N
NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
Guest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions? (Pt.1 of 2)
Via NY Transfer News Collective All the News that Doesn't Fit
ZNet - Sep 2, 2007
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=13689
Part 1 of 2
Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions?
by Michael Barker
To date capitalists have financially supported two types of revolution:
they have funded the neoliberal revolution to take the risk out of
democracy,[1] and they have supported/hijacked popular revolutions (or
in some cases manufactured ~revolutions) in countries of geostrategic
importance (i.e. in counties where regime change is beneficial to
transnational capitalism).[2] The former neoliberal revolution has, of
course, been funded by a hoard of right wing philanthropists intent on
neutralising progressive forces within society, while the latter
~democratic revolutions are funded by an assortment of ~bipartisan
quasi-nongovernmental organizations, like the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) and private institutions like George Soros Open Society
Institute. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NED,
http://wiki.zmag.org/George_Soros
The underlying mechanisms by which capitalists hijack popular
revolutions has been outlined in William I. Robinsons seminal book,
Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony
(1996), which examines elite interventions in four countries " Chile,
Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Haiti.[3] Robinson hypothesized that as
a result of the public backlash (in the 1970s) against the US
governments repressive and covert foreign policies, foreign policy
making elites elected to put a greater emphasis on overt means of
overthrowing ~problematic governments through the strategic
manipulation of civil society. In 1984, this ~democratic thinking was
institutionalised with the creation of the National Endowment for
Democracy, an organisation that acts as the coordinating body for
better funded ~democracy promoting organisations like US Agency for
International Development and the Central Intelligence Agency. Robinson
observes that:
]the understanding on the part of US policymakers that power
ultimately rests in civil society, and that state power is intimately
linked to a given correlation of forces in civil society, has helped
shape the contours of the new political intervention. Unlike earlier US
interventionism, the new intervention focuses much more intensely on
civil society itself, in contrast to formal government structures, in
intervened countries. The purpose of ~democracy promotion is not to
suppress but to penetrate and conquer civil society in intervened
countries, that is, the complex of ~private organizations such as
political parties, trade unions, the media, and so forth, and from
therein, integrate subordinate classes and national groups into a
hegemonic transnational social order] This function of civil society as
an arena for exercising domination runs counter to conventional
(particularly pluralist) thinking on the matter, which holds that civil
society is a buffer between state domination and groups in society, and
that class and group domination is diluted as civil society
develops.[4]
Thus it is not too surprising that Robinson should conclude that the
primary goal of ~democracy promoting groups, like the NED, is the
promotion of polyarchy or low-intensity democracy over more substantive
forms of democratic governance.[5] Here it is useful to turn to Barry
Gills, Joen Rocamora, and Richard Wilsons (1993) work which provides a
useful description of low-intensity democracy, they observe that:
Low Intensity Democracy is designed to promote stability. However, it
is usually accompanied by neoliberal economic policies to restore
economic growth. This usually accentuates economic hardship for the
less privileged and deepens the short-term structural effects of
economic crisis as the economy opens further to the competitive winds
of the world market and global capital. The pains of economic
adjustment are supposed to be temporary, preparing the society to
proceed to a higher stage of development. The temporary economic
suffering of the majority is further supposed to be balanced by the
benefits of a freer democratic political culture. But unfortunately for
them, the poor and dispossessed cannot eat votes! In such
circumstances, Low Intensity Democracy may ~work in the short term,
primarily as a strategy to reduce political tension, but is fragile in
the long term, due to its inability to redress fundamental political
and economic problems.[6]
So while capitalists appear happy to fund the neoliberal ~revolution,
or geostrategic revolutions that promote low-intensity democracy, the
one revolution that capitalists will not bankroll will be the
revolution at home, that is, here in our Western (low-intensity)
democracies: a point that is forcefully argued in INCITE! Women of
Color Against Violences (2007) book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded.
Of course, liberal-minded capitalists do support efforts to ~depose
radical neoconservatives, as demonstrated by liberal attempts to oust
Bushs regime by the Soros-backed Americans Coming Together
coalition.[7] But as in NED-backed strategic ~revolutions, the results
of such campaigns are only ever likely to promote low-intensity
democracy, thereby ensuring the replacement of one (business-led) elite
with another one (in the USs case with the Democrats).
So the question remains: can progressive activists work towards
creating a more equitable (and participatory) world using funding
derived from those very groups within society that stand to lose most
from such revolutionary changes? The obvious answer to this question is
no. Yet, if this is the case, why are so many progressive (sometimes
even radical) groups accepting funding from major liberal foundations
(which, after all, were created by some of Americas most successful
capitalists)?
Several reasons may help explain this contradictory situation. Firstly,
it is well known that progressive groups are often underfunded, and
their staff overworked, thus there is every likelihood that many groups
and activists that receive support from liberal foundations have never
even considered the problems associated with such funding.[8] If this
is the case then hopefully their exposure to the arguments presented in
this article will help more activists begin to rethink their unhealthy
relations with their funders.
On the other hand, it seems likely that many progressive groups
understand that the broader goals and aspirations of liberal
foundations are incompatible with their own more radical visions for
the future; yet, despite recognizing this dissonance between their
ambitions, it would seem that many progressive organizations believe
that they can beat the foundations at their own game and trick them
into funding projects that will promote a truly progressive social
change. Here it is interesting to note that paradoxically some radical
groups do in fact receive funding from liberal foundations. And like
those progressive groups that attempt to trick the foundations, many of
these groups argue that will take money from anyone willing to give it
so long as it comes with no strings attached. These final two positions
are held by numerous activist organizations, and are also highly
problematic. This is case because if we can agree that it is unlikely
that liberal foundations will fund the much needed societal changes
that will bring about their own demise, why do they continue funding
such progressive activists?
Despite the monumental importance of this question to progressive
activists worldwide, judging by the number of articles dealing with it
in the alternative media very little importance appears to have been
attached to discussing this question and investigating means of
cultivating funding sources that are geared towards the promotion of
radical social change. Fortunately though, in addition to INCITE!s
aforementioned book, which has helped break the unstated taboo
surrounding the discussion of activist funding, another critical
exception was provided in the June 2007 edition of the academic journal
Critical Sociology. The editors of this path breaking issue of Critical
Sociology dont beat around that bush and point out that:
The critical study of foundations is not a subfield in any academic
discipline; it is not even an organized interdisciplinary grouping.
