isolationism in common, but you’d be wasting your time if you went to look for that stuff in Das Kapital.

@17 I wouldn’t have described the USSR or Yugoslavia (or China, these days) as isolationist but I don’t dispute your point (assuming I understand it correctly) that many (all?) regimes which present themselves as Marxist adopt some pretty unMarxist policies and that aspects of these regimes, such as dictatorship/oligarchy, suppression of individual liberties etc, tend to be seized upon by the under – educated and under – informed and presented as central tenets of Marxism when, in fact, they just aren’t.

The thing is, oppression in various forms does seem to be a recurring theme in states which purport to be Marxist. The argument, and I appreciate that I’m being a bit simplistic here, that such states have become oppressive because they have moved away from a true interpretation of Marx and that they can not, therefore, be used as examples to show that Marxism inevitably leads to oppressive regimes seems like an off the peg excuse. Baiscally, every time things go wrong just blame it on a departure from true Marxism and the integrity of Marxist ideology is preserved. It’s hard not to suspect that suppression of individual freedom and dictatorial forms of government are intrinsic to Marxism even though they are not explicitly mentioned in core texts.

Also, please don’t take any of this as a defence of the guy in post 7′s irrelevant comment about Zimbabwe. It’s not intended as such.

A few weeks back Lib Con ran an article attacking atheists and citing Freud and John Gray as authorities and I asked what next, Slavoj Žižek? And here he is! What did you do, look him up when you read his name?

Žižek is a crank, one of the last proponants of Jaques Lacan’s bullshit post-structuralist psychoanalysis. It’s another of those irrefutable theories in which any action automatically ‘proves’ the theory: white male capitalists act nakedly in their own self-interest? Well that’s a given in patriarchal capitalism. White male capitalists act philanthropically? Well, that just shows how devious the patriarchal capitalist system is because it’s all about satisfying white male guilt rather than aiding the needy. There’s fuck all anyone can do which can’t be twisted into self-interest.

And I might take ‘white male’ as a criticism the day critical theory stops citing Freud, Marx, Derrida, Lacan, Althusser and any number of dead white males as authorities.

‘The thing is, oppression in various forms does seem to be a recurring theme in states which purport to be Marxist’

The authoritarianism of the Marxist movement has been obvious since Marx himself expelled the anarchists from the Hague Congress in 1872. In fact the Communist Manifesto says that transport and media should fall under state control. The ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is a self-perpetuating tyranny supported by a euchronic fantasy of a future dissolution of the state which is always ‘not yet’.

“Whether certain figureheads for capitalism have a conscience or not is quite beside the point, what is important here, for Žižek, is that capitalism still has its underlying logic, and that is the ruthless pursuit of profit.”

Yup, ain’t it great? You make a profit by providing something that people value more than they’re swapping it for. Absolutely blindingly marvellous system.

It’s what made us fat rich and happy (by any historical standard), has caused the greatest reduction in poverty in the history of our entire species as East and South Asia climb aboard and, umm, wonder what the effects have been in Africa since they started to try this neo-liberalism thing in the 90s? You know, after the Washington Consensus was finally imposed upon them?

Hmm.

http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/pdfs/Africa_Paper_VX3.2.pdf

“The conventional wisdom that Africa is not reducing poverty is wrong. Using the
methodology of Pinkovskiy and Sala?i?Martin (2009), we estimate income distributions, poverty
rates, and inequality and welfare indices for African countries for the period 1970?2006. We
show that: (1) African poverty is falling and is falling rapidly. (2) If present trends continue, the
poverty Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people with incomes less
than one dollar a day will be achieved on time. (3) The growth spurt that began in 1995
decreased African income inequality instead of increasing it. (4) African poverty reduction is
remarkably general: it cannot be explained by a large country, or even by a single set of
countries possessing some beneficial geographical or historical characteristic. All classes of
countries, including those with disadvantageous geography and history, experience reductions
in poverty. In particular, poverty fell for both landlocked as well as coastal countries; for
mineral?rich as well as mineral?poor countries; for countries with favorable or with unfavorable
agriculture; for countries regardless of colonial origin; and for countries with below? or abovemedian
slave exports per capita during the African slave trade”

My word, that is nice, isn’t it?

A general, consistent, widespread gain in wealth….or fall in poverty, depending which way round you look at it….so what else do you actually want from a socio-economic system?

OK, let’s say you do demand other things from a socio-economics system. Can I at least suggest that you should demand this creation of wealth/reduction of poverty as a simple and basic minimum?

Great….now, know any other systems that do this?

No?

Right then, capitalism it is then, man exploiting man in the pursuit of profit in free and open markets. Strange but true, everywhere it’s happened the people have got rich.

Strange but true, everywhere it’s happened the people have got rich.
Not everybody.

To blame Marx for the Soviet Union is liking blaming Nietzsche for the Nazis. Yes they took ideas from the thinkers but not the complete template. I suggest you read Karl Marx by Francis Wheen. Marx remember believed in free markets but his analysis of capitalism made over 150 years ago is unnervingly correct.

‘The charity element is a way to conceal the truth, a way to appease guilt, or at least to be perceived as appeasing guilt.’

Pretty much covered all the bases there as even the noblest self-sacrifice can be PERCEIVED by someone as ‘appeasing guilt’. I mean, Ghandi – what a hypocrite. Starving himself to assuage his middle-class guilt.

This is sloppy argument. Start from the conclusion then construct a self-validating argument that links backwards to the flimsiest of evidence.

‘To blame Marx for the Soviet Union is liking blaming Nietzsche for the Nazis’

I don’t see how to interpret ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ as anything other than authoritarian.

The clue’s in the word ‘dictatorship’.

@23 “To blame Marx for the Soviet Union is liking blaming Nietzsche for the Nazis.”

No it isn’t.

Nazi Germany was, as the name pretty clearly suggests, a Nazi state. It wasn’t a Nietzschean state. It didn’t purport to base it’s social, economic and other policies solely on the ideas of Nietzsche, which is just as well, really since, in a number of areas important to public policy, he didn’t actually have any ideas. Or if he did, he kept them to himself.

The Soviet Union was a state controlled by the Communist Party. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union did purport to base it’s approach to policy on the writings of Marx. Now, you can say “Ah yes, but they weren’t true to Marx’s ideals. If they had been then the Soviet Union would have been very different” but you have to keep saying the same thing over and over again in relation to pretty much all of the states which have existed and which purported to be Marxist.

It would seem that one or two of you have missed the point. The philanthropy-based capitalism is an epochal phenomena, born in between the boom and (its next stage) bust. Interesting as it may look, I’ve made no attempts to work out why this compassion has emerged here, but none the less it has. Zizek does have logic, but here he is short of the mark. I agree with him that the ‘liberal communists’ (soros, gates, I didn’t make the name up) possibly do have their own interests in mind, but he makes no attempt to qualify that, or say whether this could be good or not.

Michael Edwards on the other hand has said something about this, and that the point of the philanthro-capitalists was to secure foreign funding, and was not about empowering people in corrupt countries or ensuring poor farmers get a proper wage. Moreover, it’s status, it personally offends me when rich people advertise the fact that they’ve donated to charity, as if to show, when in fact it shows how removed they are.

However, and this is a big however and where people have misunderstood, one cannot complain that rich people give to aids charities or something like that, and I made this clear in the last paragraph. The above still stands. The sef-satisfaction of charity cannot be ignored, and the fact that philanthro-capitalism has financial ends in its ‘altruistic’ means stirs me something nasty.