<html>
<body>
<dl>
<dd><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=13734" eudora="autourl">
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=13734<br>
<br>
</a></font>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=5>Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions?
<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Part 2 of 2<br>
<dd>by Michael Barker; September 09, 2007</b> <br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Part one of this article reviewed some of the ways by which liberal
philanthropists work to co-opt the activities of progressive groups all
over the world. This second part of the article will continue to review
the recent literature pertaining to the insidious anti-radicalising
activities of liberal philanthropists and their foundation, and conclude
by offering suggestions for how progressive activists might begin to move
beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex.<br><br>
</i>
<dd>Defanging the Threat of Civil Rights<br><br>
</b>
<dd>The 1960s civil rights movement was the first documented social
movement that received substantial financial backing from philanthropic
foundations.[28] As might be expected, liberal foundation support went
almost entirely to moderate professional movement organizations like, the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and their
Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Urban League, and foundations also
helped launch President Kennedy’s Voter Education Project.[29] In the
last case, foundation support for the Voter Education Project was
arranged by the Kennedy administration, who wanted to dissipate black
support of sit-in protests while simultaneously obtaining the votes of
more African-Americans, a constituency that helped Kennedy win the 1960
election.[30] <br><br>
<dd>One example of the type of indirect pressure facing social movements
reliant on foundation support can be seen by examining Martin Luther
King, Jr.’s activities as his campaigning became more controversial in
the years just prior to his assassination. On 18 February 1967, King held
a strategy meeting where he said he wanted to take a more active stance
in opposing the Vietnam War: noting that he was willing to break with the
Johnson administration even if the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference lost some financial support (despite it already being in a
weak financial position, with contributions some 40 percent less than the
previous year). In this case, it seems, King was referring to the
potential loss of foundation support as, after his first speech against
the war a week later (on 25 February), he again voiced his concerns that
his new position would jeopardize an important Ford Foundation
grant.[31]<br><br>
<dd>Thus, by providing selective support of activist groups during the
1960s, liberal foundations promoted such groups’ independence from their
unpaid constituents working in the grassroots, facilitating movement
professionalization and institutionalization. This allowed foundations
“to direct dissent into legitimate channels and limit goals to
ameliorative rather than radical change”[32] , in the process promoting a
“narrowing and taming of the potential for broad dissent”.[33] Herbert
Haines (1988) supports this point and argues that the increasing
militancy of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the
Congress for Racial Equality meant most foundation funding was directed
to groups who expressed themselves through more moderate actions.[34] He
referred to this as the “radical flank effect” – a process which
described the way in which funding increased for nonmilitant or moderate
groups (reliant on institutional tactics) as confrontational direct
action protests increased.[35] As Jack Walker (1983) concludes, in his
study of the influence of foundations on interest groups, the reasoning
behind such an interventionist strategy is simple. He argues that
“[f]oundation officials believed that the long run stability of the
representative policy making system could be assured only if legitimate
organizational channels could be provided for the frustration and anger
being expressed in protests and outbreaks of political violence.”[36]
<br><br>
<dd>From Apartheid to ‘Democracy’ and Onwards<br><br>
</b>
<dd>Moving to South Africa’s transition to ‘democracy’, Roelofs (2007)
observes that:<br><br>
<dd>“In the case of South Africa, the challenge for Western elites was to
disconnect the socialist and anti-apartheid goals of the African National
Congress. Foundations aided in this process, by framing the debate in the
United States and by creating civil-rights type NGOs in South Africa. In
1978 the Rockefeller Foundation convened an 11-person Study Commission on
US Policy Toward Southern Africa, chaired by Franklin Thomas, President
of the Ford Foundation; it also included Alan Pifer, President of the
Carnegie Corporation of New York. In Eastern Europe, the 1975 East-West
European Security agreement, known as the “Helsinki Accords” prompted the
foundations to create Helsinki Watch (now Human Rights Watch), an
international NGO for monitoring the agreements; Rockefeller, Ford, and
