[A-List] Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions? Part 2 of 2

[james daly]

        ZNet | Activism

        Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions?
        Part 2 of 2

        by Michael Barker; September 09, 2007

    Part one of this article reviewed some of the ways by which liberal 
philanthropists work to co-opt the activities of progressive groups all over 
the world. This second part of the article will continue to review the 
recent literature pertaining to the insidious anti-radicalising activities 
of liberal philanthropists and their foundation, and conclude by offering 
suggestions for how progressive activists might begin to move beyond the 
Non-Profit Industrial Complex.

    Defanging the Threat of Civil Rights

    The 1960s civil rights movement was the first documented social movement 
that received substantial financial backing from philanthropic 
foundations.[28] As might be expected, liberal foundation support went 
almost entirely to moderate professional movement organizations like, the 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and their Legal 
Defense and Education Fund, the Urban League, and foundations also helped 
launch President Kennedy's Voter Education Project.[29] In the last case, 
foundation support for the Voter Education Project was arranged by the 
Kennedy administration, who wanted to dissipate black support of sit-in 
protests while simultaneously obtaining the votes of more African-Americans, 
a constituency that helped Kennedy win the 1960 election.[30]

    One example of the type of indirect pressure facing social movements 
reliant on foundation support can be seen by examining Martin Luther King, 
Jr.'s activities as his campaigning became more controversial in the years 
just prior to his assassination. On 18 February 1967, King held a strategy 
meeting where he said he wanted to take a more active stance in opposing the 
Vietnam War: noting that he was willing to break with the Johnson 
administration even if the Southern Christian Leadership Conference lost 
some financial support (despite it already being in a weak financial 
position, with contributions some 40 percent less than the previous year). 
In this case, it seems, King was referring to the potential loss of 
foundation support as, after his first speech against the war a week later 
(on 25 February), he again voiced his concerns that his new position would 
jeopardize an important Ford Foundation grant.[31]

    Thus, by providing selective support of activist groups during the 
1960s, liberal foundations promoted such groups' independence from their 
unpaid constituents working in the grassroots, facilitating movement 
professionalization and institutionalization. This allowed foundations "to 
direct dissent into legitimate channels and limit goals to ameliorative 
rather than radical change"[32] , in the process promoting a "narrowing and 
taming of the potential for broad dissent".[33] Herbert Haines (1988) 
supports this point and argues that the increasing militancy of the Student 
Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the Congress for Racial Equality 
meant most foundation funding was directed to groups who expressed 
themselves through more moderate actions.[34] He referred to this as the 
"radical flank effect" - a process which described the way in which funding 
increased for nonmilitant or moderate groups (reliant on institutional 
tactics) as confrontational direct action protests increased.[35] As Jack 
Walker (1983) concludes, in his study of the influence of foundations on 
interest groups, the reasoning behind such an interventionist strategy is 
simple. He argues that "[f]oundation officials believed that the long run 
stability of the representative policy making system could be assured only 
if legitimate organizational channels could be provided for the frustration 
and anger being expressed in protests and outbreaks of political violence."[36]

    From Apartheid to 'Democracy' and Onwards

    Moving to South Africa's transition to 'democracy', Roelofs (2007) 
observes that:

    "In the case of South Africa, the challenge for Western elites was to 
disconnect the socialist and anti-apartheid goals of the African National 
Congress. Foundations aided in this process, by framing the debate in the 
United States and by creating civil-rights type NGOs in South Africa. In 
1978 the Rockefeller Foundation convened an 11-person Study Commission on US 
Policy Toward Southern Africa, chaired by Franklin Thomas, President of the 
Ford Foundation; it also included Alan Pifer, President of the Carnegie 
Corporation of New York. In Eastern Europe, the 1975 East-West European 
Security agreement, known as the "Helsinki Accords" prompted the foundations 
to create Helsinki Watch (now Human Rights Watch), an international NGO for 
monitoring the agreements; Rockefeller, Ford, and Soros Foundations are 
prominent supporters."[37]

