The Energon Pub

Do you think there is a difference between charity and socialism, and if so, what is the difference?


This little issue has been kicking around in my head for a little while now, so I was wondering what you guys thought
of it.

A little later on, after a few people have posted, I'll chime in with what I came up with as the answer.

Charity is voluntary giving of money, resources, time, etc. Socialism is mandatory giving of ditto. The only difference is that one is a choice while the other is a requirement. But in theory, both try to achieve the same goal by assisting the lower class.

The Forum Drunk wrote:Charity is voluntary giving of money, resources, time, etc. Socialism is mandatory giving of ditto. The only difference is that one is a choice while the other is a requirement. But in theory, both try to achieve the same goal by assisting the lower class.

In theory, Socialism attempts to level the field so all classes are the same. It, quite simply, does not work. Socialism only puts a strain on government sources, it strains the tax payers, and will most likely collapse the economy. Why anyone would want this is beyond me.

The Forum Drunk had it right. One is voluntary and the other is forced.

Charity concerns an individual trait, and an admirable one, whereas socialism is about leveling wealth and opportunity among groups. Voluntary versus forced is a poorly applicable description of the difference, since it treats socialism in terms of individual giving. In an anarchic society, they might argue that the difference between skillfully resolving disputes among friends and serving on a jury revolves around voluntary versus forced action. We might respond that they have confused an admirable trait with an aspect of citizenship necessary for a fair justice system. Similarly, relating socialism to charity only makes sense in a mindset contrary to socialist principles.

The pronouncement that socialism simply does not work has always struck me as puzzling, given that we have socialist democracies throughout the world that have done very well for themselves. Knocking down the sometimes idealized portrait of the most successful examples in Europe doesn't diminish that they have strong economies and populaces that are well taken-care of.

None of this argues for socialism; it only argues that it is not simply a coerced version of charity and that idle pronouncements of its unworkability as a system in such terms stand contrary to its history.

Ikavadas, Loki, and Forum Drunk pegged it. The difference is primarily one of choice versus coercion.

Menbailee, you definitely have a point regarding the difference in scale of charity and socialism, but I was thinking about the question in regards to the person giving whatever it is they are giving. I should have made that clear to begin with.

However, I must respectfully disagree with you in regards to socialism's effectiveness. Maybe there are socialist democracies that do well. However, the odds are stacked against them, especially since socialism puts more power and resources in control of the government. As we all know, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There are many types of socialism, but one is better than others, namely democracy socialism. It doesn't need to gain absolute political power like much socialist systems do, especially communism or dictatorship. The main issue is just the distribution of resources to feed the whole country without leaving a huge gap.

In a pure capitalistic system, the market controls the whole economy. In the other hand, a socialistic system allows the government to take control some vital infrastructures (ex: energy, information, food industry, transportation, etc), so the people will benefit even more.

Meanwhile, charity is not a system. It's more of an individual initiative to make the world a better place.

You need some socialism mixed in witht Capitalism. Would pure capitalism eliminate charities?

GetterDragun wrote:You need some socialism mixed in witht Capitalism. Would pure capitalism eliminate charities?

Man I hope not.. Then no more 501st troops..

GetterDragun wrote:You need some socialism mixed in witht Capitalism. Would pure capitalism eliminate charities?

i doubt it, companies might make donations in order to win public trust/loyalty/market share much like Tesco's equipment for schools thing, where each pound spent in gives you a school voucher, schools can then redeem these vouchers for equipment for sports, computers, etc.

it's good for corporate reputation, and a good reputation is good for sales.