Soros Foundations are prominent supporters.”[37]<br><br>
<dd>Roelofs (2003) also point out that in addition to coopting social
movements, foundations have played an important role in promoting
“identity politics” which has served to promote fragmentation between
similarly minded radical social movements.[38] Madonna Thunder Hawk
(2007) also critiques the narrow scope of most activists work:<br><br>
<dd>“Previously, organizers would lay down their issue when necessary and
support another issue. Now, most organizers are very specialized, and
cannot do anything unless they have a budget first. More, foundations
will often expect organizations to be very specialized and won’t fund
work that is outside their funding priorities. This reality can limit an
organization’s ability to be creative and flexible as things change in
our society.”[39]<br><br>
<dd>Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery (2007) support such ideas, and
suggest that activist:<br><br>
<dd>“… work becomes compartmentalized products, desired or undesired by
the foundation market, rated by trends or political relationships rather
than depth of work. How often do we hear that ‘youth work is hot right
now’? Funders determine funding trends, and non-profits develop programs
to bend to these requests rather than assess real needs and realistic
goals. If we change our ‘product’ to meet foundation mandates, our
organizations might receive additional funding and fiscal security. But
more often than not, we have also compromised our vision and betrayed the
communities that built us to address specific needs, concerns, and
perspectives.” [40]<br><br>
<dd>Likewise, Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo (2007) launches a similar
broadside against multiculturalism, arguing that:<br><br>
<dd>“The existence of ‘special’ and ‘non-white’ programs emerges from the
logic of the liberalist project of multiculturalism. While there are
clear racial hierarchies structured into organizations, these programs
are developed under a multiculturalist model that renders race marginal
by heralding the primacy of culture… While culturally specific services
and programs might appear to address the injuries of racism, this
organizational strategy actually displaces race from the broader analysis
effectively ignoring the power structure of white supremacy and the
structured subjugation of people of color, which effects countless forms
of violence against women. By adding a program ostensibly designed to
serve the needs of a given community of color, the larger organization
avoids direct accountability to that community. In other words, the
organization’s own white supremacy remains intact and fundamentally
unchallenged, as are the countless forms of violence against women
perpetuated by racism.”[41]<br><br>
<dd>…<br><br>
<dd>“Thus, ‘culturally competent’ and/or multicultural organizational
structures collude with white supremacy and violence against women of
color, namely because this logic enables organizations to dismiss the
centrality of racism in all institutions and organizations in the United
States.”[42]<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>World Social Forum: Funders’ Call the Tune<br><br>
</b>
<dd>As a result of the lack of critical inquiry in to the influence of
liberal philanthropy on progressive organizations, liberal foundations
have quietly insinuated their way into the heart of the global social
justice movement, having played a key role in founding the World Social
Forum (WSF). Furthermore, it is not surprising that, when critiques of
the WSF are made, they tend to be met with a resounding silence by
progressive activists and their media (most of which have been founded
and funded by liberal foundations, see later).[43] <br><br>
<dd>The Research Unit for Political Economy (2007) astutely observes, the
WSF “constitutes an important intervention by foundations in social
movements internationally” because (1) many of the NGO’s attending the
WSF obtain state and/or foundation funding, and (2) “the WSF’s material
base – the funding for its activity – is heavily dependent on
foundations.”[44] It is perhaps stating the obvious to note that more
attention should be paid to such important critiques; however, if further
critical investigations then determined that such claims were
unsubstantiated then the WSF could only be strengthened. On the other
hand, if activists collectively decided that the receipt of liberal
foundation funding is problematic – as happened at the 2004 WSF in Mumbai
– then further steps must be immediately taken to address the issue. Yet,
as the Research Unit for Political Economy point out, although: <br><br>
<dd>“… the WSF India committee’s decision to disavow funds from certain
institutions marked a victory for the critics of the WSF, it did not
really resolve the issue. If the organizers disavowed funds from these
sources on principle (rather than merely because uncomfortable questions
were raised), it is difficult to understand why the prohibition did not
extend as well to organizations funded </i>by them. This left scope for
the WSF to accept funds from organizations funded in turn by Ford.