This, along with concerns about personal defunding, limits its output,
especially as compared to that of the many well-endowed centers for the
uncritical study of foundations.[9]
Despite the dearth of critical inquiry into the historical influence of
liberal foundations on the evolution of democracy, in the past few
years a handful of books have endeavoured to provide a critical
overview of the insidious anti-radicalising activities of liberal
philanthropists. Thus the rest of this article will provide a brief
review of some of this important work, however, before doing this I
will briefly outline what I mean by progressive social change (that is,
the type of social change that liberal foundations are loathe to fund).
Why Progressive Social Change?
With the growth of popular progressive social movements during the
1960s in the US (and elsewhere), the global populace became
increasingly aware of the criminal nature of many of their governments
activities (both at home and abroad) which fuelled increasing popular
resistance to US imperialism. This in turn led influential scholars,
working under the remit of the Trilateral Commission (a group founded
by liberal philanthropists, see note [50]), to controversially conclude
(in 1975) that the increasing radicalism of the worlds citizens
stemmed from an excess of democracy which could only be quelled by a
greater degree of moderation in democracy.[10] This elitist diagnosis
makes sense when one considers Carole Patemans (1989) observation that
the dominant political and economic elites in the US posited that true
democracy rested not on the participation of the people, but on their
nonparticipation.[11] However, contrary to the Trilateral Commissions
desire to promote low-intensity democracy on a global scale, Gills,
Rocamora, and Wilson (1993) suggest that:
Democracy requires more than mere maintenance of formal ~liberties.
[In fact, they argue that t]he only way to advance democracy in the
Third World, or anywhere else, is to increase the democratic content of
formal democratic institutions through profound social reform. Without
substantial social reform and redistribution of economic assets,
representative institutions " no matter how ~democratic in form " will
simply mirror the undemocratic power relations of society. Democracy
requires a change in the balance of forces in society. Concentration of
economic power in the hands of a small elite is a structural obstacle
to democracy. It must be displaced if democracy is to emerge.[12]
In essence, one of the most important steps activists can take to help
bring about truly progressive social change is to encourage the
development of a politically active citizenry " that is, a public that
participates in democratic processes, but not necessarily those
promoted by the government. Furthermore, it is also vitally important
that groups promoting more participatory forms of democracy do so in a
manner consistent with the participatory principles they believe in.
(For a major critique of ~progressive activism in the US see Dana
Fishers (2006) [http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?book_id=5217
Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is
Strangling Progressive Politics in America]. Similarly, also see my
recent article
[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13436 Hijacking
Human Rights: A Critical Examination of Human Rights Watchs Americas
Branch and their Links to the ~Democracy Establishment.])
Michael Albert is an influential theorist of progressive politics, and
he has written at (inspiring) length about transitionary strategies for
promoting participatory democracy in both his classic book
[http://www.zmag.org/parecon/pelac.htm Parecon: Life After Capitalism]
(2003), and more recently in Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism
(2006). Simply put, Albert (2006) observes that: A truly democratic
community insures that the general public has the opportunity for
meaningful and constructive participation in the formation of social
policy. However, there is no single answer to determining the best way
of creating a participatory society, and so he rightly notes that
Parecon (which is short for participatory economics) doesnt itself
answer visionary questions bearing on race, gender, polity, and other
social concerns, [but] it is at least compatible with and even, in some
cases, perhaps necessary for, doing so.[13]
Finally, I would argue that in order to move towards a new
participatory world order it is vitally important that progressive
activists engage in radical critiques of society. Undertaking such
radical actions may be problematic for some activists, because
unfortunately the word radical is often used by the corporate media as
a derogatory term for all manner of activists (whether they are radical
or not). Yet this hijacking of the term perhaps makes it an even more
crucial take that progressives work to reclaim this word as their own,
so they can inject it back into their own work and analyses. Indeed,
Robert Jensens (2004) excellent book Writing Dissent: Taking Radical
Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream reminds us that:
]the origins of the word " radical, [comes] from the Latin radicalis,
meaning ~root. Radical analysis goes to the root of an issue or
problem. Typically that means that while challenging the specific
manifestations of a problem, radicals also analyse the ideological and
institutional components as well as challenge the unstated assumptions
and conventional wisdom that obscure the deeper roots. Often it means
realizing that what is taken as an aberration or deviation from a
system is actually the predictable and/or intended result of a
system.[14]
The Liberal Foundations of Social Change
Now that I have briefly outlined why progressive social change is so
important, it is useful to examine why liberal philanthropy " which has
been institutionalised within liberal foundations " arose in the first
place. Here it is useful to quote Nicolas Guilhot (2007) who neatly
outlines the ideological reasons lying behind liberal philanthropy. He
observes that in the face of the violent labor wars of the late 19th
century that directly threatened the economic interests of the
philanthropists, liberal philanthropists realized:
] that social reform was unavoidable, [and instead] chose to invest in
the definition and scientific treatment of the ~social questions of
their time: urbanization, education, housing, public hygiene, the
Negro problem, etc. Far from being resistant to social change, the
philanthropists promoted reformist solutions that did not threaten the
capitalistic nature of the social order but constituted a ~private
alternative to socialism[15] Andrea Smith (2007) notes that:
>From their inception, [liberal] foundations focused on research and
dissemination of information designed ostensibly to ameliorate social
issues-in a manner, however, that did not challenge capitalism. For
instance, in 1913, Colorado miners went on strike against Colorado Fuel
and Iron, an enterprise of which 40 percent was owned by Rockefeller.
Eventually, this strike erupted into open warfare, with the Colorado
militia murdering several strikers during the Ludlow Massacre of April
20, 1914. During that same time, Jerome Greene, the Rockefeller
Foundation secretary, identified research and information to quiet
social and political unrest as a foundation priority. The rationale
behind this strategy was that while individual workers deserved social
relief, organized workers in the form of unions were a threat to
society. So the Rockefeller Foundation heavily advertised its relief
work for individual workers while at the same time promoting a
pro-Rockefeller spin to the massacre.[16]
Writing in 1966, Carroll Quigley " who happened to be one of Bill
Clintons mentors " [17] elaborates on the motivations driving the
philanthropic colonisation of progressive social change:
More than fifty years ago [circa 1914] the Morgan firm decided to
infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This
was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds
and eager for a voice to reach the people. Wall Street supplied both.
The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but was really
threefold: (1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or
liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they
could ~blow off steam, and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity
and possibly on their actions, if they ever went ~radical. There was
nothing really new about this decision, since other financiers had
talked about it and even attempted it earlier. What made it decisively
important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant
Wall Street financier, at a time when tax policy was driving all
financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes, and at a time
when the ultimate in Left-wing radicalism was about to appear under the
banner of the Third International.[18]
One of the most important books exploring the detrimental influence of
liberal foundations on social change was Robert Arnoves Philanthropy
and Cultural Imperialism (1980). In the introduction to this edited
collection Arnove notes that:
A central thesis [of this book] is that foundations like Carnegie,
Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a democratic
society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable
concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes,
and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits societys attention.
