Social Activism, Not Socialism, Gets Results

To the Editor:

I am a lifelong volunteer with children’s organizations and a certified secondary educator, and I hold a master’s in nonprofit management. Just recently I realized what the groups I volunteer with have in common: They give children the tools to struggle, lose sometimes, challenge themselves, and ultimately achieve.

Achievements are relative to the individuals. I like action, empowerment, saying no to the odds, and making things happen. That is what our country is based on. This is why I dislike it when self-proclaimed social do-gooders admonish achievers for enjoying their rewards too much.

This was explicit in the article “Has ‘Philanthrocapitalism’ Met Its Promise?” (May 1).

Michael Edwards touts socialism as the savior of the modern age. He discounts the idea that “methods drawn from business can solve social problems.” Instead he asserts that the solutions to the world’s ills are “social values rooted in love, solidarity, and sharing.”

Perhaps he should read another fabulous testament to the concept of a nonmonetary form of philanthrocapitalism printed in the April 17 edition of your publication, “Fired Up and Ready to Grow,” by Suzanne Perry.

Public Allies is a nonprofit that teaches “young people from a variety of ethnic and economic backgrounds” how to “take their passions and skills and turn them into a viable career” that in turn helps others.

It takes on the mission of teaching people how to be leaders, to find the cause they truly embrace, work, become creative, then by a sort of charismatic phenomenon, draw others to champion their causes. It is not out of force or guilt, only desire.

The key is, first, the individual fulfills the self, and then he or she can give back to others. It just so happens that as a result of their self-fulfillment, an outpouring of social activism, not socialism, results. Everybody wins.

Mr. Edwards prefers the method of telling people how much they can achieve, how satisfied they can be with the results of their work, and then determining how much of the fruits of their work will be arbitrarily given to those whom the do-gooders think are more worthy. He states: “The world needs more cooperation, not competition; more collective action, not individualism; and a greater willingness to work together.”

Mr. Edwards needs to read up on famous points of American history, such as the Boston Tea Party and the backlash of the Stamp Act. Attempted seizure of other people’s assets tightens their grip, not loosens it.

Christine Schramm
Pittsburgh