Moreover, …the bulk of the WSF’s expenses are borne by participating
organizations, many of which are in turn funded by Ford and other such
“barred” sources.”[45]<br><br>
<dd>Clearly important (and concerning) questions have been raised about
the democratic legitimacy of the WSF, but most activists still remain
unaware of the existence of such well founded critiques. This is
problematic and, as Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery (2007) argue,
although fundraising is “an important component of most organizing
efforts in the United States” it: <br><br>
<dd>“… is usually perceived by activists as our nasty compromise within
an evil capitalist structure. As long as we relegate fundraising to a
dirty chore better handled by grant writers and development directors
than organizers, we miss an opportunity to create stepping stones toward
community-based economies.”[46]<br><br>
<dd>However, as Dylan Rodriguez (2007) observes:<br><br>
<dd>“… when one attempts to engage [in] a critical discussion regarding
the political problems of working with these and other foundations, and
especially when one is interested in naming them as the gently repressive
‘evil’ cousins of the more prototypically evil right-wing foundations,
the establishment Left becomes profoundly defensive of its financial
patrons. I would argue that this is a liberal-progressive vision that
marginalizes the radical, revolutionary, and proto-revolutionary forms of
activism, insurrection, and resistance that refuse to participate in the
[George] Soros charade of ‘shared values,’ and are uninterested in trying
to ‘improve the imperfect.’ The social truth of the existing society is
that it is based on </i>the production of massive, unequal, and
hierarchically organized disenfranchisement, suffering, and death of
those populations who are targeted for containment and political/social
liquidation-a violent social order produced under the dictates of
‘democracy,’ ‘peace,’ ‘security,’ and ‘justice’ that form the historical
and political foundations </i>of the very same white civil society on
which the NPIC [Non-Profit Industrial Complex] Left is based.”
[47]<br><br>
<dd>Guilloud and Cordery (2007) “believe it is better to be dissolved by
the community than floated by foundations.” Indeed, they go on to
correctly state the obvious, by noting that community supported
organizations will, by necessity, have to serve the needs of democracy
because “[m]embers who contribute to an organization will stop
contributing when the work is no longer valuable.”[48] <br><br>
<dd>Moving Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex<br><br>
</b>
<dd>“People in non-profits are not necessarily consciously thinking that
they are ‘selling out.’ But just by trying to keep funding and pay
everyone's salaries, they start to unconsciously limit their imagination
of what they could </i>do. In addition, the non-profit structure
supports a paternalistic relationship in which non-profits from outside
our Communities fund their own hand-picked organizers, rather than
funding us to do the work ourselves.” (Madonna Thunder Hawk, 2007)
[49]<br><br>
<dd>Given the historical overview of liberal foundations presented in
this article it is uncontroversial to suggest that liberal
philanthropists – who also support elite planning groups – will not
facilitate the massive radical social changes that will encourage the
global adoption of participatory democracy.[50] Taking a global
view, James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer (2004) argue that most funding
“for poverty alleviation through NGOs also has had little positive
effect” and:<br><br>
<dd>“On the contrary, foreign aid directed toward NGOs has undermined
national decision-making, given that most projects and priorities are set
out by the European or US-based NGOs. In addition, NGO projects tend to
co-opt local leaders and turn them into functionaries administering local
projects that fail to deal with the structural problems and crises of the
recipient countries. Worse yet, NGO funding has led to a proliferation of
competing groups, which set communities and groups against each other,
undermining existing social movements. Rather than compensating for the
social damage inflicted by free market policies and conditions of debt
bondage, the NGO channelled foreign aid complements the IFIs’
[international financial institutions’] neo-liberal agenda.”[51]
<br><br>