They serve as ~cooling-out agencies, delaying and preventing more
radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and
political order, international in scope, which benefits the
ruling-class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids " a
system which, as the various chapters document, has worked against the
interests of minorities, the working class, and Third World
peoples.[19]
With the aid of Nadine Pinede, Arnove (2007) recently updated this
critique noting that, while the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford
foundations are considered to be among the most progressive in the
sense of being forward looking and reform-minded, they are also among
the most controversial and influential of all the foundations.[20]
Indeed, as Edward H. Berman demonstrated in his book
[http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/ideologyofphilanthropy.htm The
Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on
American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy] (1983), the
activities of all three of these foundations are closely entwined with
those of US foreign policy elites. This subject has also been covered
in some depth in Frances Stonor Saunders (1999) book Who Paid the
Piper?: CIA and the Cultural Cold War. She notes that:
During the height of the Cold War, the US government committed vast
resources to a secret programme of cultural propaganda in western
Europe. A central feature of this programme was to advance the claim
that it did not exist. It was managed, in great secrecy, by Americas
espionage arm, the Central Intelligence Agency. The centrepiece of this
covert campaign was the Congress for Cultural Freedom [which received
massive support from the Ford Foundation and was] run by CIA agent
Michael Josselson from 1950 till 1967. Its achievements " not least
its duration " were considerable. At its peak, the Congress for
Cultural Freedom had offices in thirty-five countries, employed dozens
of personnel, published over twenty prestige magazines, held art
exhibitions, owned a news and features service, organized high-profile
international conferences, and rewarded musicians and artists with
prizes and public performances. Its mission was to nudge the
intelligentsia of western Europe away from its lingering fascination
with Marxism and Communism towards a view more accommodating of ~the
American way.[21]
So given the elitist history of liberal foundations it is not
surprising that Arnove and Pinede (2007) note that although the
Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford foundations claim to attack the root
causes of the ills of humanity, they essentially engage in ameliorative
practices to maintain social and economic systems that generate the
very inequalities and injustices they wish to correct.[22] Indeed they
conclude that although the past few decades these foundations have
adopted a more progressive, if not radical, rhetoric and approaches to
community building that gives a voice to those who have been
disadvantaged by the workings of an increasingly global capitalist
economy, they remain ultimately elitist and technocratic
institutions.[23]
Based on the knowledge of these critiques, it is then supremely ironic
that progressive activists tend to underestimate the influence of
liberal philanthropists, while simultaneously acknowledging the
fundamental role played by conservative philanthropists in promoting
neoliberal policies. Indeed, contrary to popular beliefs amongst
progressives, much evidence supports the contention that liberal
philanthropists and their foundations have been very influential in
shaping the contours of American (and global) civil society, actively
influencing social change through a process alternatively referred to
as either channelling [24] or co-option.[25]
Co-optation [being] a process through which the policy orientations of
leaders are influenced and their organizational activities channeled.
It blends the leaders interests with those of an external
organization. In the process, ethnic leaders and their organizations
become active in the state-run interorganizational system; they become
participants in the decision-making process as advisors or committee
members. By becoming somewhat of an insider the co-opted leader is
likely to identify with the organization and its objectives. The
leaders point of view is shaped through the personal ties formed with
authorities and functionaries of the external organization.[26]
The critical issue of the cooption of progressive groups by liberal
foundations has also been examined in Joan Roelofs seminal book
Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (extracts of this
book can be found online,
[http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/maskofpluralism.htm click here]). In
summary, Roelofs (2007) argues that:
]the pluralist model of civil society obscures the extensive
collaboration among the resource-providing elites and the dependent
state of most grassroots organizations. While the latter may negotiate
with foundations over details, and even win some concessions,
capitalist hegemony (including its imperial perquisites) cannot be
questioned without severe organizational penalties. By and large, it is
the funders who are calling the tune. This would be more obvious if
there were sufficient publicized investigations of this vast and
important domain. That the subject is ~off-limits for both academics
and journalists is compelling evidence of enormous power.[27] (To
listen to Roelofs recent talk ~The Invisible Hand of Corporate
Capitalism, which summarises the arguments presented in her book,
[http://www.traprockpeace.org/edrussell/JoanRoelofs18April07AImedia.mp3 ]. )
The concluding part of this article will examine how liberal
foundations coopted the civil rights movement, promoted identity
politics and multiculturalism, and influenced the development of the
World Social Forum. Finally it will conclude by offering suggestions
for how activists might begin to move beyond the Non-Profit Industrial
Complex.
Continued in Part 2...
References
[1] Damien C. Cahill, The Radical Neo-liberal Movement as a Hegemonic
Force in Australia, 1976-1996 (Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of
Wollongong, 2004); Alex Carey, Taking the Risk out of Democracy:
Propaganda in the US and Australia (Sydney, N.S.W.: University of New
South Wales Press, 1995); Sally Covington, Moving a Public Policy
Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations
(Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 1997).
[2] MichaelBarker, Taking the Risk Out of Civil Society: Harnessing
Social Movements and Regulating Revolutions, Refereed paper presented
to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference,
University of Newcastle 25-27 September 2006.
[http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/ept/politics/apsa/PapersFV/IntRel_IPE/Barker, Michael.pdf
[3] Here it is important to note that in all four countries that
Robinson examined, the ?democratic transitions? ?were touted by
policymakers, and praised by journalists, supportive scholars, and
public commentators, as ?success stories? in which the United States
broke sharply with earlier support for authoritarianism and
dictatorship and contributed in a positive way to ?democracy,? and
therefore as ?models? for future US interventions of this type.?
William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US
Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996),, p.114.
[4] Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, pp.28-9. For related online
resources see, William I. Robinson, A Faustian Bargain: U.S.
Intervention in the Nicaraguan Elections and American Foreign Policy in
the Post-Cold War Era] (Westview Press, 1992)
[http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/Assets/pdf/faustista.pdf
[5] However, he does specify that it is important to note that the
US ?is not acting on behalf of a ?US? elite, but [instead is] playing a
leadership role on behalf of an emergent transnational elite?; and that
the ?impulse to ?promote democracy?? essentially arises from the
need ?to secure the underlying objective of maintaining essentially
undemocratic societies inserted into an unjust international
system.?Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.20, 6.
