The Old Way Of Politics Is Dead
November 19, 2018 9:41 AM Subscribe
“I’m telling you this story because I imagine there are others, like me, who want to see a better, kinder world, but they’re not sure how to go about achieving it. When I was 24 I thought it was through proper, respectable channels: NGOs and civil political gamesmanship and gradual pressure for reform. I now know that those proper and respectable channels are an illusion, anesthetizing you to the fact that the world is a vicious brawl for resources, with capitalists leading every major offensive.” Why Do Nonprofits Exist? (Popula)
I feel like it needs a big qualifier, namely, that if your nonprofit doesn't have a location that's providing meals, services, education, or health care, maybe it doesn't have a real purpose within our political system.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 10:18 AM on November 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 10:18 AM on November 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
I feel like it needs a big qualifier, namely, that if your nonprofit doesn't have a location that's providing meals, services, education, or health care, maybe it doesn't have a real purpose within our political system.
I've worked for advocacy nonprofits for my entire career. In an ideal world, maybe they wouldn't be necessary, but my current nonprofit has compelled NYC to make infrastructure and policy changes that have saved hundreds of lives. I have a lot of criticisms of the nonprofit system, but "fuck 'em if they're not direct services" is not one of those criticisms.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:33 AM on November 19, 2018 [67 favorites]
I've worked for advocacy nonprofits for my entire career. In an ideal world, maybe they wouldn't be necessary, but my current nonprofit has compelled NYC to make infrastructure and policy changes that have saved hundreds of lives. I have a lot of criticisms of the nonprofit system, but "fuck 'em if they're not direct services" is not one of those criticisms.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:33 AM on November 19, 2018 [67 favorites]
showbiz_liz: Good point. I was primarily reacting to the FPP which made the jump from advocacy failure in Kentucky to concluding that all nonprofits are false consciousness.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 10:36 AM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 10:36 AM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
I’ve served a number of non-profits and the funder dynamics of this really rings true. At one we often struggled with money from well-meaning TED-attendee types who wanted to make a difference and had ideas on what we should do with their gifts. Sometimes they were themselves wealthy but typically they represented foundations who’d attach all sorts of weird strings to the money. I am reminded of a long-ago comment here on MeFi from someone who worked with donors at a private high school, about how difficult it is to get them to pay for a much-needed cafeteria or utility upgrade when all they wanted was their name on a shiny science building.
The argument in the piece focuses on non-profits in a similar position, but it’s completely possible to be a 501(c)(3) with normal income from services or products. I’m on the board of one such organization: there’s no self-contradictory capitalist b.s. and the non-profit status makes it possible for us to work with certain clients who might not otherwise be reachable such as government agencies.
posted by migurski at 10:40 AM on November 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
The argument in the piece focuses on non-profits in a similar position, but it’s completely possible to be a 501(c)(3) with normal income from services or products. I’m on the board of one such organization: there’s no self-contradictory capitalist b.s. and the non-profit status makes it possible for us to work with certain clients who might not otherwise be reachable such as government agencies.
posted by migurski at 10:40 AM on November 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
Wait. If we're disposable surplus, how can we be creating the profit for those at the top and thus have the power to shut the system down?
posted by Naberius at 10:48 AM on November 19, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Naberius at 10:48 AM on November 19, 2018 [3 favorites]
The problem is that nonprofits are fighting the uphill battle of essentially undoing shit that corporations -- those in power -- do. As mentioned in the article, billionaires can't be billionaires unless they've exploited people along the way, and then they want to atone for their sins by donating tax-free and feeling good about themselves.
I've worked in nonprofits all my life and it's frustrating, but it's more frustrating when you see others resign to the system -- they'd rather work for a shitty corporation for years and then "donate" to fund places like where I work.
It's all fucked. I do wish the author had spent more time on the practical tools if you find yourself working at a nonprofit as well as working with the tools of Marxism. Seems like missing the forest for the trees, as was said, if those two can't exist simultaneously at least for a little while.
posted by knownassociate at 11:16 AM on November 19, 2018 [11 favorites]
I've worked in nonprofits all my life and it's frustrating, but it's more frustrating when you see others resign to the system -- they'd rather work for a shitty corporation for years and then "donate" to fund places like where I work.
It's all fucked. I do wish the author had spent more time on the practical tools if you find yourself working at a nonprofit as well as working with the tools of Marxism. Seems like missing the forest for the trees, as was said, if those two can't exist simultaneously at least for a little while.
posted by knownassociate at 11:16 AM on November 19, 2018 [11 favorites]
Wait. If we're disposable surplus, how can we be creating the profit for those at the top and thus have the power to shut the system down?
