Zizek's thoughts about ethical implications of charitable giving

http://www.youtube.com/video_response_view_all?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

I saw this interesting video that animates Slavoj Zizek's ideas on charitable giving. This is what he says on this topic:

Today’s capitalism is a cultural one. Enterprises like Starbucks and Toms Shoes promote ethical buying. We consume but our consumption is not only the purchase of an item, but also an ethical feeling such as contribution into fair trade, providing supplies for children in poverty, or environmental protection. But this price includes the price of its opposite:

Citing from Oscar Wilde, Zizek says it’s easier to have sympathy with the suffering than it is with thought. People find themselves surrounded by poverty, ugliness and starvation, and it is impossible to move without these feelings. They think they need to bring remedies for these. But remedy is not the cure; it is a part of the disease because in order to help the poor, we try to keep them alive, but this just prolongs the disease.

Thus he points that the real aim is to reconstruct the society without poverty. Altruistic values are considered to play an important role here. He says, “Worst slave owners are those who treat their slaves well”. That is why charity degrades and demoralizes. It is immoral to use the private property to alleviate the evils that result from it. So this is a different form of capitalism: not discarding the evil, but making it work for the good. It is a human and tolerant capitalism that brings welfare.

Zizek admits that this kind of thinking is misanthropic but he thinks it is much better than a “cheap, charitable optimism”. He remarks that charity is not bad, but we should also be aware that there is an element of hypocrisy there. It is good to help poor children, but acts which bring short-term solutions to their poverty also put them back into the situation which produced them.


I think it is true that charitable giving does not end a problem that affects people, or animals, or environment. But what can be a "complete" solution? Not doing anything does not sound like an answer. I am curious what you think about his ideas.

Isil