Robinson also adds that: ?A caveat must be stressed. US preference for
polyarchy is a general guideline of post-Cold War foreign policy and
not a universal prescription. Policymakers often assess that
authoritarian arrangements are best left in place in instances where
the establishment of polyarchic systems is an unrealistic, high-risk,
or unnecessary undertaking.? Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.112.
[6] Barry Gills, Joen Rocamora, and Richard Wilson, Low Intensity
Democracy: Political Power in the New World Order (London: Pluto Press,
1993), pp.26-7.
[7] Leslie Wayne, ?And for His Next Feat, a Billionaire Sets Sights on
Bush?, New York Times, May 31, 2004.
[8] Indeed as INCITE! note in their book The Revolution Will Not Be
Funded: ?We took a stand against state funding since we perceived that
antiviolence organizations who had state funding had been co-opted. It
never occurred to us to look at foundation funding in the same way.
However, in a trip to India (funded, ironically, by the Ford
Foundation), we met with many non-funded organizations that criticized
us for receiving foundation grants.
When we saw that groups with much less access to resources were able to
do amazing work without funding, we began to question our reliance on
foundation grants.? Andrea Smith, ?Introduction: The Revolution Will
Not Be Funded?, 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.1.
[9] Annon, ?Note on this Special Issue of Critical Sociology?, Critical
Sociology, 33 (2007), p.387.
[10] Crozier, M., S. P. Huntington and J. Watanuki, The Crisis of
Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral
Commission (New York: New York University Press, 1975), p.134.
[11] Carole Pateman, ?The Civic Culture: A Philosophical Critique?, In:
G.
A. Almond and S. Verba (eds.) The Civic Culture: A Philosophical
Critique (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1989), p.79.
[12] Gills, Rocamora, and Wilson, Low Intensity Democracy, p.29.
[13] Michael Albert, Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism (London:
Zed Books, 2006), p.24, 185.
[14] Robert Jensen, Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the
Margins to the Mainstream (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), p.7.
[15] Nicolas Guilhot, ?Reforming the World: George Soros, Global
Capitalism and the Philanthropic Management of the Social Sciences?,
Critical Sociology, Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, pp.451-2.
[16] Andrea Smith, ?Introduction: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded?,
p.4.
[17] Daniel Brandt, ?[http://www.namebase.org/news01.html Clinton,
Quigley, and Conspiracy: What?s going on here?]? NameBase NewsLine, No.
1, April-June 1993.
[18] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our
Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p.938.
[19] Robert F. Arnove, ?Introduction?, In: Robert F. Arnove, (ed.),
Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and
Abroad (Boston, Mass.: G.K. Hall, 1980), p.1.
[20] Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede, ?Revisiting the ?Big Three?
Foundations?, Critical Sociology, Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, p.391.
[21] Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper?: CIA and the Cultural
Cold War (Granta Books, 1999), p.1.
For a useful review of Saunders? book see, James Petras, The CIA and
the Cultural Cold War Revisited, Monthly Review, November 1999.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1199petr.htm
Also see Hugh Wilford, The CIA, the British Left, and the Cold War:
Calling the Tune? (London: Frank Cass, 2003)
http://books.google.com/books?id=e4...r6CyN&sig=daN3MB1kohtWuz-dEqg233KB3Ow#PPP1,M1
and Paul Wolf, OSS and the Development of Psychological Warfare.
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/foundations.htm
[22] Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede, ?Revisiting the ?Big Three?
Foundations?, p.393.
[23] Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede, ?Revisiting the ?Big Three?Foundations?, p.422.
[24] Craig J. Jenkins, ?Channeling Social Protest: Foundation Patronage
of Contemporary Social Movements?, In: W. W. Powell and E. S. Clemens,
(eds.), Private Action and the Public Good (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1998), pp. 206-216.
[25] Robert F. Arnove (ed.), Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism;
Donald Fisher, ?The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in the
Reproduction and Production of Hegemony: Rockefeller Foundations and
the Social Sciences?, Sociology, 17, 2, 1983, pp. 206-233; Joan
Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2003).; John Wilson, ?Corporatism
and the Professionalization of Reform?, Journal of Political and
Military Sociology, 11, 1983, pp. 52-68.
Few researchers would argue that all foundations actively attempt to
deliberately co-opt all social movements, although the larger ones like
the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations have certainly successfully done
this in the past. Craig Jenkins (1998, p.212) proposes his channeling
thesis is more appropriate than the cooption model because it: (1)
considers ?that foundation goals are complex, ranging from genuine
support of movement goals to social control? (a point the co-option
thesis also acknowledges), (2) identifies the trend towards
professionalization (a process also identified by the co-option thesis)
and (3) this professionalization has led to greater mobilizations and
successes than would have occurred otherwise. This last point is
certainly debatable, as the history of social change seems to suggest
that mass grassroots campaigns have far more progressive influence on
political institutions than professional advocacy groups.
Deborah McCarthy (2004, p.254) suggests that the ?social relations?
approach to grantee/funder relations ?presents a dialectical model in
which both grantees and funders influence each other? as opposed
to ?the channeling and co-optation theories [which she argues] present
a one-way model in which foundations influence grantees but not the
other way around.? In response, I would argue that it is clear that
foundation funding is dialectical, and it is important not to write off
the work of those she presents as ?one-way models? because clearly each
funding relationship will vary from another, and the latter models
benefit by incorporating the unequal power evident between funders? and
grantees. McCarthy (2004: 258) notes that activist/funders often have
to trick their foundations to support environmental justice projects by
using ?terminology with issues that their foundation?s boards and
donors already fund.? McCarthy discusses some ways in which activists
and funders? may begin to work around three major problems associated
with foundation funding of the environmental justice movement which
are: ?programmatic emphases on project-specific grants,
outcome-specific evaluation criteria, and short-term grants? (2004,
p.263).
See Deborah McCarthy, Environmental Justice Grantmaking: Elites and
Activists Collaborate to Transform Philanthropy, Sociological Inquiry,
Vol. 74, No. 2, 2004, pp.250?270.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2004.00089.x
[26] Raymond Breton, The Governance of Ethnic Communities: Political
Structures and Processes in Canada (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1990).
[27] Joan Roelofs, ?Foundations and Collaboration?, Critical Sociology,
Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, p.502.