There is power in a union.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 11:20 AM on November 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
There is power in a union.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 11:20 AM on November 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
...and then they want to atone for their sins by donating tax-free and feeling good about themselves.
A primary motivation for many large philanthropic gifts is the transfer tax free conveyance of assets to the next generation (or to all future generations through a Dynasty Trust).
posted by leotrotsky at 11:44 AM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
A primary motivation for many large philanthropic gifts is the transfer tax free conveyance of assets to the next generation (or to all future generations through a Dynasty Trust).
posted by leotrotsky at 11:44 AM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
Wait. If we're disposable surplus, how can we be creating the profit for those at the top and thus have the power to shut the system down?
There is power in a union.
Well then we're disorganized. Not disposable.
There seems to be some fundamental disconnect between the idea that vast swaths of the population are simply no longer necessary for the capitalist system to run smoothly and enrich those who sit in its comfy drivers seats and the idea that, nonetheless, by organizing they can force concessions from those same drivers by threatening to withhold their labor and bring the whole thing grinding to a halt.
You have to pick one of those. They can't both be true.
posted by Naberius at 12:06 PM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
There is power in a union.
Well then we're disorganized. Not disposable.
There seems to be some fundamental disconnect between the idea that vast swaths of the population are simply no longer necessary for the capitalist system to run smoothly and enrich those who sit in its comfy drivers seats and the idea that, nonetheless, by organizing they can force concessions from those same drivers by threatening to withhold their labor and bring the whole thing grinding to a halt.
You have to pick one of those. They can't both be true.
posted by Naberius at 12:06 PM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
So the author is also a cohost of the Trillbilly Workers Party podcast which everyone should check out.
posted by natteringnabob at 12:17 PM on November 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by natteringnabob at 12:17 PM on November 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
The fixation on ulcers was weird. I wondered the whole time whether the author was trying to make it into some kind of metaphor, mostly because it's pretty well accepted at this point that stomach ulcers aren't caused by stress. But I just couldn't find the metaphor.
posted by dbx at 12:23 PM on November 19, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by dbx at 12:23 PM on November 19, 2018 [6 favorites]
You have to pick one of those. They can't both be true.
The article's author appears to think only the latter is true. I think the disconnect is that you've filled in the "vast swathes" part from other places, and that "you" doesn't distinguish between singular and plural. To paraphrase:
You (an individual) are easily replaceable, therefore disposable. You (a currently disorganised group of somewhat interchangeable individuals) are creating the profit for those at the top and thus you (an organised group of said) have the power to shut the system down.
The idea that "vast swaths of the population are simply no longer necessary for the capitalist system" would be a counterargument to the article's prescription, but the author is talking about workers, not unemployed people.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 12:25 PM on November 19, 2018 [6 favorites]
The article's author appears to think only the latter is true. I think the disconnect is that you've filled in the "vast swathes" part from other places, and that "you" doesn't distinguish between singular and plural. To paraphrase:
You (an individual) are easily replaceable, therefore disposable. You (a currently disorganised group of somewhat interchangeable individuals) are creating the profit for those at the top and thus you (an organised group of said) have the power to shut the system down.
The idea that "vast swaths of the population are simply no longer necessary for the capitalist system" would be a counterargument to the article's prescription, but the author is talking about workers, not unemployed people.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 12:25 PM on November 19, 2018 [6 favorites]
I donate my labor to organizations that I see meeting real needs in my communities. Yes, it sucks that corporate and philanthropist money often has strings attached and is deeply corrupt. It also sucks that's the safety net that people depend on. But, keeping the doors open and the lights on is important for many people who can't wait for years until Marxists, unions, or even Democrats get their act together and pull off the revolution that some of us have been waiting for for 30+ years.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 12:53 PM on November 19, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 12:53 PM on November 19, 2018 [9 favorites]
The author isn't asking "Why do Nonprofits Exist," why is that even the subhead? I mean, yes, the author says "why do nonprofits exist" and answers their own question, but they presume that their nonprofit experience at one particular type of nonprofit is THE Nonprofit Truth. There are lots of types of nonprofits (and even lots of types of foundations) operating under different types of funding streams and according to different models. Some of them are how he describes; certainly his frustrations ring true within certain sectors. Some types of nonprofits are dysfunctional for other reasons that have nothing to do with this article. Also, some are not beholden to millionaires and/or pay non-exploitative wages (when I worked for a professional association, it was by no means a utopia but at least both of those things were true.)
