Due to things going on in my life I haven't posted in a really long time. I almost don't feel like I know how to do it anymore!
Also, for some reason, I haven't really felt like I've had much to say. That might mean that I am surrounding myself with too many people/viewpoints that correspond to my own. Maybe I'm even getting lazy because other people can formulate my thoughts for me.
One extraneous thing that I HAVE done is independent/amateur research on think tanks. I've been interested in seeing how the networks of different ideologies and political strategies are institutionally manifested. This is part of my long-term goal of more thoroughly dissecting the structure of power in the modern world. (Parasitically, of course. I will almost always have to rely on the work of others)
My starting point for this little project of mine was come up with a list of U.S. think tanks and then look at:
1) Individual and corporate backing
2) Membership and affilliations
3) Associated media
4) Connections to activist organizations
As I started to putting this information together, I saw that the think tanks on my list clustered into a number of groups sharing some characteristics.
My plan is to describe each group in successive posts.
Stay tuned.
Showing posts with label non-profits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non-profits. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The People United... or, Divide and Conquer
This post is based on my sentiments about reform movements, the welfare state, and the non-profit sector.
I have argued that many people who genuinely desire to do good are coopted by the system and end up wasting all of their time and energy. I find this very frustrating; it seems there is enough will to change the system, but everyone is directing their efforts in different (and ineffective) directions.
In general, I believe changes made within the system (increasing minimum wage, improving funding for education, giving money and loans to the impoverished, legalizing gay marriage, raising taxes, cutting taxes, improving healthcare coverage, and so on) are merely cosmetic and fail to address the underlying issues, and therefore are necessarily of limited scope, both in terms of breadth and duration. These types of reforms only endorse and pereptuate an unjust system and lay the groundwork for future hardships and challenges faced by the oppressed.
What is fundamentally at issue is NOT money, or technology, or policy. The heart of the issue is relationships. Our global society is based on relations of exploitation - including, but not limited to, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and slavery. In fact, capitalism is impossible without some form of slavery, whether characterized as free labor or lack of self-determination. Although slavery has legally been abolished, capitalists have devised other means of obtaining free labor - internships and prison labor are a couple of examples. Some companies, like Walmart, have been accused of simply not paying their employees for all hours worked.
But believe it or not, the "dependency" form of slavery is both more widespread and more troubling. Most of the Third World has been forced into dependency relationships with the industrial powers. They are barely able to exert control over their own affairs. Many Third World citizens do not have any choice about what to produce or how to make their living. Their livelihood is determined by an international agenda. Sweatshops, plantations, and mines abound. Recent outrage over the Foxconn expose proves my point about the narrow scope of the reform attitude. People acted like this was the only place in the world where these conditions existed. They treated it as a problem of a single corporation, when it is the nature of our entire manufacturing system. And they pressed for some minor changes within Foxconn, ultimately leaving those workers on the assembly line and everyone else in the world out in the cold.
Clearly some of these changes make some difference in some people's lives. But my question is this. What if ALL of the time and energy expended in calling for and implementing these reforms, all of the people who belong to non-profits, NGOs, transnational organizations, and grassroots campaigns, came together and united for a single cause. What if everyone challenged the system itself? If all efforts were directed at ending this exploitative system... could it actually be transformed?
The image that comes to my mind is slaves on a plantation, petitioning to be allotted 300 more calories per day, rather than revolting or escaping to freedom.
I have argued that many people who genuinely desire to do good are coopted by the system and end up wasting all of their time and energy. I find this very frustrating; it seems there is enough will to change the system, but everyone is directing their efforts in different (and ineffective) directions.
In general, I believe changes made within the system (increasing minimum wage, improving funding for education, giving money and loans to the impoverished, legalizing gay marriage, raising taxes, cutting taxes, improving healthcare coverage, and so on) are merely cosmetic and fail to address the underlying issues, and therefore are necessarily of limited scope, both in terms of breadth and duration. These types of reforms only endorse and pereptuate an unjust system and lay the groundwork for future hardships and challenges faced by the oppressed.
What is fundamentally at issue is NOT money, or technology, or policy. The heart of the issue is relationships. Our global society is based on relations of exploitation - including, but not limited to, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and slavery. In fact, capitalism is impossible without some form of slavery, whether characterized as free labor or lack of self-determination. Although slavery has legally been abolished, capitalists have devised other means of obtaining free labor - internships and prison labor are a couple of examples. Some companies, like Walmart, have been accused of simply not paying their employees for all hours worked.
But believe it or not, the "dependency" form of slavery is both more widespread and more troubling. Most of the Third World has been forced into dependency relationships with the industrial powers. They are barely able to exert control over their own affairs. Many Third World citizens do not have any choice about what to produce or how to make their living. Their livelihood is determined by an international agenda. Sweatshops, plantations, and mines abound. Recent outrage over the Foxconn expose proves my point about the narrow scope of the reform attitude. People acted like this was the only place in the world where these conditions existed. They treated it as a problem of a single corporation, when it is the nature of our entire manufacturing system. And they pressed for some minor changes within Foxconn, ultimately leaving those workers on the assembly line and everyone else in the world out in the cold.