[Michael Barker is a doctoral candidate at Griffith University,
Australia. He can be reached at Michael.J.Barker [at] griffith.edu.au ]
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
New York Transfer News Collective http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFG6SxBiz2i76ou9wQRApd+AJ9H6jsOYV48EQTug2ojI5nlEoTrmQCfR9Lr
Vh0EShgZ1WRjUnI07FumxEg=
=jxZM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions? (Pt.1 of 2)
Via NY Transfer News Collective All the News that Doesn't Fit
ZNet - Sep 2, 2007
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=13689
Part 1 of 2
Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions?
by Michael Barker
To date capitalists have financially supported two types of revolution:
they have funded the neoliberal revolution to take the risk out of
democracy,[1] and they have supported/hijacked popular revolutions (or
in some cases manufactured ~revolutions) in countries of geostrategic
importance (i.e. in counties where regime change is beneficial to
transnational capitalism).[2] The former neoliberal revolution has, of
course, been funded by a hoard of right wing philanthropists intent on
neutralising progressive forces within society, while the latter
~democratic revolutions are funded by an assortment of ~bipartisan
quasi-nongovernmental organizations, like the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) and private institutions like George Soros Open Society
Institute. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NED,
http://wiki.zmag.org/George_Soros
The underlying mechanisms by which capitalists hijack popular
revolutions has been outlined in William I. Robinsons seminal book,
Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony
(1996), which examines elite interventions in four countries " Chile,
Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Haiti.[3] Robinson hypothesized that as
a result of the public backlash (in the 1970s) against the US
governments repressive and covert foreign policies, foreign policy
making elites elected to put a greater emphasis on overt means of
overthrowing ~problematic governments through the strategic
manipulation of civil society. In 1984, this ~democratic thinking was
institutionalised with the creation of the National Endowment for
Democracy, an organisation that acts as the coordinating body for
better funded ~democracy promoting organisations like US Agency for
International Development and the Central Intelligence Agency. Robinson
observes that:
]the understanding on the part of US policymakers that power
ultimately rests in civil society, and that state power is intimately
linked to a given correlation of forces in civil society, has helped
shape the contours of the new political intervention. Unlike earlier US
interventionism, the new intervention focuses much more intensely on
civil society itself, in contrast to formal government structures, in
intervened countries. The purpose of ~democracy promotion is not to
suppress but to penetrate and conquer civil society in intervened
countries, that is, the complex of ~private organizations such as
political parties, trade unions, the media, and so forth, and from
therein, integrate subordinate classes and national groups into a
hegemonic transnational social order] This function of civil society as
an arena for exercising domination runs counter to conventional
(particularly pluralist) thinking on the matter, which holds that civil
society is a buffer between state domination and groups in society, and
that class and group domination is diluted as civil society
develops.[4]
Thus it is not too surprising that Robinson should conclude that the
primary goal of ~democracy promoting groups, like the NED, is the
promotion of polyarchy or low-intensity democracy over more substantive
forms of democratic governance.[5] Here it is useful to turn to Barry
Gills, Joen Rocamora, and Richard Wilsons (1993) work which provides a
useful description of low-intensity democracy, they observe that:
Low Intensity Democracy is designed to promote stability. However, it
is usually accompanied by neoliberal economic policies to restore
economic growth. This usually accentuates economic hardship for the
less privileged and deepens the short-term structural effects of
economic crisis as the economy opens further to the competitive winds
of the world market and global capital. The pains of economic
adjustment are supposed to be temporary, preparing the society to
proceed to a higher stage of development. The temporary economic
suffering of the majority is further supposed to be balanced by the
benefits of a freer democratic political culture. But unfortunately for
them, the poor and dispossessed cannot eat votes! In such
circumstances, Low Intensity Democracy may ~work in the short term,
primarily as a strategy to reduce political tension, but is fragile in
the long term, due to its inability to redress fundamental political
and economic problems.[6]
So while capitalists appear happy to fund the neoliberal ~revolution,
or geostrategic revolutions that promote low-intensity democracy, the
one revolution that capitalists will not bankroll will be the
revolution at home, that is, here in our Western (low-intensity)
democracies: a point that is forcefully argued in INCITE! Women of
Color Against Violences (2007) book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded.
Of course, liberal-minded capitalists do support efforts to ~depose
radical neoconservatives, as demonstrated by liberal attempts to oust
Bushs regime by the Soros-backed Americans Coming Together
coalition.[7] But as in NED-backed strategic ~revolutions, the results
of such campaigns are only ever likely to promote low-intensity
democracy, thereby ensuring the replacement of one (business-led) elite
with another one (in the USs case with the Democrats).
So the question remains: can progressive activists work towards
creating a more equitable (and participatory) world using funding
derived from those very groups within society that stand to lose most
from such revolutionary changes? The obvious answer to this question is
no. Yet, if this is the case, why are so many progressive (sometimes
even radical) groups accepting funding from major liberal foundations
(which, after all, were created by some of Americas most successful
capitalists)?
Several reasons may help explain this contradictory situation. Firstly,
it is well known that progressive groups are often underfunded, and
their staff overworked, thus there is every likelihood that many groups
and activists that receive support from liberal foundations have never
even considered the problems associated with such funding.[8] If this
is the case then hopefully their exposure to the arguments presented in
this article will help more activists begin to rethink their unhealthy
relations with their funders.
On the other hand, it seems likely that many progressive groups
understand that the broader goals and aspirations of liberal
foundations are incompatible with their own more radical visions for
the future; yet, despite recognizing this dissonance between their
ambitions, it would seem that many progressive organizations believe
that they can beat the foundations at their own game and trick them
into funding projects that will promote a truly progressive social
change. Here it is interesting to note that paradoxically some radical
groups do in fact receive funding from liberal foundations. And like
those progressive groups that attempt to trick the foundations, many of
these groups argue that will take money from anyone willing to give it
so long as it comes with no strings attached. These final two positions
are held by numerous activist organizations, and are also highly
problematic. This is case because if we can agree that it is unlikely
that liberal foundations will fund the much needed societal changes
that will bring about their own demise, why do they continue funding
such progressive activists?
Despite the monumental importance of this question to progressive
activists worldwide, judging by the number of articles dealing with it
in the alternative media very little importance appears to have been
attached to discussing this question and investigating means of
cultivating funding sources that are geared towards the promotion of
radical social change. Fortunately though, in addition to INCITE!s
aforementioned book, which has helped break the unstated taboo
surrounding the discussion of activist funding, another critical
exception was provided in the June 2007 edition of the academic journal
Critical Sociology. The editors of this path breaking issue of Critical
Sociology dont beat around that bush and point out that:
The critical study of foundations is not a subfield in any academic
discipline; it is not even an organized interdisciplinary grouping.
