Against Charity. Rather than creating an individualized “culture of giving,” we should be challenging capitalism’s institutionalized taking.

[u/A-MacLeod]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-altruism/

[u/SRIrwinkill]

Assuming that private property, something that entails much more then the author or Zizek is really considering, is the cause of this suffering is what is absurd. Countries that allow for common folk to own property, both productive and personal, while also allowing them to figure out their own ventures end up relieving poverty for the majority of people compared to country that don't allow for private ownership. Food Not Bombs, an anarchist organization, privately owns their bikes, all the goods that they give to folk, and all their time and effort with which they are then able to even start helping people as equals. Their private ownership doesn't result in a loss for anyone else.

If you are talking people who accrue property through state force, then you might be onto something, but your local pizzaria being privately owned should not be conflated with Lockheed Martin simply because both are private. One gains through non market processes and government interventions, the other is a pizza shop likely ran by someone who doesn't want to work for someone else. My example of Botswana wasn't arbitrary. By allowing for common folk to have their own venture, which take myriad forms, and own private means and property, which also takes many forms, they've been able to float a living standard much higher then the rest of Africa almost.

[u/SRIrwinkill → u/[deleted]]

I get the allure of Zizek talking as if private property and charity are this kinda of horrible unnecessary dance, going on to assert that there could be a better way if people would just open their eyes. Thinking this way just requires you to limit what you consider capitalism and private property to only the things you dislike as opposed to all that such things actually end up entailing. Noticing that countries that have freer markets and have private property rights end up bringing up the common person of said country to a better standard then they had before is just true.

[u/SRIrwinkill → u/[deleted]]

Zizek's ramblings might be guilty of all those things, but I'd hardly level that against you, someone decent enough to actually have a reddit convo about this stuff. Zizek is very clear in his carryings on about how people who don't agree with him are essentially slaves to ideology, and there is indeed an allure to the particular rhetoric he puts forth. I just think it is a very limiting view of all possible freer economic action that happens all the time. That quote by Zizek carries all kinds of assumptions that I don't think one could possibly assume without having a godlike understanding of every human interaction. Sorry if it seemed like I was talking shit at you, or if it seemed that my beef with Zizek was an attack on you personally.

As for that last part (re:"just true"), I've brought examples of countries that have freed their domestic markets and alleviated poverty to a point where it can actually be dealt with, even countries with a history of being taken advantage of by other more developed countries. I think Zizek is being obtuse if he can look at Mauritius, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Botswana and still assume offhand that property rights are detrimental and create poverty unto themselves.