Clearly some of these changes make some difference in some people's lives. But my question is this. What if ALL of the time and energy expended in calling for and implementing these reforms, all of the people who belong to non-profits, NGOs, transnational organizations, and grassroots campaigns, came together and united for a single cause. What if everyone challenged the system itself? If all efforts were directed at ending this exploitative system... could it actually be transformed?
The image that comes to my mind is slaves on a plantation, petitioning to be allotted 300 more calories per day, rather than revolting or escaping to freedom.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Absorbing the Resistance
One way in which the socio-economic hierarchy (and the large-scale impoverishment of much of the human population that it entails) has managed to perpetuate itself throughout the development of capitalism must be credited to the way in which various actors interested in maintaining (or exaggerating) the status quo have strategically redirected and absorbed the resistance movements that have cropped up in the past couple centuries, making sure that none presented any series challenge to the system. Potential resistance elements are used to clean up and contain the damage caused by capitalism (the band-aid approach), such that they are essentially working to support the system, further its viability, rather than change it.
I could perhaps expand this discussion beyond capitalism, looking at resistance and the political-economic order prior to the development of capitalism. However, partly due to the limitations of my own knowledge, I stick to the capitalist era.
The Welfare State
The first rumblings of resistance (in the 18th and early 19th centuries) came primarily from within the ranks of the newly formed working class. The workers were being paid next to nothing, their working conditions were abysmal. The revolts that accompanied the emergence of capitalism had the potential of disrupting the whole project, of putting an end to it before it even began. If it were not for the engineering of the welfare state, this would likely have been the case.
The welfare state looks, on the surface, like a simple compromise between the workers and the capitalists. Particularly so if you, like the workers, view the state within the framework of social contract ideology, rather than seeing it as a tool of the capitalist class. In fact, the birth of the welfare state is more the solidification of a relationship between the capitalist class and the state which has more or less held, albeit with increasing complexity, since that time, wherein the state is used as a means to diffuse risk (for example, in the welfare state, by subsidizing the cost of labor, pacifying the workers, etc.).
The Technocrats
As these workers' struggles continued in waves, before essentially petering out after the Depression of the 1930s, another group of potential defectors was emerging (throughout the 19th century before reaching an apex in the early 20th, coinciding with the second phase of capitalism). These were educated, science-minded, socialist-leaning professionals. Socialist, but not Marxist. They believed strongly in the welfare state, and sought to expand its functions to include technical administration of population and territory for the purpose of increasing productivity, efficiency, health, and happiness. Their "socialist utopia" was one in which bureaucratic experts managed and ordered all aspects of human life, mitigating the harmful effects of capitalist industrialization (pollution, disease, poverty, crime). Their primary goal was to root out sources of pathology: to decrease pollution, to eradicate disease, to remove and/or rehabilitate the "criminal elements" in society. However, they never addressed the real causes of any of these "pathological" elements.
The technocrats were easy to take care of. Since they, too, held faith in the state's ability to solve social problems, they were effortlessly absorbed into the state. Government agencies were created so that they could apply their expertise in public health, urban planning, criminology, environmental science, social work, pyschology, sociology, etc. As part of, or in alliance with, the state, they tinkered away, implementing haphazard projects at worst, taking some of the sting out of the harshest aspects of capitalism at best, but all the while they were supporting the forms of domination (the state, industrialization, science, bureaucracy) responsible for the ills of the current world order. Like the welfare state, governmental bureaucracy and its technocrats are still part of the political-economic infrastructure.
Foundations and Nonprofits
Following WW2, with the third major phase of capitalist development, another group has risen to the fore. These are people who would be technocrats - they are practically interchangable - yet they choose to work "outside" of the state. In part, they view independence from larger governing structures as a way to maintain the authenticity and progressive ethos of their movement. The rise of nonprofits (a very large profileration in the post-WW2 era) has also been a means by which the burden of bureaucratic governance and responsibility for mopping up the messes of capitalism has been transferred away from the state and consequently been "privatized."
The function of foundations - essentially large corporate tax shelters that also, to a much smaller degree, serve as a source of funding for nonprofits - ensures that the nonprofit organizations with the most resources will pursue projects in compliance with corporate interests. Hence, nonprofits may nominally be "independent," but the reality is that they are dependent upon states and corporations for funding, both of whom then control the agendas of these organizations.
The common thread among all these resistance movements is that they have all sought solutions within the state, all tried to work within power structures rather than trying to fundamentally challenge them. They have expended a large amount of resources and energy making minor adjustments to, but leaving basically intact, the structures of domination by which they are oppressed. A lot of human effort that could have been used for systemic change, wasted on small "tweaks."
I could perhaps expand this discussion beyond capitalism, looking at resistance and the political-economic order prior to the development of capitalism. However, partly due to the limitations of my own knowledge, I stick to the capitalist era.
The Welfare State
The first rumblings of resistance (in the 18th and early 19th centuries) came primarily from within the ranks of the newly formed working class. The workers were being paid next to nothing, their working conditions were abysmal. The revolts that accompanied the emergence of capitalism had the potential of disrupting the whole project, of putting an end to it before it even began. If it were not for the engineering of the welfare state, this would likely have been the case.