There’s no grant for organizing your workplace
Actually, there are? I mean, unless he means organizing the office supplies and fixing files to comport with the naming convention. But organizational effectiveness grants are a thing.
posted by desuetude at 1:18 PM on November 19, 2018 [5 favorites]
There’s no grant for organizing your workplace
Actually, there are? I mean, unless he means organizing the office supplies and fixing files to comport with the naming convention. But organizational effectiveness grants are a thing.
posted by desuetude at 1:18 PM on November 19, 2018 [5 favorites]
Actually, there are? I mean, unless he means organizing the office supplies and fixing files to comport with the naming convention. But organizational effectiveness grants are a thing.
He means "organizing" as in "forming a union," and if you can actually point me toward a grant for that, I'm all ears
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:22 PM on November 19, 2018 [10 favorites]
He means "organizing" as in "forming a union," and if you can actually point me toward a grant for that, I'm all ears
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:22 PM on November 19, 2018 [10 favorites]
The first part of the article was really interesting, but the switch to the second part where he posits that the working class has just never heard of Marxism and if they only did the world would be changed is both painfully familiar and also cites no evidence.
posted by corb at 1:22 PM on November 19, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by corb at 1:22 PM on November 19, 2018 [12 favorites]
But, keeping the doors open and the lights on is important for many people who can't wait for years until Marxists, unions, or even Democrats get their act together and pull off the revolution that some of us have been waiting for for 30+ years.
Indeed. The problem I have with a lot of these pieces lately are that they seem to be "everybody should feel bad they are not single-handedly leading the revolution" or something.
Long on "somebody should do something" and very short on what that is and how to get the ball rolling.
posted by jzb at 1:33 PM on November 19, 2018 [15 favorites]
Indeed. The problem I have with a lot of these pieces lately are that they seem to be "everybody should feel bad they are not single-handedly leading the revolution" or something.
Long on "somebody should do something" and very short on what that is and how to get the ball rolling.
posted by jzb at 1:33 PM on November 19, 2018 [15 favorites]
I haven't read TFA but just the other day I was thinking about how upsetting it was to see a bit of class warfare in one non-profit I worked at where front-line service workers got the shaft in terms of benefits and time off; they were kept at part time while there was admin bloat with lots of time wasting. Then of course they use the front-liners's work in funding drives. It upset me more than private sector class warfare because at least they're honest about it instead of guilt-tripping you about how if you get benefits/etc. you're essentially taking it out of the pockets of the needy. Meanwhile, admins are getting their perks, have the time and money for European vacations, country homes, etc.
I should add that I've worked at very fair non-profits as well; it isn't the rule.
posted by GospelofWesleyWillis at 1:41 PM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
I should add that I've worked at very fair non-profits as well; it isn't the rule.
posted by GospelofWesleyWillis at 1:41 PM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
some fundamental disconnect between the idea that vast swaths of the population are simply no longer necessary for the capitalist system to run smoothly... and the idea that, nonetheless, by organizing they can force concessions
It's not really a contradiction. It can be true at the same time that 90% of the people are low in value to the 10%, and yet could destroy the 10% if they worked together.
We've had variations of this problem for 200 years. Someone invents a spinning machine or a mechanical harvester and millions of people are "surplus population", as Scrooge put it. But developing countries don't actually get rid of millions of people and go on with a much smaller population. The people move to the city and get other jobs.
Increases in productionare great things— that is what will make socialism work, if it can be implemented. Who wants to spin wool or pick cotton? Let the machines do it, so people can do much more interesting things. (Oscar Wilde pointed this out a hundred years ago.)
Thinking of the people as useless is just taking on the habits of mind of the 1%. It'd be healthier to think of the 1% as useless. Or at least as predatory sociopaths, so long as they persist in appropriating all of the gains of productivity for themselves.
posted by zompist at 2:08 PM on November 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
It's not really a contradiction. It can be true at the same time that 90% of the people are low in value to the 10%, and yet could destroy the 10% if they worked together.
We've had variations of this problem for 200 years. Someone invents a spinning machine or a mechanical harvester and millions of people are "surplus population", as Scrooge put it. But developing countries don't actually get rid of millions of people and go on with a much smaller population. The people move to the city and get other jobs.
Increases in productionare great things— that is what will make socialism work, if it can be implemented. Who wants to spin wool or pick cotton? Let the machines do it, so people can do much more interesting things. (Oscar Wilde pointed this out a hundred years ago.)
Thinking of the people as useless is just taking on the habits of mind of the 1%. It'd be healthier to think of the 1% as useless. Or at least as predatory sociopaths, so long as they persist in appropriating all of the gains of productivity for themselves.
posted by zompist at 2:08 PM on November 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
The weirdest job I ever had was at a large environmental nonprofit, where nobody seemed clear on what they were supposed to be doing. People had titles and roles, but when applied to reality those roles became confused, muddled. On paper I was an “organizer,” but it was never clear whom I was supposed to be organizing, or to what goal. Usually it just meant making Facebook posts that challenged our enemy’s narrative about coal mining.