This, along with concerns about personal defunding, limits its output,
especially as compared to that of the many well-endowed centers for the
uncritical study of foundations.[9]
Despite the dearth of critical inquiry into the historical influence of
liberal foundations on the evolution of democracy, in the past few
years a handful of books have endeavoured to provide a critical
overview of the insidious anti-radicalising activities of liberal
philanthropists. Thus the rest of this article will provide a brief
review of some of this important work, however, before doing this I
will briefly outline what I mean by progressive social change (that is,
the type of social change that liberal foundations are loathe to fund).
Why Progressive Social Change?
With the growth of popular progressive social movements during the
1960s in the US (and elsewhere), the global populace became
increasingly aware of the criminal nature of many of their governments
activities (both at home and abroad) which fuelled increasing popular
resistance to US imperialism. This in turn led influential scholars,
working under the remit of the Trilateral Commission (a group founded
by liberal philanthropists, see note [50]), to controversially conclude
(in 1975) that the increasing radicalism of the worlds citizens
stemmed from an excess of democracy which could only be quelled by a
greater degree of moderation in democracy.[10] This elitist diagnosis
makes sense when one considers Carole Patemans (1989) observation that
the dominant political and economic elites in the US posited that true
democracy rested not on the participation of the people, but on their
nonparticipation.[11] However, contrary to the Trilateral Commissions
desire to promote low-intensity democracy on a global scale, Gills,
Rocamora, and Wilson (1993) suggest that:
Democracy requires more than mere maintenance of formal ~liberties.
[In fact, they argue that t]he only way to advance democracy in the
Third World, or anywhere else, is to increase the democratic content of
formal democratic institutions through profound social reform. Without
substantial social reform and redistribution of economic assets,
representative institutions " no matter how ~democratic in form " will
simply mirror the undemocratic power relations of society. Democracy
requires a change in the balance of forces in society. Concentration of
economic power in the hands of a small elite is a structural obstacle
to democracy. It must be displaced if democracy is to emerge.[12]
In essence, one of the most important steps activists can take to help
bring about truly progressive social change is to encourage the
development of a politically active citizenry " that is, a public that
participates in democratic processes, but not necessarily those
promoted by the government. Furthermore, it is also vitally important
that groups promoting more participatory forms of democracy do so in a
manner consistent with the participatory principles they believe in.
(For a major critique of ~progressive activism in the US see Dana
Fishers (2006) [http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?book_id=5217
Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is
Strangling Progressive Politics in America]. Similarly, also see my
recent article
[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13436 Hijacking
Human Rights: A Critical Examination of Human Rights Watchs Americas
Branch and their Links to the ~Democracy Establishment.])
Michael Albert is an influential theorist of progressive politics, and
he has written at (inspiring) length about transitionary strategies for
promoting participatory democracy in both his classic book
[http://www.zmag.org/parecon/pelac.htm Parecon: Life After Capitalism]
(2003), and more recently in Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism
(2006). Simply put, Albert (2006) observes that: A truly democratic
community insures that the general public has the opportunity for
meaningful and constructive participation in the formation of social
policy. However, there is no single answer to determining the best way
of creating a participatory society, and so he rightly notes that
Parecon (which is short for participatory economics) doesnt itself
answer visionary questions bearing on race, gender, polity, and other
social concerns, [but] it is at least compatible with and even, in some
cases, perhaps necessary for, doing so.[13]
Finally, I would argue that in order to move towards a new
participatory world order it is vitally important that progressive
activists engage in radical critiques of society. Undertaking such
radical actions may be problematic for some activists, because
unfortunately the word radical is often used by the corporate media as
a derogatory term for all manner of activists (whether they are radical
or not). Yet this hijacking of the term perhaps makes it an even more
crucial take that progressives work to reclaim this word as their own,
so they can inject it back into their own work and analyses. Indeed,
Robert Jensens (2004) excellent book Writing Dissent: Taking Radical
Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream reminds us that:
]the origins of the word " radical, [comes] from the Latin radicalis,
meaning ~root. Radical analysis goes to the root of an issue or
problem. Typically that means that while challenging the specific
manifestations of a problem, radicals also analyse the ideological and
institutional components as well as challenge the unstated assumptions
and conventional wisdom that obscure the deeper roots. Often it means
realizing that what is taken as an aberration or deviation from a
system is actually the predictable and/or intended result of a
system.[14]
The Liberal Foundations of Social Change
Now that I have briefly outlined why progressive social change is so
important, it is useful to examine why liberal philanthropy " which has
been institutionalised within liberal foundations " arose in the first
place. Here it is useful to quote Nicolas Guilhot (2007) who neatly
outlines the ideological reasons lying behind liberal philanthropy. He
observes that in the face of the violent labor wars of the late 19th
century that directly threatened the economic interests of the
philanthropists, liberal philanthropists realized:
] that social reform was unavoidable, [and instead] chose to invest in
the definition and scientific treatment of the ~social questions of
their time: urbanization, education, housing, public hygiene, the
Negro problem, etc. Far from being resistant to social change, the
philanthropists promoted reformist solutions that did not threaten the
capitalistic nature of the social order but constituted a ~private
alternative to socialism[15] Andrea Smith (2007) notes that:
>From their inception, [liberal] foundations focused on research and
dissemination of information designed ostensibly to ameliorate social
issues-in a manner, however, that did not challenge capitalism. For
instance, in 1913, Colorado miners went on strike against Colorado Fuel
and Iron, an enterprise of which 40 percent was owned by Rockefeller.
Eventually, this strike erupted into open warfare, with the Colorado
militia murdering several strikers during the Ludlow Massacre of April
20, 1914. During that same time, Jerome Greene, the Rockefeller
Foundation secretary, identified research and information to quiet
social and political unrest as a foundation priority. The rationale
behind this strategy was that while individual workers deserved social
relief, organized workers in the form of unions were a threat to
society. So the Rockefeller Foundation heavily advertised its relief
work for individual workers while at the same time promoting a
pro-Rockefeller spin to the massacre.[16]
Writing in 1966, Carroll Quigley " who happened to be one of Bill
Clintons mentors " [17] elaborates on the motivations driving the
philanthropic colonisation of progressive social change:
More than fifty years ago [circa 1914] the Morgan firm decided to
infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This
was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds
and eager for a voice to reach the people. Wall Street supplied both.
The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but was really
threefold: (1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or
liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they
could ~blow off steam, and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity
and possibly on their actions, if they ever went ~radical. There was
nothing really new about this decision, since other financiers had
talked about it and even attempted it earlier. What made it decisively
important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant
Wall Street financier, at a time when tax policy was driving all
financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes, and at a time
when the ultimate in Left-wing radicalism was about to appear under the
banner of the Third International.[18]
One of the most important books exploring the detrimental influence of
liberal foundations on social change was Robert Arnoves Philanthropy
and Cultural Imperialism (1980). In the introduction to this edited
collection Arnove notes that:
A central thesis [of this book] is that foundations like Carnegie,
Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a democratic
society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable
concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes,
and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits societys attention.