    Roelofs (2003) also point out that in addition to coopting social 
movements, foundations have played an important role in promoting "iden­tity 
politics" which has served to promote fragmentation between similarly minded 
radical social movements.[38] Madonna Thunder Hawk (2007) also critiques the 
narrow scope of most activists work:

    "Previously, organizers would lay down their issue when necessary and 
support another issue. Now, most organizers are very specialized, and cannot 
do anything unless they have a budget first. More, foundations will often 
expect organizations to be very specialized and won't fund work that is 
outside their funding priorities. This reality can limit an organization's 
ability to be creative and flexible as things change in our society."[39]

    Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery (2007) support such ideas, and 
suggest that activist:

    ". work becomes compartmentalized products, desired or undesired by the 
foundation market, rated by trends or political relationships rather than 
depth of work. How often do we hear that 'youth work is hot right now'? 
Funders determine funding trends, and non-profits develop programs to bend 
to these requests rather than assess real needs and realistic goals. If we 
change our 'product' to meet foundation mandates, our organizations might 
receive additional funding and fiscal security. But more often than not, we 
have also compromised our vision and betrayed the communities that built us 
to address specific needs, concerns, and perspectives." [40]

    Likewise, Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo (2007) launches a similar broadside 
against multiculturalism, arguing that:


    "The existence of 'special' and 'non-white' programs emerges from the 
logic of the liberalist project of multiculturalism. While there are clear 
racial hierarchies structured into organizations, these programs are 
developed under a multiculturalist model that renders race marginal by 
heralding the primacy of culture. While culturally specific services and 
programs might appear to address the injuries of racism, this organizational 
strategy actually displaces race from the broader analysis effectively 
ignoring the power structure of white supremacy and the structured 
subjugation of people of color, which effects countless forms of violence 
against women. By adding a program ostensibly designed to serve the needs of 
a given community of color, the larger organization avoids direct 
accountability to that community. In other words, the organization's own 
white supremacy remains intact and fundamentally unchallenged, as are the 
countless forms of violence against women perpetuated by racism."[41]

    .

    "Thus, 'culturally competent' and/or multicultural organizational 
structures collude with white supremacy and vio­lence against women of 
color, namely because this logic enables organizations to dismiss the 
centrality of racism in all institutions and organizations in the United 
States."[42]



    World Social Forum: Funders' Call the Tune

    As a result of the lack of critical inquiry in to the influence of 
liberal philanthropy on progressive organizations, liberal foundations have 
quietly insinuated their way into the heart of the global social justice 
movement, having played a key role in founding the World Social Forum (WSF). 
Furthermore, it is not surprising that, when critiques of the WSF are made, 
they tend to be met with a resounding silence by progressive activists and 
their media (most of which have been founded and funded by liberal 
foundations, see later).[43]

    The Research Unit for Political Economy (2007) astutely observes, the 
WSF "constitutes an important intervention by foundations in social 
movements internationally" because (1) many of the NGO's attending the WSF 
obtain state and/or foundation funding, and (2) "the WSF's material base - 
the funding for its activity - is heavily dependent on foundations."[44] It 
is perhaps stating the obvious to note that more attention should be paid to 
such important critiques; however, if further critical investigations then 
determined that such claims were unsubstantiated then the WSF could only be 
strengthened. On the other hand, if activists collectively decided that the 
receipt of liberal foundation funding is problematic - as happened at the 
2004 WSF in Mumbai - then further steps must be immediately taken to address 
the issue. Yet, as the Research Unit for Political Economy point out, 
although:

    ". the WSF India committee's decision to disavow funds from certain 
institutions marked a victory for the critics of the WSF, it did not really 
resolve the issue. If the organizers disavowed funds from these sources on 
principle (rather than merely because uncomfortable questions were raised), 
it is difficult to understand why the prohibition did not extend as well to 
organizations funded by them. This left scope for the WSF to accept funds 
from organizations funded in turn by Ford. Moreover, .the bulk of the WSF's 
expenses are borne by participating organizations, many of which are in turn 
funded by Ford and other such "barred" sources."[45]

