| |
|
Oh, I entirely agree that it's absolutely a both/and; but Anna appeared to me (and do correct if I'm wrong) characterizing it as an either/or.
Looking at the paragraph
...charity is a rich man's excuse for capitalism. Charity is voluntary thus we should not need charity in this world, we should all be made to give to those poorer than us and I think it's a shame that Bono with all of that money he's made believes in charity and not in redistribution of wealth
doesn't seem to leave much room for argument.
(This may be because I have a gut feeling that when Anna says "redistribution of wealth," she's talking about a solution more sweeping than a tweaking of the progressive income tax system. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the words "against," "wall," and "motherfuckers" may play a part in that solution. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)
But while we're arguing the merits of a mixed economy vs. Chinese-style Marxism, kids are dying. While we're fomenting revolution, smashing the State, and sneering that buying into the very notion of "charity" is propping up a corrupt capitalist system, kids are dying.
So isn't it conceivable that Bono thinks it more pragmatic, more practical, to do what he can within the limits of the System as it exists while working to change it (within his limitations) rather than putting all his eggs in the basket of its overthrow? Yes, yes, I know, Everything will be Better when the Revolution comes... but, y'know, Wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first, as my old granny never said. Better instead to start where you are, with what you have, no?
And I think choice does matter: I think free will does matter. Even if what you are being forced or i>made to do is unquestionably the Right Thing, there is something in the human spirit that bristles at compulsion.
I spent part of last night looking for the article online, but no luck—but in 1992 or 1993, Richard Sullivan wrote a profile of the Ben & Jerry's ice cream company for Rolling Stone. Ben & Jerry's was/is (far more at the time the article was written than now) at the forefront of so-called "caring capitalism"—a comparatively large amount of its pre-tax profits go to a variety of charitable foundations and organizations, it had a fair-wage proportional policy, et cetera. A pretty good place for a liberal/socially conscious person to work, you'd think.
Now, here's where I'm fuzzy on the details—there was some condition of employment that employees either volunteered time or donated a portion of their paycheck to a worthycause. But here's the kicker: it had to be a pre-approved worthy cause, from the Official Corporate Worthy Cause List.
And some of the employees, perhaps surprisingly, got kind of pissed off about that. But not because they were uncharitable: in fact, quite the opposite—they had their own Causes,which were not included on the Corporate List, meaning that the Company had presumably deemed those Causes to be un-Worthy. And some employees felt that they should be free to decide for themselves what causes were Worthy and not—not that they felt that the Causes on the Official List were un-Worthy, mind you, but because they preferred to make such decisions themselves, in the manner of adults.
Of course, in the abstract, they were still free to do so. But their decisions would not be supported (financially or morally) by the Company, which had proclaimed itself in the vanguard of building a Finer World, and would have to be made over and abov the mandatory donations stipulated by the Company, to Causes approved by the Company.
So, yeah. Funny thing. People like to be part of a Cause, sure, but there are ways to do it that don't infantilize them. |
|
|
