Galeano means that charity is the hegemonious class (top) giving to the proletarian classes (bottom), thus vertical (up-down), and that solidarity is is unity and care within one class, thus neither going up nor down, but rather left and right.
Why Galeano doesn't like charity from the top to the bottom is obvious - because it is humiliating, because it doesn't address the real issues, because it isn't genuine (often PR coups, see Trump offering to donate $5 million to any charity in return for Barack Obamas school records), etc.
I'm not a fan of Occupy, I knew it would capsize the second it emerged because it was filled with class collaboration and liberal concepts and ideas, but "rationalhub" is correct when s/he says that there is a big difference between "charity is bad" and "I dont believe in charity".
Charity isn't necessarily bad, but it shouldn't *have* to exist. It is a result of the material realities and conditions of the world we live in. And it does not address these issues, it is merely a pretty poor bandaid on a problem springing from the roots of all hierarchial and class systems.
Uh, if the quote is considered to be true, how would it become worse than Charity? It doesn't say "don't help others" - actually solidarity would imply that you're more obliged to help others than doing "charity" - and there would be no sense of superiority involved there. That's all.
That is Charity as traditionally construed (as a christian virtue). Charity as an action (which you were talking about originally) is: "The voluntary giving of help to those in need who are not related to the giver." [link](practice)
"char·i·ty /ˈCHaritē/ Noun The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need. Help or money given in this way."
charity is the rich giving whatever they feel like to the poor solidarity is helping the poor take from the rich
paul vi quoted st ambrose when he issued the populorum progressio encyclical you are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man but you are giving him back what is his you have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone the earth belongs to everyone not to the rich
what if i am the poor man? what if im the even man? or the rich man? giving in the spirit of giving for no gain what so ever is charity. and charity is Always good. i also believe the earth belongs to everyone no one owns earth sky or water. but a man/woman cannot live on earth Alone.
i m certainly not going to argue that those who give to charity are all evil people that would just be silly =]
the main difference is one of agency who is the subject and who is the object who performs the action and who is the target of the action
if the poor have to rely on charity to survive then they are not in control of their own lives someone else is the master of their destiny
while charity can certainly be performed out of the goodness of someone s heart i would say it is far from adequate by taking the side of the poor in their struggles by supporting and helping their actions then you are helping to put their destiny in their own hands making them the main characters in their own lives rather than a spectator in the determinations of their fates
by standing in solidarity with their struggle to survive they no longer have to starve while waiting for help they can take matters into their own hands even if the forces of oppression are against them
Well obviously you don't. That's not the point. If someone does Charity for feeling superior, it's still Charity. Which is why solidarity is preferred over Charity (according to Eduardo at least) where respect for the other individual by definition comes into picture. Just so that it's clear.
Glad to hear someone else agrees with this. This is the same Eduardo Galeano who wrote 'Open Veins of Latin America', yes? Great book, though I would definitely temper it's positions (vis a vis Latin America) with a healthy dose of Hernando de Soto.