<dd>Referring to the detrimental influence of the liberal philanthropy in
the US, Andrea Smith (2007) also observes that:<br><br>
<dd>“[T]he NPIC [Non-Profit Industrial Complex] contributes to a mode of
organizing that is ultimately unsustainable. To radically change society,
we must build mass movements that can topple systems of domination, such
as capitalism. However, the NPIC encourages us to think of social justice
organizing as a career; that is, you do the work if you can get paid for
it. However, a mass movement requires the involvement of millions of
people, most of whom cannot get paid. By trying to do grassroots
organizing through this careerist model, we are essentially asking a few
people to work more than full-time to make up for the work that needs to
be done by millions.<br><br>
<dd>“In addition, the NPIC promotes a social movement culture that is
non-collaborative, narrowly focused, and competitive. To retain the
support of benefactors, groups must compete with each other for funding
by promoting only their own work, whether or not their organizing
strategies are successful. This culture prevents activists from having
collaborative dialogues where we can honestly share our failures as well
as our successes. In addition, after being forced to frame everything we
do as a ‘success,’ we become stuck in having to repeat the same
strategies because we insisted to funders they were successful, even if
they were not. Consequently, we become inflexible rather than fluid and
ever changing in our strategies, which is what a movement for social
transformation really requires. And as we become more concerned with
attracting funders than with organizing mass-based movements, we start
niche marketing the work of our organizations.” [52]<br><br>
<dd>Amara H. Perez and Sisters in Action for Power (2007) also add
that:<br><br>
<dd>“In addition to the power and influence of foundation funding, the
non-profit model itself has contributed to the co-optation of our work
and institutionalized a structure that has normalized a corporate culture
for the way our work is ultimately carried out.”[53]<br><br>
<dd>Fortunately, the answers to the funding problems raised in this
article are rather simple. However, given the lack of critical inquiry
into the anti-democratic influence of liberal foundations on progressive
social change, first and foremost progressive activists need to publicly
acknowledge that a problem exists before appropriate solutions can be
devised and implemented. Therefore, the first step that I propose needs
to be taken by progressive activists is to launch a vibrant public
discussion of the broader role of liberal foundations in funding social
change – an action that will rely for the most part upon the interest and
support of grassroots activists all over the world. <br><br>
<dd>Given the insidious activities of liberal foundations’, the “very
existence of many social justice organizations has often come to rest
more on the effectiveness of professional (and amateur) grant writers
than on skilled-much less ‘radical’ – political educators and organizers”
(Rodriguez, 2007). So now more than ever, it is vital that progressive
citizens committed to a participatory democracy work to develop alternate
funding mechanisms for sustaining grassroots activism so they can break
the “insidious cycle of competition and co-optation” set up by liberal
foundations and their cohorts.[54] Indeed as Guilloud and Cordery (2007)
point out, “[d]eveloping a real community-based economic system that
redistributes wealth and allows all people to gain access to what they
need is essential to complete our vision of a liberated world. Grassroots
fundraising strategies are a step in that direction.” [55] <br><br>
<dd>Unfortunately, raising awareness of the vexing issues raised in this
article may be harder than one might first expect. This is because in
some instances the progressive media themselves may be preventing an open
discussion of the influence of liberal philanthropy on social change –
due to their reliance (or at least good relations) with liberal
foundations. So sadly as Bob Feldman (2007) observes, “[w]hen the rare
report calls attention to the possibility of foundation influence over
the left-wing media or think tanks, a typical attitude is unqualified
denial.”[56] Feldman concludes:<br><br>
<dd>“… that organizations and media generally considered left-wing have
in recent years received substantial funding from liberal foundations.