I mean, if this is true, then he worked at a shitty non-profit that didn't know how to manage staff and didn't have a theory of change. I looked up his bio, and it seems like he only worked at this one group and was an Americorps VISTA at another one (VISTAs do important work but they are usually essentially post-grad trainees). So not really a ton of experience to draw on for the sweeping conclusions he makes about an entire sector.
Also, a fact check: the Just Transition movement was not started by foundations or Big Green Enviro groups. It was started by environmental justice orgs (which are typically small, community-based, and women/POC-led) and labor unions working together. They have gotten SOME big greens and funders to pick up the mantle, but it's taken a long time, and I have to give a biiiiiiig side-eye to the white male Communist acting as if it was invented by (white-led, mostly male-led, middle/upper class) enviro orgs and funders.
Beyond that, I don't necessarily disagree with all of his observations, after two decades in the non-profit sector. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find people who work in the sector who haven't felt at least some of these things at one point or another. But his conclusions feel very Underpants Gnomes to me.
For example: he decries that the processes nonprofits use to make change are ones that working-class people won't take part in (which, btw, FUCK THIS GUY for saying that, how classist and completely not true from my decade of organizing experience, but he probably just felt that way because no one actually every taught him to organize, based on his first paragraph).
But what does he think will happen if advocacy non-profits suddenly disappear? One of the major reasons they are valuable is that, otherwise, the only people you have doing significant organizing are those who either have 1. another source of wealth to count on (family/spouse money/retirement income), 2. the willingness/commitment to live in poverty, or essentially work two full-time jobs, or 3. those whose literal lives are on the line so they have no other choice. I honestly think #3 is what white leftist bros dream of when they think about getting rid of the nonprofit industrial complex but that's no way to build long-term, sustainable change.
I'm mad at this article because I do think there are problems with nonprofits being the engine of policy change. I think it's contributed to the professionalization of activism, which has led to a lot of the issues he talks about. But there are a lot of really exciting groups that have emerged in the last five years or so who are challenging that model (Indivisible, the Sunrise Movement, just to name a few) and a lot of the older legacy orgs are currently grappling with this. But I suspect the author of this piece has no idea any of that is happening. And it's not through the magic dissemination of Marx - it's through hard work, some of it - gasp! - paid.
posted by lunasol at 2:17 PM on November 19, 2018 [15 favorites]
I mean, if this is true, then he worked at a shitty non-profit that didn't know how to manage staff and didn't have a theory of change. I looked up his bio, and it seems like he only worked at this one group and was an Americorps VISTA at another one (VISTAs do important work but they are usually essentially post-grad trainees). So not really a ton of experience to draw on for the sweeping conclusions he makes about an entire sector.
Also, a fact check: the Just Transition movement was not started by foundations or Big Green Enviro groups. It was started by environmental justice orgs (which are typically small, community-based, and women/POC-led) and labor unions working together. They have gotten SOME big greens and funders to pick up the mantle, but it's taken a long time, and I have to give a biiiiiiig side-eye to the white male Communist acting as if it was invented by (white-led, mostly male-led, middle/upper class) enviro orgs and funders.
Beyond that, I don't necessarily disagree with all of his observations, after two decades in the non-profit sector. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find people who work in the sector who haven't felt at least some of these things at one point or another. But his conclusions feel very Underpants Gnomes to me.
For example: he decries that the processes nonprofits use to make change are ones that working-class people won't take part in (which, btw, FUCK THIS GUY for saying that, how classist and completely not true from my decade of organizing experience, but he probably just felt that way because no one actually every taught him to organize, based on his first paragraph).
But what does he think will happen if advocacy non-profits suddenly disappear? One of the major reasons they are valuable is that, otherwise, the only people you have doing significant organizing are those who either have 1. another source of wealth to count on (family/spouse money/retirement income), 2. the willingness/commitment to live in poverty, or essentially work two full-time jobs, or 3. those whose literal lives are on the line so they have no other choice. I honestly think #3 is what white leftist bros dream of when they think about getting rid of the nonprofit industrial complex but that's no way to build long-term, sustainable change.
I'm mad at this article because I do think there are problems with nonprofits being the engine of policy change. I think it's contributed to the professionalization of activism, which has led to a lot of the issues he talks about. But there are a lot of really exciting groups that have emerged in the last five years or so who are challenging that model (Indivisible, the Sunrise Movement, just to name a few) and a lot of the older legacy orgs are currently grappling with this. But I suspect the author of this piece has no idea any of that is happening. And it's not through the magic dissemination of Marx - it's through hard work, some of it - gasp! - paid.
posted by lunasol at 2:17 PM on November 19, 2018 [15 favorites]
The fixation on ulcers was weird. I wondered the whole time whether the author was trying to make it into some kind of metaphor, mostly because it's pretty well accepted at this point that stomach ulcers aren't caused by stress. But I just couldn't find the metaphor.
