Nope. Your third point. I've said for sometime that in terms of political responsibilities and and actions national charities cushion the very changes they are against and offering help for. This is the irony, as you said, of food banks. They have been a socially driven, altruistic, enabler for the cruel and ideologically driven changes in DWP. I used to go as far as saying that there shouldn't be national charities, because they just shield people from the shortcomings of government. I used to feel that, essentially, I'd rather have some eggs broken before change rather than have people's altruism papering over the cracks -that if people are willing enough to give then surely that impetus could be re-directed to political change. But I'm less sure of this ultra-hard position now. Firstly, I think charity is now more about the giver than any sense of social justice. It is about viewing the suffering of celebrities or enjoying a marathon or overseas jaunt rather than the objects of charity. Also, I think charity is a janus faced form of social conservatism. A way to maintain inequality by small gifts to the less well off rather than risk the messy confrontations of social and political change.
There's a lot of truth in this, but I'd add a few things from personal experience of working at charities:
- It's necessary to distinguish between charities that largely replace services that it is generally accepted that government should provide one way or another, and those charities that provide services that would likely not be provided even by a left-oriented government (obviously what such a government would look actually like is a bit of a matter of conjecture at this stage in history, but...)
- It's a moot point as to whether, if the full consequences of the government's policies were on full show (for example if food banks didn't exist) this would spur people to action. I think things have to get very bad indeed before any serious political/social change takes place, much worse than they are now, and I don't think people respond rationally to the suffering of others.
- Following on from that, if charities are performing the work of cushioning people against the effects of government policy, then they should combine this with campaigning for social change. It doesn't have to be a choice between the two. The problem is that many charities are very weak on campaigning (sometimes due to the sources of their funding, but sometimes due to managerial social conservatism as you suggest).
- I think you're right that charity is often about the giver as well, but hasn't that always been true to an extent? Plus, there's a whole discussion to be had as to how to separate 'genuine' altruism from self-fulfilment through giving.