    Clearly important (and concerning) questions have been raised about the 
democratic legitimacy of the WSF, but most activists still remain unaware of 
the existence of such well founded critiques. This is problematic and, as 
Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery (2007) argue, although fundraising is 
"an important component of most organizing efforts in the United States" it:

    ". is usually perceived by activists as our nasty compromise within an 
evil capitalist structure. As long as we relegate fundraising to a dirty 
chore better handled by grant writers and development directors than 
organizers, we miss an opportunity to create stepping stones toward 
community-based economies."[46]

    However, as Dylan Rodriguez (2007) observes:

    ". when one attempts to engage [in] a critical discussion regard­ing the 
political problems of working with these and other foundations, and 
especially when one is interested in naming them as the gently repressive 
'evil' cousins of the more prototypically evil right-wing foundations, the 
establishment Left becomes profoundly defensive of its financial patrons. I 
would argue that this is a liberal-progressive vision that marginalizes the 
radical, revolutionary, and proto-revolutionary forms of activism, 
insurrection, and resistance that refuse to participate in the [George] 
Soros charade of 'shared values,' and are uninterested in trying to 'improve 
the imperfect.' The social truth of the existing society is that it is based 
on the production of massive, unequal, and hierarchically organized 
disenfranchisement, suffering, and death of those populations who are 
targeted for containment and political/social liquidation-a violent social 
order produced under the dictates of 'democracy,' 'peace,' 'security,' and 
'justice' that form the historical and political foundations of the very 
same white civil society on which the NPIC [Non-Profit Industrial Complex] 
Left is based." [47]


    Guilloud and Cordery (2007) "believe it is better to be dissolved by the 
community than floated by foundations." Indeed, they go on to correctly 
state the obvious, by noting that community supported organizations will, by 
necessity, have to serve the needs of democracy because "[m]embers who 
contribute to an organization will stop contributing when the work is no 
longer valuable."[48]

    Moving Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex

    "People in non-profits are not necessarily consciously thinking that 
they are 'selling out.' But just by trying to keep funding and pay 
everyone's salaries, they start to unconsciously limit their imagination of 
what they could do. In addition, the non-profit struc­ture supports a 
paternalistic relationship in which non-profits from outside our Communities 
fund their own hand-picked organizers, rather than funding us to do the work 
ourselves." (Madonna Thunder Hawk, 2007) [49]

    Given the historical overview of liberal foundations presented in this 
article it is uncontroversial to suggest that liberal philanthropists - who 
also support elite planning groups - will not facilitate the massive radical 
social changes that will encourage the global adoption of participatory 
democracy.[50]  Taking a global view, James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer 
(2004) argue that most funding "for poverty alleviation through NGOs also 
has had little positive effect" and:

    "On the contrary, foreign aid directed toward NGOs has undermined 
national decision-making, given that most projects and priorities are set 
out by the European or US-based NGOs. In addition, NGO projects tend to 
co-opt local leaders and turn them into functionaries administering local 
projects that fail to deal with the structural problems and crises of the 
recipient countries. Worse yet, NGO funding has led to a proliferation of 
competing groups, which set communities and groups against each other, 
undermining existing social movements. Rather than compensating for the 
social damage inflicted by free market policies and conditions of debt 
bondage, the NGO­ channelled foreign aid complements the IFIs' 
[international financial institutions'] neo-liberal agenda."[51]

    Referring to the detrimental influence of the liberal philanthropy in 
the US, Andrea Smith (2007) also observes that:

    "[T]he NPIC [Non-Profit Industrial Complex] contributes to a mode of 
organizing that is ultimately unsustainable. To radically change society, we 
must build mass movements that can topple systems of domination, such as 
capitalism. However, the NPIC encourages us to think of social justice 
organizing as a career; that is, you do the work if you can get paid for it. 
However, a mass movement requires the involvement of millions of people, 
most of whom cannot get paid. By trying to do grassroots organizing through 
this careerist model, we are essentially asking a few people to work more 
than full-time to make up for the work that needs to be done by millions.