Really, the problem is that this essay is all about his own sense of idealistic disillusionment. That's why the ulcers are there. He thought he was going to change the world, and he learned it's really fucking hard, especially when you're up against companies that can spend 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 times more money than you can.
This is another thing you have to grapple with when you do this work long-term - your individual impact is, most of the time, going to be on a pretty small, human scale. For a lot of people, the very logical conclusion that they come to is that they need to find a different line of work. I think that's great, it's not good for the nonprofit sector to run on the fumes of bitter self-martyrs.
But this essay bugs me because it's so obviously about him and his own sense of letdown, and that's why he doesn't have any brilliant plans to fix this problem. I have a lot of empathy for that sense of letdown, but dude, own it.
posted by lunasol at 2:23 PM on November 19, 2018 [14 favorites]
Really, the problem is that this essay is all about his own sense of idealistic disillusionment. That's why the ulcers are there. He thought he was going to change the world, and he learned it's really fucking hard, especially when you're up against companies that can spend 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 times more money than you can.
This is another thing you have to grapple with when you do this work long-term - your individual impact is, most of the time, going to be on a pretty small, human scale. For a lot of people, the very logical conclusion that they come to is that they need to find a different line of work. I think that's great, it's not good for the nonprofit sector to run on the fumes of bitter self-martyrs.
But this essay bugs me because it's so obviously about him and his own sense of letdown, and that's why he doesn't have any brilliant plans to fix this problem. I have a lot of empathy for that sense of letdown, but dude, own it.
posted by lunasol at 2:23 PM on November 19, 2018 [14 favorites]
Yeah I think this speaks to a specific problem especially bad in large mainstream environmental nonprofits in particular - Sierra Club kind of level - where it becomes very muddled what the mission is and ultimately the organization serves to block meaningful change and smaller community movements. It's a good point.
To the larger question, I"ve thought a lot about what should be the place for non-profits in a better, future world. Like, non-profit donations should not be tax deductible, so there will be fewer of them, and they'll be poorer. Things like social welfare programs and the arts and education should be robustly funded by tax money, so what should non-profits (rather than tax-subsidized government aid and on the other side, volunteer activist groups) do? There seems to me to be a role for the "think tank" style of nonprofit that investigates and writes thoughtful analysis for activists, journalists and the public to utilize. Religious organizations should probably operate as non-profts. Same with healthcare and education orgs that are not run directly by government entities. It seems like there is some role in holding government accountable. But what else exactly, in a functional system, should a non profit do?
posted by latkes at 2:56 PM on November 19, 2018
To the larger question, I"ve thought a lot about what should be the place for non-profits in a better, future world. Like, non-profit donations should not be tax deductible, so there will be fewer of them, and they'll be poorer. Things like social welfare programs and the arts and education should be robustly funded by tax money, so what should non-profits (rather than tax-subsidized government aid and on the other side, volunteer activist groups) do? There seems to me to be a role for the "think tank" style of nonprofit that investigates and writes thoughtful analysis for activists, journalists and the public to utilize. Religious organizations should probably operate as non-profts. Same with healthcare and education orgs that are not run directly by government entities. It seems like there is some role in holding government accountable. But what else exactly, in a functional system, should a non profit do?
posted by latkes at 2:56 PM on November 19, 2018
I think there's a benefit to having interest groups able to organize stuff that isn't necessarily profitable without either congressional or corporate control. For the foreseeable future we must assume that conservatives will have some influence over federal and state budgeting, if not completely control, and will exercise that in order to advance their cultural agenda. And on the other hand, locally controlled community interest groups can create alternatives to corporate monopolies.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 3:32 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 3:32 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
I confess I still have to go back and read all the comments, but I must say this: I have managed to get through my whole life as a one-person nonprofit. Didn't even have to fill out any paperwork. 😁
posted by salliemaygo at 4:30 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by salliemaygo at 4:30 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
This is bullshit (or as my phone likes to call it jumpsuit). This guy is the typical young man who shows up at an organization to grace them with his presence and dazzle them with his brilliance and then gets bitter when he doesn't immediately change the world and blow everyone's minds. Why won't people listen to him? Don't they know he went to Duke? (Its always fucking Duke) He could be millions but he's sacrificed it all to come and minster to the plebs who run this place and show them the way.
I have personally myself been able to change state level policies and procedures for the better in multiple states working with non profits. They can do stuff no one else can. They are a very logical and functional arm of most programs and movements.