This information alone is significant, as left activists and scholars are
either unaware of or uninterested in examining the nature and
consequences of such financing. Furthermore, although a definitive
evaluation would require a massive content analysis project, there is
much evidence that the funded left has moved towards the mainstream as it
has increased its dependence on foundations. This is shown by the
‘progressive,’ reformist tone of formerly radical organizations; the
gradual disappearance of challenges to the economic and political power
of corporations or United States militarism and imperialism; and silence
on the relationship of liberal foundations to either politics and culture
in general, or to their own organizations. Critiquing right wing
foundations, media, and think tanks may be fair game, but to explain our
current situation, or to discover what has happened to the left, a more
inclusive investigation is needed." [57]<br><br>
<dd>It is clear that the barriers to spreading the word about liberal
philanthropy’s overt colonization of progressive social change are large
but they are certainly not insurmountable to dedicated activists. There
are still plenty of alternative media outlets that should be willing to
distribute trenchant critiques of liberal philanthropy given persistent
pressure from the activist community, while internet blogs can also
supplement individual communicative efforts to widen the debate. If
activists fail to address the crucial issue of liberal philanthropy now
this will no doubt have dire consequences for the future of progressive
activism - and democracy more generally - and it is important to
recognise that liberal foundations are not all powerful and that the
future, as always, lies in our hands and not theirs. <br><br>
<dd>Michael Barker</b> is a doctoral candidate at Griffith University,
Australia. He can be reached at Michael.J.Barker [at]
griffith.edu.au<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>References<br><br>
</b>
<dd>[28] Foundation funding for social movements was for the most part
nonexistent before the 1960s, with foundation grants tending to focus on
more general issues like education. By 1970 this had changed and 65
foundations distributed 311 grants to social activists worth around $11
million. <br><br>
<dd>[29] Craig J. Jenkins and Craig M. Eckert, ‘Channeling Black
Insurgency: Elite Patronage and Professional Social Movement
Organizations in the Development of the Black Movement’, American
Sociological Review</i>, 51, 1986.<br><br>
<dd>[30] Craig J. Jenkins, ‘Channeling Social Protest: Foundation
Patronage of Contemporary Social Movements’, p.212.<br><br>
<dd>[31] David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference</i> (Random House, 1988),
pp.545-6.<br><br>
<dd>[32] Frances B. McCrea and Gerald E. Markle, Minutes to Midnight:
Nuclear Weapons Protest in America</i> (Newbury Park, Calif.: SAGE,
1989), p.37.<br><br>
<dd>[33] John D. McCarthy, David W. Britt, and Mark Wolfson, ‘The
Institutional Channeling of Social Movements by the State in the United
States’, In: L. Kriesberg and M. Spencer (eds.) Research in Social
Movements, Conflicts and Change</i> (Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press, 1991),
pp.69-70.<br><br>
<dd>[34] Herbert H. Haines, Black Radicals and the Civil Rights
Mainstream, 1954-1970</i> (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press,
1988), pp.82-99.<br><br>
<dd>[35] Herbert Haines, ‘Black Radicalization and the Funding of Civil
Rights’, Social Problems</i>, 32, 1984, pp.31-43.<br><br>
<dd>[36] Jack L. Walker, ‘The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups
in America’, American Political Science Review</i>, 77, 1983,
p.401.<br><br>
<dd>[37] Joan Roelofs, ‘Foundations and Collaboration’, Critical
Sociology, Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, p.497.<br><br>
<dd>[38] Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy</i>, p.44.<br><br>
<dd>For more on this subject see David Rieff, ‘Multiculturalism’s Silent
Partner’,Harper’s</i>, August 1993, pp.62-72.<br><br>
<dd>Alisa Bierria (2007) points out that: “All too often, inclusively has
come to mean that we start with an organizing model developed with white,
middle-class people in mind, and then simply add a multicultural
component to it. We should include </i>as many voices as possible,
without asking what exactly are we being included in? However, as
Kimberle Crenshaw has noted, ‘it is not enough to be sensitive to
difference, we must ask what difference the difference makes. That is,
instead of saying, how can we include </i>women of color, women with
disabilities, etc., we must ask, what would our analysis and organizing
practice look like if we centered them in it? By following a politics of
re-centering rather than inclusion, we often find that we see the issue
differently, not just for the group in question, but everyone.’”
Alisa Bierria, ‘Communities against rape and abuse (CARA)’, In: INCITE!
Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded:
Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex</i> (South End Press, 2007),
pp.153-4.<br><br>
<dd>[39] Madonna Thunder Hawk, ‘Native Organizing Before the Non-Profit
Industrial Complex’, In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.)
The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial
Complex</i> (South End Press, 2007), p.106.<br><br>
<dd>[40] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, ‘Fundraising is Not a
Dirty Word’, In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The
Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial
Complex</i> (South End Press, 2007), p.108.<br><br>
<dd>[41] Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo, ‘“we were never meant to survive”
Fighting Violence Against Women and the Forth World War’, In: INCITE!
Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded:
Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex</i> (South End Press, 2007),
pp.115-6.<br><br>
<dd>[42] Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo, ‘“we were never meant to survive”
Fighting Violence Against Women and the Forth World War’,
p.116.<br><br>
<dd>[43] Michael Barker, ‘The Liberal Foundations of Media Reform?