They serve as ~cooling-out agencies, delaying and preventing more
radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and
political order, international in scope, which benefits the
ruling-class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids " a
system which, as the various chapters document, has worked against the
interests of minorities, the working class, and Third World
peoples.[19]
With the aid of Nadine Pinede, Arnove (2007) recently updated this
critique noting that, while the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford
foundations are considered to be among the most progressive in the
sense of being forward looking and reform-minded, they are also among
the most controversial and influential of all the foundations.[20]
Indeed, as Edward H. Berman demonstrated in his book
[http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/ideologyofphilanthropy.htm The
Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on
American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy] (1983), the
activities of all three of these foundations are closely entwined with
those of US foreign policy elites. This subject has also been covered
in some depth in Frances Stonor Saunders (1999) book Who Paid the
Piper?: CIA and the Cultural Cold War. She notes that:
During the height of the Cold War, the US government committed vast
resources to a secret programme of cultural propaganda in western
Europe. A central feature of this programme was to advance the claim
that it did not exist. It was managed, in great secrecy, by Americas
espionage arm, the Central Intelligence Agency. The centrepiece of this
covert campaign was the Congress for Cultural Freedom [which received
massive support from the Ford Foundation and was] run by CIA agent
Michael Josselson from 1950 till 1967. Its achievements " not least
its duration " were considerable. At its peak, the Congress for
Cultural Freedom had offices in thirty-five countries, employed dozens
of personnel, published over twenty prestige magazines, held art
exhibitions, owned a news and features service, organized high-profile
international conferences, and rewarded musicians and artists with
prizes and public performances. Its mission was to nudge the
intelligentsia of western Europe away from its lingering fascination
with Marxism and Communism towards a view more accommodating of ~the
American way.[21]
So given the elitist history of liberal foundations it is not
surprising that Arnove and Pinede (2007) note that although the
Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford foundations claim to attack the root
causes of the ills of humanity, they essentially engage in ameliorative
practices to maintain social and economic systems that generate the
very inequalities and injustices they wish to correct.[22] Indeed they
conclude that although the past few decades these foundations have
adopted a more progressive, if not radical, rhetoric and approaches to
community building that gives a voice to those who have been
disadvantaged by the workings of an increasingly global capitalist
economy, they remain ultimately elitist and technocratic
institutions.[23]
Based on the knowledge of these critiques, it is then supremely ironic
that progressive activists tend to underestimate the influence of
liberal philanthropists, while simultaneously acknowledging the
fundamental role played by conservative philanthropists in promoting
neoliberal policies. Indeed, contrary to popular beliefs amongst
progressives, much evidence supports the contention that liberal
philanthropists and their foundations have been very influential in
shaping the contours of American (and global) civil society, actively
influencing social change through a process alternatively referred to
as either channelling [24] or co-option.[25]
Co-optation [being] a process through which the policy orientations of
leaders are influenced and their organizational activities channeled.
It blends the leaders interests with those of an external
organization. In the process, ethnic leaders and their organizations
become active in the state-run interorganizational system; they become
participants in the decision-making process as advisors or committee
members. By becoming somewhat of an insider the co-opted leader is
likely to identify with the organization and its objectives. The
leaders point of view is shaped through the personal ties formed with
authorities and functionaries of the external organization.[26]
The critical issue of the cooption of progressive groups by liberal
foundations has also been examined in Joan Roelofs seminal book
Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (extracts of this
book can be found online,
[http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/maskofpluralism.htm click here]). In
summary, Roelofs (2007) argues that:
]the pluralist model of civil society obscures the extensive
collaboration among the resource-providing elites and the dependent
state of most grassroots organizations. While the latter may negotiate
with foundations over details, and even win some concessions,
capitalist hegemony (including its imperial perquisites) cannot be
questioned without severe organizational penalties. By and large, it is
the funders who are calling the tune. This would be more obvious if
there were sufficient publicized investigations of this vast and
important domain. That the subject is ~off-limits for both academics
and journalists is compelling evidence of enormous power.[27] (To
listen to Roelofs recent talk ~The Invisible Hand of Corporate
Capitalism, which summarises the arguments presented in her book,
[http://www.traprockpeace.org/edrussell/JoanRoelofs18April07AImedia.mp3 ]. )
The concluding part of this article will examine how liberal
foundations coopted the civil rights movement, promoted identity
politics and multiculturalism, and influenced the development of the
World Social Forum. Finally it will conclude by offering suggestions
for how activists might begin to move beyond the Non-Profit Industrial
Complex.
Continued in Part 2...
References
[1] Damien C. Cahill, The Radical Neo-liberal Movement as a Hegemonic
Force in Australia, 1976-1996 (Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of
Wollongong, 2004); Alex Carey, Taking the Risk out of Democracy:
Propaganda in the US and Australia (Sydney, N.S.W.: University of New
South Wales Press, 1995); Sally Covington, Moving a Public Policy
Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations
(Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 1997).
[2] MichaelBarker, Taking the Risk Out of Civil Society: Harnessing
Social Movements and Regulating Revolutions, Refereed paper presented
to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference,
University of Newcastle 25-27 September 2006.
[http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/ept/politics/apsa/PapersFV/IntRel_IPE/Barker, Michael.pdf
[3] Here it is important to note that in all four countries that
Robinson examined, the ?democratic transitions? ?were touted by
policymakers, and praised by journalists, supportive scholars, and
public commentators, as ?success stories? in which the United States
broke sharply with earlier support for authoritarianism and
dictatorship and contributed in a positive way to ?democracy,? and
therefore as ?models? for future US interventions of this type.?
William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US
Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996),, p.114.
[4] Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, pp.28-9. For related online
resources see, William I. Robinson, A Faustian Bargain: U.S.
Intervention in the Nicaraguan Elections and American Foreign Policy in
the Post-Cold War Era] (Westview Press, 1992)
[http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/Assets/pdf/faustista.pdf
[5] However, he does specify that it is important to note that the
US ?is not acting on behalf of a ?US? elite, but [instead is] playing a
leadership role on behalf of an emergent transnational elite?; and that
the ?impulse to ?promote democracy?? essentially arises from the
need ?to secure the underlying objective of maintaining essentially
undemocratic societies inserted into an unjust international
system.?Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.20, 6.