This guy is going to be so disappointed when the revolution comes and no one lets him run that either.
posted by fshgrl at 6:28 PM on November 19, 2018 [17 favorites]
I have personally myself been able to change state level policies and procedures for the better in multiple states working with non profits. They can do stuff no one else can. They are a very logical and functional arm of most programs and movements.
This guy is going to be so disappointed when the revolution comes and no one lets him run that either.
posted by fshgrl at 6:28 PM on November 19, 2018 [17 favorites]
I will also say that he is wrong about change. The only thing that has ever made changes is a single person working very hard at it for a long time. Every movement has a beating heart. Look at all the change Trump has been able to accomplish in two years and he's a fucking idiot. Smart people make it too complicated, anxious people make it too diffused, kind people don't push hard enough, well balanced people have lives. But if you truly want something, pick a goal and see it through, even if it takes your whole life, you sacrifice your own happiness or you die trying. That's how it works.
posted by fshgrl at 6:34 PM on November 19, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by fshgrl at 6:34 PM on November 19, 2018 [9 favorites]
I loved this article and will definitely be sending it to certain people I know.
I think the idea that it's being demanded that everyone give up their lives and try and pull of a revolution single-handedly is nonsense. So many people are not organised at all. They're not in a union, they're not in a labour organisation, they're not doing anything. Yet they'll work for an NGO or donate or whatever and think that's anything like the same thing. It's not, and if we were all organised, no-one would have to do much at all themselves.
I'm giving the side-eye to people who say they've pulled of significant change in a non-profit. By the very nature of the forces you're up against, if you succeed in something when you're funded by the rich, it's because it's not something that threatens the ruling class. If you're not funded by the rich, then it's probably not the sort of organisation the author is talking about.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 6:49 PM on November 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
I think the idea that it's being demanded that everyone give up their lives and try and pull of a revolution single-handedly is nonsense. So many people are not organised at all. They're not in a union, they're not in a labour organisation, they're not doing anything. Yet they'll work for an NGO or donate or whatever and think that's anything like the same thing. It's not, and if we were all organised, no-one would have to do much at all themselves.
I'm giving the side-eye to people who say they've pulled of significant change in a non-profit. By the very nature of the forces you're up against, if you succeed in something when you're funded by the rich, it's because it's not something that threatens the ruling class. If you're not funded by the rich, then it's probably not the sort of organisation the author is talking about.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 6:49 PM on November 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
Non profits get plenty of federal, state and other grants too. I don't work for one but we've absolutely pulled off major changes working with them. They are fantastic ways to do and showcase pilot projects of all sorts. I side eye anyone who is skeptical of that but claims to work at effecting regulatory or policy change.
posted by fshgrl at 6:57 PM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by fshgrl at 6:57 PM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
Ah yes, the state, famously unaffected by ruling class influence.
I'm not saying nothing gets done, but what I and many others are looking for will not be done, and people need to stop pretending it will. Charities will not challenge capitalism.
It doesn’t matter if the millionaire is a Koch brother or an eco-friendly crusader. Vast profits, often the direct spoils of exploitation—the rightfully earned wages denied to workers, or the profits made from poisoning people’s water—are plowed right back into a system that, by design, can never alter the balance of power.
In other matters, just saw they linked to Red Scare. That's not so great, considering what people are saying about RS right now. Not a listener myself though, so I'm no expert.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 8:06 PM on November 19, 2018
I'm not saying nothing gets done, but what I and many others are looking for will not be done, and people need to stop pretending it will. Charities will not challenge capitalism.
It doesn’t matter if the millionaire is a Koch brother or an eco-friendly crusader. Vast profits, often the direct spoils of exploitation—the rightfully earned wages denied to workers, or the profits made from poisoning people’s water—are plowed right back into a system that, by design, can never alter the balance of power.
In other matters, just saw they linked to Red Scare. That's not so great, considering what people are saying about RS right now. Not a listener myself though, so I'm no expert.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 8:06 PM on November 19, 2018
So basically you want who, Jesus to come down and effect change? Government workers do lost stuff pretty well and could probably fix everything if it weren't for politicians. Industry is necessary. Non profits are critical testing grounds, as is academia.
When you get asked to put together a pilot project or to draft legislation on technical issues let me know how having it done by people who don't work for industry, the government or a non-profit goes for you. Maybe you could get a bunch of young guys off the internet with ideas, that should be nearly the same thing.
A lot of non profits are stupid and badly run but so are a lot of other organisations. Plenty of good ones too.