Creating Sustainable Funding Opportunities for Radical Media Reform’,
Global Media (Submitted); Bob Feldman, ‘Report from the Field: Left Media
and Left Think Tanks – Foundation-Managed Protest?’, Critical Sociology,
</i>33 (2007).<br><br>
<dd>[44] Research Unit for Political Economy, ‘Foundations and Mass
Movements: The Case of the World Social Forum’, Critical Sociology, 33
(3), 2007, p.506.<br><br>
<dd>[45] Research Unit for Political Economy, ‘Foundations and Mass
Movements’, pp.529-30.<br><br>
<dd>[46] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, ‘Fundraising is Not a
Dirty Word’, p.107.<br><br>
<dd>[47] Dylan Rodriguez, ‘The Political Logic of the Non-Profit
Industrial Complex’, In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.)
The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial
Complex</i> (South End Press, 2007), p.35-6.<br><br>
<dd>[48] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, ‘Fundraising is Not a
Dirty Word’, p.110.<br><br>
<dd>[49] Madonna Thunder Hawk, ‘Native Organizing Before the Non-Profit
Industrial Complex’</i>, pp.105-6.<br><br>
<dd>[50] Two of the most influential liberal foundations, the Ford
Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, created and continue to
provide substantial financial aid to elite planning groups like the
Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. For example,
the
<a href="http://www.fordfound.org/publications/recent_articles/ar2006/pdf/AR06FordFoundationComplete.pdf">
Ford Foundation’s 2006 Annual Report</a> (p.62) notes that they gave the
Council on Foreign Relations a $200,000 grant “For research, seminars and
publications on the role of women in conflict prevention, post-conflict
reconstruction and state building.” Furthermore, as Roelofs (2003,
p.98-9) notes: <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>“During the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) debate, the
EPI [Economic Policy Institute] (funded by Ford and others) made
technical objections to the models supporting the trade agreement. At
the same time, a much greater effect was produced by Ford funding to the
other side, which included grants to the Institute for International
Economics, a think tank that emphasizes the benefits of NAFTA. In
addition, ‘the Ford Foundation also awarded grants to environmental
groups and the Southwest Voters Research Institute to convene forums on
NAFTA. These resulted in an alliance of 100 Latino organizations and
elected officials, called the Latino Consensus on NAFTA, which provided
conditional support for the agreement.’” <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Also see Laurence H. Shoup, and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust:
The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy
(</i>New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977); Holly Sklar, Trilateralism:
The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning For World Management
(</i>Boston: South End Press, 1980). <br><br>
<dd>[51 James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, ‘Age of Reverse Aid:
Neo-liberalism as Catalyst of Regression’, In: Jan P. Pronk (ed.)
Catalysing Development </i>(Blackwell Publishers,<br><br>
<dd>2004), pp.70-1. <br><br>
<dd>[52] Andrea Smith, ‘Introduction: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded’,
p.10.<br><br>
<dd>[53] Amara H. Perez, and Sisters in Action for Power, ‘Between
Radical Theory and Community Praxis: Reflections on Organizing and the
Non-Profit Industrial Complex’, In: INCITE! Women of Color Against
Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit
Industrial Complex</i> (South End Press, 2007), p.93.<br><br>
<dd>[54] Brian Tokar, Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of
Corporate Greenwash</i> (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997),
p.214.<br><br>
<dd>[55] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, ‘Fundraising is Not a
Dirty Word’, p.111.<br><br>
<dd>Making this transition may be easier than expected, because Rodriguez
(2007) suggest that “the ongoing work to maintain and prospect foundation
money, combined with administrative obligations and developing
infrastructure, was more taxing and exhausting than confronting any
institution to fight for a policy change.” Dylan Rodriguez, ‘The
Political Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex’, p.27.<br><br>
<dd>[56] Bob Feldman, ‘Report from the Field: Left Media and Left Think
Tanks – Foundation-Managed Protest?’, p.428.<br><br>
<dd>[57] Bob Feldman, ‘Report from the Field: Left Media and Left Think
Tanks – Foundation-Managed Protest?’, p. 445.<br><br>
<dd> <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>