<html>
<body>
<dl>
<dd><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=13689" eudora="autourl">
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=13689<br>
</a></font>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>ZNet | Vision &
Strategy<br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=5>Do Capitalists Fund
Revolutions?<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Part 1 of 2<br>
<dd>by Michael Barker; September 02, 2007</b> <br><br>
<dl>
<dd>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
[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NED National Endowment for Democracy" eudora="autourl">
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NED National Endowment for
Democracy</a>] (NED), and private institutions like
[<a href="http://wiki.zmag.org/George_Soros%20George%20Soros’%20Open%20Society%20Institute" eudora="autourl">
http://wiki.zmag.org/George_Soros George Soros’ Open Society
Institute</a>]. <br><br>
<dd>The underlying mechanisms by which capitalists hijack popular
revolutions has been outlined in William I. Robinson’s 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 government’s 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:<br><br>
<dd>“…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]
<br><br>
<dd>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 Wilson’s (1993) work which provides a
useful description of low-intensity democracy, they observe
that:<br><br>
<dd>“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]<br><br>
<dd>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 Violence’s (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 Bush’s
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 US’s
case with the Democrats).<br><br>
<dd>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)?
<br><br>
<dd>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’. <br><br>
<dd>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? <br><br>
<dd>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 don’t beat around that bush and point out that:<br><br>
<dd>“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]<br><br>
<dd>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).<br><br>
<dd>Why Progressive Social Change?<br>
<dd>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 government’s 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 world’s 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 Pateman’s (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 Commission’s desire to promote
low-intensity democracy on a global scale, Gills, Rocamora, and Wilson
(1993) suggest that:<br><br>
<dd>“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] <br><br>
<dd>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 Fisher’s
(2006)
[<a href="http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?book_id=5217%20%20 Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in America" eudora="autourl">
http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?book_id=5217%20%20 Activism, Inc.: How the
Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in
America</a>]. Similarly, also see my recent article
[<a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13436 Hijacking Human Rights: A Critical Examination of Human Rights Watch’s Americas Branch and their Links to the ‘Democracy’ Establishment." eudora="autourl">
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13436 Hijacking Human
Rights: A Critical Examination of Human Rights Watch’s Americas Branch
and their Links to the ‘Democracy’ Establishment.</a>])<br><br>
<dd>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
[<a href="http://www.zmag.org/parecon/pelac.htm%20Parecon:%20Life%20After%20Capitalism" eudora="autourl">
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/pelac.htm Parecon: Life After Capitalism</a>]
(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) “doesn’t 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] <br><br>
<dd>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
Jensen’s (2004) excellent book Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from
the Margins to the Mainstream reminds us that:<br><br>
<dd>“…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]<br><br>
<dd>The Liberal Foundations of Social Change<br><br>
<dd>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:<br><br>
<dd>“… 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]<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Andrea Smith (2007) notes that:<br><br>
<dd>“From their inception, [liberal] foundations focused on research and
dissemination of information designed ostensibly to ameliorate social
issues-in a manner, how¬ever, 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 founda¬tion 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 soci¬ety. 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]<br><br>
<dd>Writing in 1966, Carroll Quigley – who happened to be one of Bill
Clinton’s mentors – [17] elaborates on the motivations driving the
philanthropic colonisation of progressive social change:<br><br>
<dd>“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]<br><br>
<dd>One of the most important books exploring the detrimental influence
of liberal foundations on social change was Robert Arnove’s Philanthropy
and Cultural Imperialism (1980). In the introduction to this edited
collection Arnove notes that:<br><br>
<dd>“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 society’s 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]<br><br>
<dd>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
[<a href="http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/ideologyofphilanthropy.htm%20The%20Influence%20of%20the%20Carnegie,%20Ford,%20and%20Rockefeller%20Foundations%20on%20American%20Foreign%20Policy:%20The%20Ideology%20of%20Philanthropy" eudora="autourl">
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</a>] (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: <br><br>
<dd>“During the height of the Cold War, the US government com¬mitted vast
resources to a secret programme of cultural propaganda in western Europe.
A central feature of this pro¬gramme was to advance the claim that it did
not exist. It was managed, in great secrecy, by America’s espionage arm,
the Central Intelligence Agency. The centrepiece of this covert cam¬paign
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 achieve¬ments – 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 con¬ferences, 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
accommo¬dating of ‘the American way’.”[21]<br><br>
<dd>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] <br><br>
<dd>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] <br><br>
<dd>“Co-optation [being] a process through which the policy orientations
of leaders are influenced and their organizational activities channeled.
It blends the leader’s interests with those of an external organization.
