Oxfam affair

[ALB]

The government has long wanted to get at Oxfam because of its documenting of the effects of capitalism and its (reformist) political campaigning against these. It looks like they are seizing the opportunity to try to put a stop to this and silence a critic.

[ALB]

Here's an example someone has sent in of the sort of information Oxfam puts out  that its opponents would dearly like not be heard:

Quote:

Richest 1 per cent hoover up bulk of new global wealth.Growing inequality resulted in 82 per cent of new global wealth going to the richest 1 per cent, last year, while the prosperity of the poorest half flatlined, an Oxfam report has shown.It means that if the £7.8trn increase in global wealth between July 2016 and June 2017, £6trn went to 75 billion people, while the bottom 3.7 million had no increase.This trend resulted in the sharpest increase in the number of billionaires ever recorded, to 2.043, with one created every two days, according to Oxfam's report, published ahead of the annual World Economic Forum of global political and business leaders in the Swiss si resort of Davos.The wealth of those billionnaires increased by £550bn over 12 months, it added.Mark Goldring, chief executive of Oxfam GB, said the statistics signal that "something is very wrong with the global economy"."The concentration of extreme wealth is not a sign of a thriving economy but a symptom of a system that is failing the millions of people on poverty wages who make our clothes and grow our food."He said change was essential if work was to be a "genuine route out of poverty." (Guardian, 22 January)

Without being a conspiracy theorist, it is not difficult to see why those who think that the present system is alright would seize on an opportunity to do down Oxfam.

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

The government has long wanted to get at Oxfam because of its documenting of the effects of capitalism and its (reformist) political campaigning against these. It looks like they are seizing the opportunity to try to put a stop to this and silence a critic.

I don't disagree that Oxfam have been a thorn in several governments' sides, however, I think it would be wrong to say that all that Socialsits can learn from this scandal is that governments like to use these situations to create a witch hunt,One of the characteristics of any kind of abuse is that there has to be a differential of power. If you look at the Weinstein case the differential between economic and status creates a power that allows the abuse to occur. If you look at the situation in the news today of Barry Bennell, the football coach, the power he had over the children he abused was considerable and it derived from economic power. You can look at the Child Sexual Exploitation scandals in Rochdale and Rotherham, as well as examinig the aid workers scandal, teh conclusion will always be the same, economic power is often a huge factor when these scandals break.Whllst politicians and the heads of charity claim that they will bring in regulation and put an end to this, as long as the current economic system prevails, the power differential associated with it and the potential for abuse this brings, will continue as long as that system prevails. Although it would be wrong to say that sexual abuse will disappear when capitalism disappears, the idea of the creation of a Socialist society, which removes economic power of one human being, gives us another reason to organise to get rid of this hateful system!

[ALB]

I still say that the Tories have been waiting for this chance to get at Oxfam. Remember this from the Daily Torygraph a few years ago?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10888966/Oxfam-MPs-shocked-by-disgraceful-political-campaigning.html

[alanjjohnstone]

Yes, the timing of this exposure does seem suspect and as plenty of informed commentators are saying – it isn't just Oxfam guilty of sex abuse.In France, we have the situation of the French army sex abuse in Central African Republic re-surfacing with charges being dismissed even though the French government admit it happened.http://www.africanews.com/2018/01/20/car-agitated-after-france-dismisses-sex-abuse-case-against-its-troops/However, we should look at the wider picture concerning NGOsBut we cannot overlook that NGOs are part of the machinery of rule that capitalism employs to alleviate and mitigate its problems even if they do perform "humanitarian" servicesHaiti is nick-named "The Republic of NGOs"See a recent post of mine here on "refugeestan" drawing attention to this quasi-state form NGOs have acquiredhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/refugeestanIn Africa, or blog has highlighted the contradictory roles NGOs playhttps://socialistbanner.blogspot.com/2007/06/ngos-so-far-so-terrible.htmlhttps://socialistbanner.blogspot.com/2015/05/ngos-white-dominance-and-lack-of-ethnic.htmlhttps://socialistbanner.blogspot.com/2007/11/ngos-no-agents-of-change.html

Quote:

One of the most important roles that the state performs in any society is to guarantee the conditions for the reproduction of those social relations that enable the ruling class to continue to rule. If the state fails in that essential function, then the future of the ruling class itself is threatened. The new ruling classes of post-colonial Africa soon learned the importance of that – and those who were slow to learn were quickly swept aside by coups d'etat or civil war. "Development" (or the political economy, more precisely) as defined by the ruling class was the process that would be used to ensure the reproduction of the required social relations that reproduced impoverishment and injustice for the many, and rapid accumulation of wealth for the few. The fact is that many NGOs have, unwittingly or willingly, inserted themselves over the last few decades as part of the very infrastructure of the political economy that reproduces the unequal social relations of post-colonial Africa.

 Yes, Oxfam has done a good job in pointing to inequalities of capitalism, but many others including government departments and Quangos have done the same.

[alanjjohnstone]

And an example of hypocrisy read this storyhttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43045126A sex-slave who had been refused sanctuary by HM Government,  

[Bijou Drains]

The primary lesson of enquiries into abuse is that perpetrators of abuse will deliberately target areas of work where they can have easy access to vulnerable potential victims. In the 60s 70s 80s and 90s, it was the clergy, youth organisations, teaching, etc. in later years it has been spotrs coaching, the media and TV, etc. It now appears that the "aid industry" is the area tha abusive people are attracted to. However the key element is that without the economic vulnerability that capitalism creates much of the vulnerability that attracts abusers would cease to exist.

[alanjjohnstone]

http://news.trust.org/item/20180214220424-8hctl/

Quote:

"We shouldn't turn Oxfam into a scapegoat. Oxfam isn't the only organization. No one is shielded from this type of situation," said Lespinasse, the former coordinator for the Support Group for Refugees and Repatriated Persons (GARR). "These are problems that we encounter in private institutions, in public institutions and in humanitarian circles," she said.

[ALB]

Oxfam tries to fight back:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/16/oxfam-boss-mark-goldring-anything-we-say-is-being-manipulated-weve-been-savaged 

Quote:

I ask if he thinks the anti-aid agenda is at the root of the attacks on Oxfam. “The intensity and the ferocity of the attack makes you wonder, what did we do? We murdered babies in their cots? Certainly, the scale and the intensity of the attacks feels out of proportion to the level of culpability. I struggle to understand it. You think: ‘My God, there’s something going on there.’” Is it that political opponents of international aid – the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel – are exploiting Oxfam’s crisis? He hesitates. “Others are better to judge whether that’s right or wrong. I don’t think it’s right for Oxfam to say that at the moment, because even that feels self-serving. What I’m really concerned about is that this is not used as an approach to attack aid.” But it already is. “Yes. It is.”In December, Goldring was criticised for writing in the New Statesman that most of the globe’s new wealth has gone to the richest 1%. Does he think that has anything to do with the current political backlash against Oxfam? “Part of our mission,” he replies carefully, “is to challenge the things that keep people poor. You don’t resolve people’s poverty by helping with a school and a well and a nurse, if that’s all you do. We go beyond that and say, what’s keeping people poor? We challenge that and a lot of people don’t like that.” If Oxfam’s crisis is politically motivated, it’s working.

I would have thought, though, that the damage has been done. That it's mission accomplished to discredit Oxfam for asking this question (even if what they propose should be done about it is quite inadequate).

[Ike Pettigrew]

In my opinion, charities are a business – and they seem to act like it, at all levels. Development has become an industry in its own right.

[Author]

Posts