    "In addition, the NPIC promotes a social movement culture that is 
non-collab­orative, narrowly focused, and competitive. To retain the support 
of benefactors, groups must compete with each other for funding by promoting 
only their own work, whether or not their organizing strategies are 
successful. This culture pre­vents activists from having collaborative 
dialogues where we can honestly share our failures as well as our successes. 
In addition, after being forced to frame everything we do as a 'success,' we 
become stuck in having to repeat the same strategies because we insisted to 
funders they were successful, even if they were not. Consequently, we become 
inflexible rather than fluid and ever changing in our strategies, which is 
what a movement for social transformation really requires. And as we become 
more concerned with attracting funders than with organizing mass-based 
movements, we start niche marketing the work of our organizations." [52]

    Amara H. Perez and Sisters in Action for Power (2007) also add that:

    "In addition to the power and influence of foundation funding, the 
non-profit model itself has contributed to the co-optation of our work and 
institutionalized a structure that has normalized a corporate culture for 
the way our work is ulti­mately carried out."[53]

    Fortunately, the answers to the funding problems raised in this article 
are rather simple. However, given the lack of critical inquiry into the 
anti-democratic influence of liberal foundations on progressive social 
change, first and foremost progressive activists need to publicly 
acknowledge that a problem exists before appropriate solutions can be 
devised and implemented. Therefore, the first step that I propose needs to 
be taken by progressive activists is to launch a vibrant public discussion 
of the broader role of liberal foundations in funding social change - an 
action that will rely for the most part upon the interest and support of 
grassroots activists all over the world.


    Given the insidious activities of liberal foundations', the "very 
existence of many social justice organizations has often come to rest more 
on the effectiveness of professional (and amateur) grant writers than on 
skilled-much less 'radical' - political educators and organizers" 
(Rodriguez, 2007). So now more than ever, it is vital that progressive 
citizens committed to a participatory democracy work to develop alternate 
funding mechanisms for sustaining grassroots activism so they can break the 
"insidious cycle of competition and co-optation" set up by liberal 
foundations and their cohorts.[54] Indeed as Guilloud and Cordery (2007) 
point out, "[d]eveloping a real community-based economic system that 
redistributes wealth and allows all people to gain access to what they need 
is essential to complete our vision of a liberated world. Grassroots 
fundraising strategies are a step in that direction." [55]

    Unfortunately, raising awareness of the vexing issues raised in this 
article may be harder than one might first expect. This is because in some 
instances the progressive media themselves may be preventing an open 
discussion of the influence of liberal philanthropy on social change - due 
to their reliance (or at least good relations) with liberal foundations. So 
sadly as Bob Feldman (2007) observes, "[w]hen the rare report calls 
attention to the possibility of foundation influence over the left-wing 
media or think tanks, a typical attitude is unqualified denial."[56] Feldman 
concludes:

    ". that organizations and media generally considered left-wing have in 
recent years received substantial funding from liberal foundations. This 
information alone is significant, as left activists and scholars are either 
unaware of or uninterested in examining the nature and consequences of such 
financing. Furthermore, although a definitive evaluation would require a 
massive content analysis project, there is much evidence that the funded 
left has moved towards the mainstream as it has increased its dependence on 
foundations. This is shown by the 'progressive,' reformist tone of formerly 
radical organizations; the gradual disappearance of challenges to the 
economic and political power of corporations or United States militarism and 
imperialism; and silence on the relationship of liberal foundations to 
either politics and culture in general, or to their own organizations. 
Critiquing right wing foundations, media, and think tanks may be fair game, 
but to explain our current situation, or to discover what has happened to 
the left, a more inclusive investigation is needed." [57]

