Charities in a communalist society

In the old “socialist states”, charity was an offence. The existence of charity would expose how the state was failing in its mission “to provide everyone according to their needs.” But how do you define “needs”? How do you quantify them in a clear enough way to be actionable in law? And should we trust the state to be this “universal provider”?

Communalists and Left Libertarians have little time for a big state. But then they have to answer the question: “Who will take care of the poor?” In the UK as in most developed countries, the largest item in the state budget is not the military, not investment in infrastructure, not education, it is welfare. It is taking care of the poor. Who, if not the state and its impersonal bureaucracy, funded by heavy taxation, will pay out pensions, unemployment benefits, disability support, housing assistance, healthcare, and childcare?
In any well-functioning society, individuals help each other. Charity was always a moral obligation, both between blood-related persons and towards strangers. In the Western world, churches saw it as part of their vocation. Throughout the 19th century, wealthy individuals funded most of the largest charities that still exist today. The benefits they provided were miserable, but so was the standard of living of the time, not above that of today’s poorest countries and marked by spectacular inequalities.

Is there a place for charities in a communalist left-libertarian world? Self-organised groups, mutual aid societies, self-managed housing, communal farms, can provide the essentials. The rich (if they are allowed to keep their wealth – but who, if not the state will take it away?), the rich could set up large charities, but unlike the rich in the 19th century, those today seem to make secession, they feel no responsibility to the world. Can Communalists change that attitude? Should they?

Whatever the regime, it will have to address the biggest social problem of all – demographics. As evidenced in the chart here.
Too many young people not yet productive, too many old people no longer productive, and not enough people in the middle to support both groups.
Further reading: What to do with the rich by Christian Michel
What to do with the rich