In the process, ethnic lead¬ers 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 leader’s point of view is shaped
through the personal ties formed with authorities and functionaries of
the external organization.”[26] <br><br>
<dd>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:<br><br>
<dd>“…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
click here]. ) <br><br>
<br>
<dd>To be continued… <br><br>
<dd>The concluding part of this article will examine how liberal
foundations coopted the civil rights movement, promoted “iden¬tity
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.<br><br>
<dd>Michael Barker is a doctoral candidate at Griffith University,
Australia. He can be reached at Michael.J.Barker [at]
griffith.edu.au<br><br>
<dd>References<br>
<dd>[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).<br>
<dd>[2] Michael Barker,
‘[<a href="http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/ept/politics/apsa/PapersFV/IntRel_IPE/Barker,%20Michael.pdf%20Taking%20the%20Risk%20Out%20of%20Civil%20Society:%20Harnessing%20Social%20Movements%20and%20Regulating%20Revolutions" eudora="autourl">
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/ept/politics/apsa/PapersFV/IntRel_IPE/Barker,%20Michael.pdf
Taking the Risk Out of Civil Society: Harnessing Social Movements and
Regulating Revolutions</a>]’, Refereed paper presented to the
Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, University of
Newcastle 25-27 September 2006. <br>
<dd>[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.<br>
<dd>[4] Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, pp.28-9. For related online
resources see, William I. Robinson,
[<a href="http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/Assets/pdf/faustista.pdf%20A%20Faustian%20Bargain:%20U.S.%20Intervention%20in%20the%20Nicaraguan%20Elections%20and%20American%20Foreign%20Policy%20in%20the%20Post-Cold%20War%20Era" eudora="autourl">
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/Assets/pdf/faustista.pdf A
Faustian Bargain: U.S. Intervention in the Nicaraguan Elections and
American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era</a>] (Westview Press,
1992) <br>
<dd>[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.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>[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.<br>
<dd>[7] Leslie Wayne, ‘And for His Next Feat, a Billionaire Sets Sights
on Bush’, New York Times, May 31, 2004.<br>
<dd>[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 founda¬tion 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.<br>
<dd>[9] Annon, ‘Note on this Special Issue of Critical Sociology’,
Critical Sociology, 33 (2007), p.387.<br>
<dd>[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.<br>
<dd>[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.<br>
<dd>[12] Gills, Rocamora, and Wilson, Low Intensity Democracy, p.29.<br>
<dd>[13] Michael Albert, Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism (London:
Zed Books, 2006), p.24, 185.<br>
<dd>[14] Robert Jensen, Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the
Margins to the Mainstream (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), p.7.<br>
<dd>[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.<br>
<dd>[16] Andrea Smith, ‘Introduction: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded’,
p.4.<br>
<dd>[17] Daniel Brandt,
‘[<a href="http://www.namebase.org/news01.html%20Clinton,%20Quigley,%20and%20Conspiracy:%20What’s%20going%20on%20here?" eudora="autourl">
http://www.namebase.org/news01.html Clinton, Quigley, and Conspiracy:
What’s going on here?</a>]’ NameBase NewsLine, No. 1, April-June 1993.
<br>
<dd>[18] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our
Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p.938.<br>
<dd>[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.<br>
<dd>[20] Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede, ‘Revisiting the “Big Three”
Foundations’, Critical Sociology, Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, p.391.<br>
<dd>[21] Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper?: CIA and the
Cultural Cold War (Granta Books, 1999), p.1.<br>
<dd>For a useful review of Saunders’ book see, James Petras,
‘[<a href="http://www.monthlyreview.org/1199petr.htm%20The%20CIA%20and%20the%20Cultural%20Cold%20War%20Revisited" eudora="autourl">
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1199petr.htm The CIA and the Cultural Cold
War Revisited</a>]’, Monthly Review, November 1999. <br>
<dd>Also see Hugh Wilford,
[<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=e4kNqc_p6uYC&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=saunders+1999+who+paid+the+piper&source=web&ots=L3LA_r6CyN&sig=daN3MB1kohtWuz-dEqg233KB3Ow#PPP1,M1 The CIA, the British Left, and the Cold War: Calling the Tune?" eudora="autourl">
http://books.google.com/books?id=e4kNqc_p6uYC&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=saunders+1999+who+paid+the+piper&source=web&ots=L3LA_r6CyN&sig=daN3MB1kohtWuz-dEqg233KB3Ow#PPP1,M1
The CIA, the British Left, and the Cold War: Calling the Tune?</a>]
(London: Frank Cass, 2003); and Paul Wolf, ‘OSS and the Development of
Psychological Warfare’.
<a href="http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/foundations.htm">
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/foundations.htm</a> <br>
<dd>[22] Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede, ‘Revisiting the “Big Three”
Foundations’, p.393.<br>
<dd>[23] Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede, ‘Revisiting the “Big Three”
Foundations’, p.422.<br>
<dd>[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. <br>
<dd>[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.<br><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
<dd>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,
‘[<a href="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2004.00089.x%20Environmental%20Justice%20Grantmaking:%20Elites%20and%20Activists%20Collaborate%20to%20Transform%20Philanthropy" eudora="autourl">
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2004.00089.x
Environmental Justice Grantmaking: Elites and Activists Collaborate to
Transform Philanthropy</a>]’, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 74, No. 2, 2004,
pp.250–270. <br>
<dd>[26] Raymond Breton, The Governance of Ethnic Communities: Political
Structures and Processes in Canada (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1990).<br>
<dd>[27] Joan Roelofs, ‘Foundations and Collaboration’, Critical
Sociology, Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, p.502.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
</dl>
</dl><font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>