But like I said you don't effect change by getting a bunch of people telling others how to live their lives, especially young out of towners. But most non profits aren't doing that
posted by fshgrl at 8:29 PM on November 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
When you get asked to put together a pilot project or to draft legislation on technical issues let me know how having it done by people who don't work for industry, the government or a non-profit goes for you. Maybe you could get a bunch of young guys off the internet with ideas, that should be nearly the same thing.
A lot of non profits are stupid and badly run but so are a lot of other organisations. Plenty of good ones too.
But like I said you don't effect change by getting a bunch of people telling others how to live their lives, especially young out of towners. But most non profits aren't doing that
posted by fshgrl at 8:29 PM on November 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
This is completely disingenuous. I've made it very clear what I think people should be doing instead, and that's organising along class lines.
Testing grounds are also not effecting change. They show the way for change, maybe, sometimes, although I'm frankly confused as to who needs pilot programs to tell them paying people more would help alleviate financial stress, for example. I can figure that out on my own. I've also not said academia is useless anyway. What I'm saying is they're not in a position to actually make change happen. They do not have power behind them, except power through funding, which can be withdrawn.
Your "industry is necessary" line though, makes me think your real issue is that you do not want the same things I do. That's as may be, I'm not going to change your mind on that here, but then accept that while a charity may do the things you want, they won't do what I want. Unless I'm mistaken, in which case I'd love to hear how charities can help break the rule of capital.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 8:45 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Testing grounds are also not effecting change. They show the way for change, maybe, sometimes, although I'm frankly confused as to who needs pilot programs to tell them paying people more would help alleviate financial stress, for example. I can figure that out on my own. I've also not said academia is useless anyway. What I'm saying is they're not in a position to actually make change happen. They do not have power behind them, except power through funding, which can be withdrawn.
Your "industry is necessary" line though, makes me think your real issue is that you do not want the same things I do. That's as may be, I'm not going to change your mind on that here, but then accept that while a charity may do the things you want, they won't do what I want. Unless I'm mistaken, in which case I'd love to hear how charities can help break the rule of capital.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 8:45 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Yeah I think the point he's trying to make is we all need to get organized, in a big way, if we are going to survive past say 2060. I don't think he's saying that nonprofits never work, he's saying that they don't work enough, and that they are too friendly to the system to make the kind of change we need right now. Capitalists understand power. Most liberals, nonprofit funders, nonprofit boards, and leftists don't understand power. Real power is not getting some watered down regulations passed (I've done that at the state level. Felt like I worked really hard for some bullshit PR). It's not getting a democrat elected (worked on that too, things have only gotten worse in my life since then).
Real power is when you can shut shit down until your demands are met.
Right now the only people in our system with that power are the rich and the military. We need to change that.
posted by natteringnabob at 8:48 PM on November 19, 2018 [3 favorites]
Real power is when you can shut shit down until your demands are met.
Right now the only people in our system with that power are the rich and the military. We need to change that.
posted by natteringnabob at 8:48 PM on November 19, 2018 [3 favorites]
I've made it very clear what I think people should be doing instead, and that's organising along class lines.
Because class organization has always made sure that the interests of racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples have been well-attended to, as well as those of women. To my mind, saying this unqualified is essentially an auto-disqualification for being taken seriously; it is pure white boy dreamer.
posted by praemunire at 8:51 PM on November 19, 2018 [15 favorites]
Because class organization has always made sure that the interests of racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples have been well-attended to, as well as those of women. To my mind, saying this unqualified is essentially an auto-disqualification for being taken seriously; it is pure white boy dreamer.
posted by praemunire at 8:51 PM on November 19, 2018 [15 favorites]
Indeed. The problem I have with a lot of these pieces lately are that they seem to be "everybody should feel bad they are not single-handedly leading the revolution" or something.
I have no idea how one gets from the actual conclusion of this:
Human beings can seize history, and we know this because it’s been done before. In fact, it’s the only thing that’s ever worked. It will take years to build up a movement that is strong enough to do this, and this will require sacrifice and hard work, but it can be done. In Appalachia that will look like organizing the people at the margins of society on the premise that, if they really want it, they can shut the system down, because they create the profit for those at the top. In my community, those people are the nurses, the teachers, and the service industry workers. You could rebut this and say that our country is simply too reactionary and backwards for this to actually work, and you may be correct. But have we even tried? We know that voting is becoming less and less effective as more and more people are purged from electoral rolls. So what other recourse do we have? For starters, we have our labor power—the fact that a fundamental aspect of this system is our collective fate.