    It is clear that the barriers to spreading the word about liberal 
philanthropy's overt colonization of progressive social change are large but 
they are certainly not insurmountable to dedicated activists. There are 
still plenty of alternative media outlets that should be willing to 
distribute trenchant critiques of liberal philanthropy given persistent 
pressure from the activist community, while internet blogs can also 
supplement individual communicative efforts to widen the debate. If 
activists fail to address the crucial issue of liberal philanthropy now this 
will no doubt have dire consequences for the future of progressive 
activism - and democracy more generally - and it is important to recognise 
that liberal foundations are not all powerful and that the future, as 
always, lies in our hands and not theirs.

    Michael Barker is a doctoral candidate at Griffith University, 
Australia. He can be reached at Michael.J.Barker [at] griffith.edu.au



    References

    [28] Foundation funding for social movements was for the most part 
nonexistent before the 1960s, with foundation grants tending to focus on 
more general issues like education. By 1970 this had changed and 65 
foundations distributed 311 grants to social activists worth around $11 
million.

    [29] Craig J. Jenkins and Craig M. Eckert, 'Channeling Black Insurgency: 
Elite Patronage and Professional Social Movement Organizations in the 
Development of the Black Movement', American Sociological Review, 51, 1986.

    [30] Craig J. Jenkins, 'Channeling Social Protest: Foundation Patronage 
of Contemporary Social Movements', p.212.

    [31] David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and 
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Random House, 1988), pp.545-6.

    [32] Frances B. McCrea and Gerald E. Markle, Minutes to Midnight: 
Nuclear Weapons Protest in America (Newbury Park, Calif.: SAGE, 1989), p.37.

    [33] John D. McCarthy, David W. Britt, and Mark Wolfson, 'The 
Institutional Channeling of Social Movements by the State in the United 
States', In: L. Kriesberg and M. Spencer (eds.) Research in Social 
Movements, Conflicts and Change (Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press, 1991), pp.69-70.

    [34] Herbert H. Haines, Black Radicals and the Civil Rights Mainstream, 
1954-1970 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988), pp.82-99.

    [35] Herbert Haines, 'Black Radicalization and the Funding of Civil 
Rights', Social Problems, 32, 1984, pp.31-43.

    [36] Jack L. Walker, 'The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in 
America', American Political Science Review, 77, 1983, p.401.

    [37] Joan Roelofs, 'Foundations and Collaboration', Critical Sociology, 
Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, p.497.

    [38] Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy, p.44.

    For more on this subject see David Rieff, 'Multiculturalism's Silent 
Partner',Harper's, August 1993, pp.62-72.

    Alisa Bierria (2007) points out that: "All too often, inclusively has 
come to mean that we start with an organizing model developed with white, 
middle-class people in mind, and then simply add a multicultural component 
to it. We should include as many voices as possible, without asking what 
exactly are we being included in? However, as Kimberle Crenshaw has noted, 
'it is not enough to be sensitive to difference, we must ask what difference 
the difference makes. That is, instead of saying, how can we include women 
of color, women with disabilities, etc., we must ask, what would our 
analysis and organizing practice look like if we centered them in it? By 
following a politics of re-centering rather than inclusion, we often find 
that we see the issue differently, not just for the group in question, but 
everyone.'"  Alisa Bierria, 'Communities against rape and abuse (CARA)', In: 
INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be 
Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex (South End Press, 2007), 
pp.153-4.

    [39] Madonna Thunder Hawk, 'Native Organizing Before the Non-Profit 
Industrial Complex', In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The 
Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex 
(South End Press, 2007), p.106.

    [40] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, 'Fundraising is Not a Dirty 
Word', In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution 
Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex (South End 
Press, 2007), p.108.

