Is charity a dirty word?

Charity for me is something handed out from the haves to the have-nots. The givers, whether they are wealthy individuals, religious groups or even ordinary people get to feel good about themselves. They can polish their self image and tell themselves they are good people, even if they spend the rest of the week exploiting their employees and ripping off customers or fellow believers.
The recipients of charity get to feel demeaned and diminished, forced to beg for help and to hope they are one of the prefered good causes of the 'philanthropists' currently so praised by politicians of all pastel shades.
That is one of the key failings of charity, it is not help handed out to those most in need, it is help given to those causes rich individuals or organisations with a particular religious or social agenda decide are worthy of help.
Charity is not only a cold and shameful thing for the recipient, it is discriminatory and benefits the giver at least as much as the recipient - even without a tax break.
The proper way for a society to look after its people, culture, landscape and whatever else is precious to the members of that society is collectively.
That means all the members of that society making a contribution through the tax system which is commensurate with the individual's means and collectively sufficient to do whatever is necessary.
That is how a civilised society looks after its poor, sick and weak, defends its borders, polices its citizens, educates the young and cares for the old.
In America the total tax take is smaller than ours and those in need depend much more on the whims of philanthropists. The result is more homeless, hopeless people at the bottom of the pile.
In Scandinavian countries the total tax take is larger than ours, around 50% of income. They have universal health care and education, proper pensions for the retired and a social security system that doesn't produce abject poverty.
This government wants to drive us towards the American approach. If they succeed the poor, the old and the sick will be increasingly beholden to the whims of eccentric millionaires and extreme religions.
I have no liking for 'philanthropy' I want a society that looks after all its members properly and equally. That means taxation and more of it. If it falls more heavily on the rich, as it should, they must stop whingeing and see it for what it is - enforced philanthropy for the benefit of the society which has rewarded them so well.

A matter of class

George Galloway's humiliation of Labour in Bradford highlights one distinction between socialist parties and Labour - a willingness to ackowledge that class is not a thing of the past.
New Labour under the slimy Tony Blair and friends began the drift away from the party's working class roots by deciding they couldn't get elected as the party of the working class because key middle ground voters didn't want to be identified as working people. They made the cynical decision that those who still saw themselves as working class had nowhere else to go so it was OK to sell out to middle England with all it's pretentions and prejudice.
That was probably true but Milliband would be deluded if he calculates that him and his current batch of university educated, middle class, well-heeled ministers and MPs can continue to depend on the loyalty of the mass of working class voters.
Quite apart from those running into the disturbing embrace of the far right, an increasing number are realising Labour has abandoned them for the white van men who see no further than the next hike in petrol prices and need to be wooed by regular attacks on the poor (scroungers) and non whites (asylum seekers).
If Labour wishes to return to its roots, a large if, then it needs to return to the analysis of class, especially at a time when the redefined upper classes, judged by wealth as well as birth these days, is unashamedly tipping the balance in favour of capital and the controllers if wealth by removing or selling off anything owned by society as a whole and benefiting the poor more than the rich. That runs from reducing the rights of unions to selling off the NHS. Difficult, of course, as Blair and Brown had been doing something very similar.
Most of all - instead of abandoning class - we need to revisit the concept of class.
We may no longer have legions of blue collar workers. Instead they wear suits and work in call centres or office jobs, or they wear uniforms and help Tesco make its billions.
The problem is that many of those people have been conned into believing they are not part of the working class.
A socialist Labour Party would be working with the unions to recruit that mass of white collar working class people, explaining how they are being exploited and convincing them that by joining together they can and should challenge the owners of capital.
This country is still overwhelmingly working class, even if the bank workers, shop salespeople, call centre employees and other labourers at the technology workface have been encouraged to see themselves differently.
The task facing Labour is to out itself at the head of an angry new, white collar working class and teach them that having to wear a tie doesn't turn them into little Tories.
Stand up for these working people, encourage them to join unions, tell them they should and must stand together against rapacious employers.
It is still all about class, us and them, and Labour's tragedy us that has allowed the Tories to change perceptions, ever since Thatcher's massive con-trick of council house sales.
Time to reattach testicles, get some real working class people at the top and claim back the working class voter, whatever they currently think they are.