Post

this is absolutely perfectly said

Online mutual aid dares to ask “what if charity was distributed according to the recipients’ ability to accumulate clout and perform abjection on English language social media?”

The reason you want an actual humanitarian aid system and *don’t* want to force everybody to rely on online mutual aid is because online mutual aid *forces people experiencing horrific trauma* to perform on the Internet for survival.

Which is not to say that online mutual aid is therefore always bad or that it’s bad to participate in it, but we have to be very honest about how it creates a pretty brutal competition.

60 reposts951 likes

Exactly. They do have a lot more time to work on an online marketing strategy than people who are actually struggling to survive.

What I am really trying to say here is "this is exactly why USAID and the international aid system it once supported, which is now close to collapsing due to its destruction, was Good Actually"

Even within the official huamniatarian aid space, beneficiaries needed to show they met vulnerability criteria. This is a function of any operation with limited resources ($10m is still a limit). Success stories and other fundraising and/or reporting items created by NGOs include performance of need

This is also why I really don't care for how an increasing number of people on both the left and the right (and in between) now claim that mutual aid is *better* than existing aid organizations, and therefore we don't really need to prioritize saving them.

Faine Greenwood@faineg.com

I keep banging the “USAID was good and we must confront the obscene wave of death MAGA’s destruction of it unleashed” drum because I *desperately* want Democrats and the Left to prioritize rebuilding global aid. We should rebuild it better, but we can’t just let Musk’s global massacre continue.

The one time I saw Dean Spade speak in person, in a presentation that was promoted as "what is mutual aid & how we can do it", I was sincerely curious to hear how he would boil it down, and then... it was nothing. Literally 100% of the talk was "why charity nonprofits are bad"... (1/2)

...and 0.5% was "how we do better" (other than don't do nonprofits). It was very frustrating, and I do *not* think this was really all that Spade had to offer on the subject, but it was what he chose to focus on so completely that it made the talk nearly useless. (2/2)

what if we did mutual aid, but instead of making it optional, we made it mandatory, and collected via, say, paychecks. You could collect it based progressively, perhaps based on someone's income band. Then you could centrally organize the fund for efficiency, and have it managed by elected people

Agreeing with what Herbert Hoover would have wanted is pretty much always the wrong answer and I wish more people realized that.

Over-reliance on mutual aid (in US), iirc wealth studies, was one of the reasons it was exceptionally difficult for the poor to build any wealth. As taxpayer/etc based organized aid was removed they were the only ones doing it among themselves, informally/mutually.

Good write-up. It's the same thing as with taxes vs. "just leave it with the rich, they will donate to worthy causes". No. We've tried this and "depending on the good will of some people who have money" is simply a worse system than taking the money and then distributing it according to needs.

It’s almost like Robin Hood was a hero for a reason! But sincerely, #WhatIfDems efficiently pool resources to help people via government, rather than relying entirely on less-efficient ad hoc systems.

The other thing that individual appeals for aid can never benefit from are economies of scale - when entire communities need help, pooled and distributed donations can go a LOT further with centralized logistics and buying power

Don't forget scale. As good as mutual aid may be, it's orders of magnitude smaller than government programs. Even quality/targeting/politics/modality is better, it's small.

I’ve always thought if mutual aid as being something meant for neighbors and/or acquaintances or friend of a friend type thing. I’ve given money to folks I feel like I know well enough to know they’re a real human. Like giving money to a guy on the corner. Not a replacement for aid orgs.

I once gave a few dollars to someone who was asking because they just wanted to make a specific meal they didn’t have enough for. And I gave partly because it didn’t follow the script that one worries is exploited by scammers.