Excerpt of Condition of the Working Class in England, by Engels, 1845

from the section titled “The Attitude of the Bourgeoisie Towards the Proletariat”

Let no one believe, however, that the “cultivated” Englishman openly brags with his egotism. On the contrary, he conceals it under the vilest hypocrisy. What? The wealthy English fail to remember the poor? They who have founded philanthropic institutions, such as no other country can boast of! Philanthropic institutions forsooth! As though you rendered the proletarians a service in first sucking out their very life-blood and then practising your self-complacent, Pharisaic philanthropy upon them, placing yourselves before the world as mighty benefactors of humanity when you give back to the plundered victims the hundredth part of what belongs to them! Charity which degrades him who gives more than him who takes; charity which treads the downtrodden still deeper in the dust, which demands that the degraded, the pariah cast out by society, shall first surrender the last that remains to him, his very claim to manhood, shall first beg for mercy before your mercy deigns to press, in the shape of an alms, the brand of degradation upon his brow. But let us hear the English bourgeoisie’s own words. It is not yet a year since I read in the Manchester Guardian the following letter to the editor, which was published without comment as a perfectly natural, reasonable thing:

"MR. EDITOR,– For some time past our main streets are haunted by swarms of beggars, who try to awaken the pity of the passers-by in a most shameless and annoying manner, by exposing their tattered clothing, sickly aspect, and disgusting wounds and deformities. I should think that when one not only pays the poor-rate, but also contributes largely to the charitable institutions, one had done enough to earn a right to be spared such disagreeable and impertinent molestations. And why else do we pay such high rates for the maintenance of the municipal police, if they do not even protect us so far as to make it possible to go to or out of town in peace? I hope the publication of these lines in your widely- circulated paper may induce the authorities to remove this nuisance; and I remain,– Your obedient servant, “A Lady.”

There you have it! The English bourgeoisie is charitable out of self-interest; it gives nothing outright, but regards its gifts as a business matter, makes a bargain with the poor, saying: “If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery. You shall despair as before, but you shall despair unseen, this I require, this I purchase with my subscription of twenty pounds for the infirmary!” It is infamous, this charity of a Christian bourgeois! And so writes “A Lady”; she does well to sign herself such, well that she has lost the courage to call herself a woman! But if the “Ladies” are such as this, what must the “Gentlemen” be? It will be said that this is a single case; but no, the foregoing letter expresses the temper of the great majority of the English bourgeoisie, or the editor would not have accepted it, and some reply would have been made to it, which I watched for in vain in the succeeding numbers. And as to the efficiency of this philanthropy, Canon Parkinson himself says that the poor are relieved much more by the poor than by the bourgeoisie; and such relief given by an honest proletarian who knows himself what it is to be hungry, for whom sharing his scanty meal is really a sacrifice, but a sacrifice borne with pleasure, such help has a wholly different ring to it from the carelessly-tossed alms of the luxurious bourgeois.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch13.htm

  • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Exclusive power to provide charity is a common form of social control. From ancient middle eastern trading posts to Roman emperors to the catholic church to kings to the bourgeois. You must pay thanks to those who provide it and value them above others. Only they can do such good and be so right.

    • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think it’s more than just social control in the overt sense because it inculcates a sort of internalised social control in the recipient of charity (this also extends to welfare too.)

      If you’re a recipient of generosity or “benefits” then it naturally makes you feel ingratiated towards the benefactor and you’re less likely to hold animosity towards them, to demand more, or to rise up against them.

      Think about a job that pays you well above the market rates; you might hold some resentment towards the company or the bosses but generally you’re going to feel appreciative to the business because of your situation. The same can be said with Elon Musk’s grift about popularising electric cars or saving the environment - lots of people that were left-ish felt very positive towards him until he wore out that particular grift, at least.

      It’s psychological manipulation. Hence why so much socialist and unionist propaganda at the turn of last century was aimed at bringing workers around to the idea that they are entitled to all the products of their own labour.

      • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, absolutely.

        There is also an implicit threat: what happens if they stop or become more selective? Not only do they have psychological power of being benefactors, they get to define what it means to be worthy of aid.