The welfare state looks, on the surface, like a simple compromise between the workers and the capitalists. Particularly so if you, like the workers, view the state within the framework of social contract ideology, rather than seeing it as a tool of the capitalist class. In fact, the birth of the welfare state is more the solidification of a relationship between the capitalist class and the state which has more or less held, albeit with increasing complexity, since that time, wherein the state is used as a means to diffuse risk (for example, in the welfare state, by subsidizing the cost of labor, pacifying the workers, etc.).
The Technocrats
As these workers' struggles continued in waves, before essentially petering out after the Depression of the 1930s, another group of potential defectors was emerging (throughout the 19th century before reaching an apex in the early 20th, coinciding with the second phase of capitalism). These were educated, science-minded, socialist-leaning professionals. Socialist, but not Marxist. They believed strongly in the welfare state, and sought to expand its functions to include technical administration of population and territory for the purpose of increasing productivity, efficiency, health, and happiness. Their "socialist utopia" was one in which bureaucratic experts managed and ordered all aspects of human life, mitigating the harmful effects of capitalist industrialization (pollution, disease, poverty, crime). Their primary goal was to root out sources of pathology: to decrease pollution, to eradicate disease, to remove and/or rehabilitate the "criminal elements" in society. However, they never addressed the real causes of any of these "pathological" elements.
The technocrats were easy to take care of. Since they, too, held faith in the state's ability to solve social problems, they were effortlessly absorbed into the state. Government agencies were created so that they could apply their expertise in public health, urban planning, criminology, environmental science, social work, pyschology, sociology, etc. As part of, or in alliance with, the state, they tinkered away, implementing haphazard projects at worst, taking some of the sting out of the harshest aspects of capitalism at best, but all the while they were supporting the forms of domination (the state, industrialization, science, bureaucracy) responsible for the ills of the current world order. Like the welfare state, governmental bureaucracy and its technocrats are still part of the political-economic infrastructure.
Foundations and Nonprofits
Following WW2, with the third major phase of capitalist development, another group has risen to the fore. These are people who would be technocrats - they are practically interchangable - yet they choose to work "outside" of the state. In part, they view independence from larger governing structures as a way to maintain the authenticity and progressive ethos of their movement. The rise of nonprofits (a very large profileration in the post-WW2 era) has also been a means by which the burden of bureaucratic governance and responsibility for mopping up the messes of capitalism has been transferred away from the state and consequently been "privatized."
The function of foundations - essentially large corporate tax shelters that also, to a much smaller degree, serve as a source of funding for nonprofits - ensures that the nonprofit organizations with the most resources will pursue projects in compliance with corporate interests. Hence, nonprofits may nominally be "independent," but the reality is that they are dependent upon states and corporations for funding, both of whom then control the agendas of these organizations.
The common thread among all these resistance movements is that they have all sought solutions within the state, all tried to work within power structures rather than trying to fundamentally challenge them. They have expended a large amount of resources and energy making minor adjustments to, but leaving basically intact, the structures of domination by which they are oppressed. A lot of human effort that could have been used for systemic change, wasted on small "tweaks."
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Book Review: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded
The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-profit Industrial Complex is a must-read! In sum, it outlines the way in which progressive social justice movements have become organized along capitalist lines in such a way that their projects serve to uphold the status quo rather than foment real social change. It is a great example of the way in which non-profits compose a part of the physical infrastructure that enables the illusion of "democracy."
The essays in this volume detail the relationship between non-profit organizations and their sources of funding, including the U.S. government and foundations. The latter are examined in critical detail and exposed as a sort of tax shelter, in which large corporations and wealthy individuals can store their income without paying taxes, and only need to pay out a small fraction each year on actual projects. The vast majority of foundations' wealth is unspent and untaxed. Furthermore, with the leverage over the work of non-profits that the grant process affords to these foundations, they have been able to redirect and dilute movements for radical social change.
While the book reveals the extent of capitalists' abilities to manage and control society for their own benefit, penetrating even forces of resistance, many of the essays also provide guidance and positive solutions to circumvent the non-profit-industrial complex. At times, the essays may also seem slightly repetative and redundant, yet it is overall a very worthwhile read!
The essays in this volume detail the relationship between non-profit organizations and their sources of funding, including the U.S. government and foundations. The latter are examined in critical detail and exposed as a sort of tax shelter, in which large corporations and wealthy individuals can store their income without paying taxes, and only need to pay out a small fraction each year on actual projects. The vast majority of foundations' wealth is unspent and untaxed. Furthermore, with the leverage over the work of non-profits that the grant process affords to these foundations, they have been able to redirect and dilute movements for radical social change.
While the book reveals the extent of capitalists' abilities to manage and control society for their own benefit, penetrating even forces of resistance, many of the essays also provide guidance and positive solutions to circumvent the non-profit-industrial complex. At times, the essays may also seem slightly repetative and redundant, yet it is overall a very worthwhile read!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)