    [41] Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo, '"we were never meant to survive" 
Fighting Violence Against Women and the Forth World War', In: INCITE! Women 
of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond 
The Non-Profit Industrial Complex (South End Press, 2007), pp.115-6.

    [42] Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo, '"we were never meant to survive" 
Fighting Violence Against Women and the Forth World War',  p.116.

    [43] Michael Barker, 'The Liberal Foundations of Media Reform? Creating 
Sustainable Funding Opportunities for Radical Media Reform', Global Media 
(Submitted); Bob Feldman, 'Report from the Field: Left Media and Left Think 
Tanks - Foundation-Managed Protest?', Critical Sociology, 33 (2007).

    [44] Research Unit for Political Economy, 'Foundations and Mass 
Movements: The Case of the World Social Forum', Critical Sociology, 33 (3), 
2007, p.506.

    [45] Research Unit for Political Economy, 'Foundations and Mass 
Movements', pp.529-30.

    [46] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, 'Fundraising is Not a Dirty 
Word', p.107.

    [47] Dylan Rodriguez, 'The Political Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial 
Complex', In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution 
Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex (South End 
Press, 2007), p.35-6.

    [48] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, 'Fundraising is Not a Dirty 
Word', p.110.

    [49] Madonna Thunder Hawk, 'Native Organizing Before the Non-Profit 
Industrial Complex', pp.105-6.

    [50] Two of the most influential liberal foundations, the Ford 
Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, created and continue to provide 
substantial financial aid to elite planning groups like the Council on 
Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. For example, the Ford 
Foundation's 2006 Annual Report (p.62) notes that they gave the Council on 
Foreign Relations a $200,000 grant "For research, seminars and publications 
on the role of women in conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction 
and state building."  Furthermore, as Roelofs (2003, p.98-9) notes:



    "During the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) debate, the EPI 
[Economic Policy Institute] (funded by Ford and others) made technical 
objections to the models sup­porting the trade agreement. At the same time, 
a much greater effect was pro­duced by Ford funding to the other side, which 
included grants to the Institute for International Economics, a think tank 
that emphasizes the benefits of NAFTA. In addition, 'the Ford Foundation 
also awarded grants to environmental groups and the Southwest Voters 
Research Institute to convene forums on NAFTA. These resulted in an alliance 
of 100 Latino organizations and elected officials, called the Latino 
Consensus on NAFTA, which pro­vided conditional support for the agreement.'"



    Also see Laurence H. Shoup, and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: 
The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (New York: 
Monthly Review Press, 1977); Holly Sklar, Trilateralism: The Trilateral 
Commission and Elite Planning For World Management (Boston: South End Press, 
1980).

    [51 James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, 'Age of Reverse Aid: 
Neo-liberalism as Catalyst of Regression', In: Jan P. Pronk (ed.) Catalysing 
Development (Blackwell Publishers,

    2004), pp.70-1.

    [52] Andrea Smith, 'Introduction: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded', 
p.10.

    [53] Amara H. Perez, and Sisters in Action for Power, 'Between Radical 
Theory and Community Praxis: Reflections on Organizing and the Non-Profit 
Industrial Complex', In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The 
Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex 
(South End Press, 2007), p.93.

    [54] Brian Tokar, Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of 
Corporate Greenwash (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997), p.214.

    [55] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, 'Fundraising is Not a Dirty 
Word', p.111.

    Making this transition may be easier than expected, because Rodriguez 
(2007) suggest that "the ongoing work to maintain and prospect foundation 
money, combined with administrative obligations and developing 
infrastruc­ture, was more taxing and exhausting than confronting any 
institution to fight for a policy change." Dylan Rodriguez, 'The Political 
Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex', p.27.

    [56] Bob Feldman, 'Report from the Field: Left Media and Left Think 
Tanks - Foundation-Managed Protest?', p.428.

    [57] Bob Feldman, 'Report from the Field: Left Media and Left Think 
Tanks - Foundation-Managed Protest?', p. 445.