Robinson also adds that: ?A caveat must be stressed. US preference for
polyarchy is a general guideline of post-Cold War foreign policy and
not a universal prescription. Policymakers often assess that
authoritarian arrangements are best left in place in instances where
the establishment of polyarchic systems is an unrealistic, high-risk,
or unnecessary undertaking.? Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.112.
[6] Barry Gills, Joen Rocamora, and Richard Wilson, Low Intensity
Democracy: Political Power in the New World Order (London: Pluto Press,
1993), pp.26-7.
[7] Leslie Wayne, ?And for His Next Feat, a Billionaire Sets Sights on
Bush?, New York Times, May 31, 2004.
[8] Indeed as INCITE! note in their book The Revolution Will Not Be
Funded: ?We took a stand against state funding since we perceived that
antiviolence organizations who had state funding had been co-opted. It
never occurred to us to look at foundation funding in the same way.
However, in a trip to India (funded, ironically, by the Ford
Foundation), we met with many non-funded organizations that criticized
us for receiving foundation grants.
When we saw that groups with much less access to resources were able to
do amazing work without funding, we began to question our reliance on
foundation grants.? Andrea Smith, ?Introduction: The Revolution Will
Not Be Funded?, 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.1.
[9] Annon, ?Note on this Special Issue of Critical Sociology?, Critical
Sociology, 33 (2007), p.387.
[10] Crozier, M., S. P. Huntington and J. Watanuki, The Crisis of
Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral
Commission (New York: New York University Press, 1975), p.134.
[11] Carole Pateman, ?The Civic Culture: A Philosophical Critique?, In:
G.
A. Almond and S. Verba (eds.) The Civic Culture: A Philosophical
Critique (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1989), p.79.
[12] Gills, Rocamora, and Wilson, Low Intensity Democracy, p.29.
[13] Michael Albert, Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism (London:
Zed Books, 2006), p.24, 185.
[14] Robert Jensen, Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the
Margins to the Mainstream (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), p.7.
[15] Nicolas Guilhot, ?Reforming the World: George Soros, Global
Capitalism and the Philanthropic Management of the Social Sciences?,
Critical Sociology, Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, pp.451-2.
[16] Andrea Smith, ?Introduction: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded?,
p.4.
[17] Daniel Brandt, ?[http://www.namebase.org/news01.html Clinton,
Quigley, and Conspiracy: What?s going on here?]? NameBase NewsLine, No.
1, April-June 1993.
[18] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our
Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p.938.
[19] Robert F. Arnove, ?Introduction?, In: Robert F. Arnove, (ed.),
Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and
Abroad (Boston, Mass.: G.K. Hall, 1980), p.1.
[20] Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede, ?Revisiting the ?Big Three?
Foundations?, Critical Sociology, Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, p.391.
[21] Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper?: CIA and the Cultural
Cold War (Granta Books, 1999), p.1.
For a useful review of Saunders? book see, James Petras, The CIA and
the Cultural Cold War Revisited, Monthly Review, November 1999.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1199petr.htm
Also see Hugh Wilford, The CIA, the British Left, and the Cold War:
Calling the Tune? (London: Frank Cass, 2003)
http://books.google.com/books?id=e4...r6CyN&sig=daN3MB1kohtWuz-dEqg233KB3Ow#PPP1,M1
and Paul Wolf, OSS and the Development of Psychological Warfare.
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/foundations.htm
[22] Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede, ?Revisiting the ?Big Three?
Foundations?, p.393.
[23] Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede, ?Revisiting the ?Big Three?Foundations?, p.422.
[24] Craig J. Jenkins, ?Channeling Social Protest: Foundation Patronage
of Contemporary Social Movements?, In: W. W. Powell and E. S. Clemens,
(eds.), Private Action and the Public Good (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1998), pp. 206-216.
[25] Robert F. Arnove (ed.), Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism;
Donald Fisher, ?The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in the
Reproduction and Production of Hegemony: Rockefeller Foundations and
the Social Sciences?, Sociology, 17, 2, 1983, pp. 206-233; Joan
Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2003).; John Wilson, ?Corporatism
and the Professionalization of Reform?, Journal of Political and
Military Sociology, 11, 1983, pp. 52-68.
Few researchers would argue that all foundations actively attempt to
deliberately co-opt all social movements, although the larger ones like
the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations have certainly successfully done
this in the past. Craig Jenkins (1998, p.212) proposes his channeling
thesis is more appropriate than the cooption model because it: (1)
considers ?that foundation goals are complex, ranging from genuine
support of movement goals to social control? (a point the co-option
thesis also acknowledges), (2) identifies the trend towards
professionalization (a process also identified by the co-option thesis)
and (3) this professionalization has led to greater mobilizations and
successes than would have occurred otherwise. This last point is
certainly debatable, as the history of social change seems to suggest
that mass grassroots campaigns have far more progressive influence on
political institutions than professional advocacy groups.
Deborah McCarthy (2004, p.254) suggests that the ?social relations?
approach to grantee/funder relations ?presents a dialectical model in
which both grantees and funders influence each other? as opposed
to ?the channeling and co-optation theories [which she argues] present
a one-way model in which foundations influence grantees but not the
other way around.? In response, I would argue that it is clear that
foundation funding is dialectical, and it is important not to write off
the work of those she presents as ?one-way models? because clearly each
funding relationship will vary from another, and the latter models
benefit by incorporating the unequal power evident between funders? and
grantees. McCarthy (2004: 258) notes that activist/funders often have
to trick their foundations to support environmental justice projects by
using ?terminology with issues that their foundation?s boards and
donors already fund.? McCarthy discusses some ways in which activists
and funders? may begin to work around three major problems associated
with foundation funding of the environmental justice movement which
are: ?programmatic emphases on project-specific grants,
outcome-specific evaluation criteria, and short-term grants? (2004,
p.263).
See Deborah McCarthy, Environmental Justice Grantmaking: Elites and
Activists Collaborate to Transform Philanthropy, Sociological Inquiry,
Vol. 74, No. 2, 2004, pp.250?270.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2004.00089.x
[26] Raymond Breton, The Governance of Ethnic Communities: Political
Structures and Processes in Canada (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1990).
[27] Joan Roelofs, ?Foundations and Collaboration?, Critical Sociology,
Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, p.502.
[Michael Barker is a doctoral candidate at Griffith University,
Australia. He can be reached at Michael.J.Barker [at] griffith.edu.au ]
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
New York Transfer News Collective http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFG6SxBiz2i76ou9wQRApd+AJ9H6jsOYV48EQTug2ojI5nlEoTrmQCfR9Lr
Vh0EShgZ1WRjUnI07FumxEg=
=jxZM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----