If we are going to survive the coming years it is necessary that we demolish the liberal theory of change. This theory tells you that the individual can change everything, while simultaneously insisting that the individual is powerless to change anything, unless it’s in a voting booth. It insists that you, the individual, can be whatever or whoever you want to be, and by doing so, you can somehow compromise or bargain or reason with the forces of capital. I’m here to tell you that you can’t. Those forces only want you dead. You are surplus to them. You are disposable. Sooner or later they will come for you. Don’t let the Hal Rogers of the world lead them to you.
to anything about single-handedly doing anything.
posted by atoxyl at 8:55 PM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
I have no idea how one gets from the actual conclusion of this:
Human beings can seize history, and we know this because it’s been done before. In fact, it’s the only thing that’s ever worked. It will take years to build up a movement that is strong enough to do this, and this will require sacrifice and hard work, but it can be done. In Appalachia that will look like organizing the people at the margins of society on the premise that, if they really want it, they can shut the system down, because they create the profit for those at the top. In my community, those people are the nurses, the teachers, and the service industry workers. You could rebut this and say that our country is simply too reactionary and backwards for this to actually work, and you may be correct. But have we even tried? We know that voting is becoming less and less effective as more and more people are purged from electoral rolls. So what other recourse do we have? For starters, we have our labor power—the fact that a fundamental aspect of this system is our collective fate.
If we are going to survive the coming years it is necessary that we demolish the liberal theory of change. This theory tells you that the individual can change everything, while simultaneously insisting that the individual is powerless to change anything, unless it’s in a voting booth. It insists that you, the individual, can be whatever or whoever you want to be, and by doing so, you can somehow compromise or bargain or reason with the forces of capital. I’m here to tell you that you can’t. Those forces only want you dead. You are surplus to them. You are disposable. Sooner or later they will come for you. Don’t let the Hal Rogers of the world lead them to you.
to anything about single-handedly doing anything.
posted by atoxyl at 8:55 PM on November 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
In other matters, just saw they linked to Red Scare. That's not so great, considering what people are saying about RS right now. Not a listener myself though, so I'm no expert.
they linked to a critical article about Red Scare
it's not really obvious what the point of that link was even just skimming the article but it doesn't really come across as "that podcast has the Left's answers"
posted by atoxyl at 9:06 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
they linked to a critical article about Red Scare
it's not really obvious what the point of that link was even just skimming the article but it doesn't really come across as "that podcast has the Left's answers"
posted by atoxyl at 9:06 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Just as a factual point, women of color pretty much created the critique of the nonprofit model, so this is not just a guy thing or white thing or Duke grad thing or whatever.
posted by latkes at 9:40 PM on November 19, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by latkes at 9:40 PM on November 19, 2018 [5 favorites]
I mean, if this is true, then he worked at a shitty non-profit that didn't know how to manage staff and didn't have a theory of change. I looked up his bio, and it seems like he only worked at this one group
Last comment for now but - as far as I can tell he is now a "development director" at a nonprofit law firm. I point that out just because this comment sorta reads like it's implying he bailed from the whole sector after a swift and predictable disappointment, which doesn't seem quite accurate or fair. Presumably he does still think it's a better place to be than elsewhere?
(And that sounds like he's the guy doing the fundraising now so go figure or maybe it just means this is really, really an expression of personal guilt and frustration.)
This is another thing you have to grapple with when you do this work long-term - your individual impact is, most of the time, going to be on a pretty small, human scale.
To me the most notable thing he succeeds in expressing in this essay is the feeling that in order to keep making that small scale difference, his organization meanwhile had to sell out to the large-scale causes of The Problems, and that this is a fundamental limitation of any endeavor with this funding model.
posted by atoxyl at 9:50 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Last comment for now but - as far as I can tell he is now a "development director" at a nonprofit law firm. I point that out just because this comment sorta reads like it's implying he bailed from the whole sector after a swift and predictable disappointment, which doesn't seem quite accurate or fair. Presumably he does still think it's a better place to be than elsewhere?
(And that sounds like he's the guy doing the fundraising now so go figure or maybe it just means this is really, really an expression of personal guilt and frustration.)
This is another thing you have to grapple with when you do this work long-term - your individual impact is, most of the time, going to be on a pretty small, human scale.
To me the most notable thing he succeeds in expressing in this essay is the feeling that in order to keep making that small scale difference, his organization meanwhile had to sell out to the large-scale causes of The Problems, and that this is a fundamental limitation of any endeavor with this funding model.
posted by atoxyl at 9:50 PM on November 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
that the interests of racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples have been well-attended to, as well as those of women.
I'm really not opposed to autonomous organising - within class lines. Yeah, sorry, but I don't think you should organise class-blindly. Alan Joyce may be gay, but he's not my comrade, he's the CEO of Qantas. Class is relevant even within organising around other issues.
Why do you think we're so worried about the glass ceiling, when the sticky bottom of poverty is a much greater concern for most people?
posted by AnhydrousLove at 10:01 PM on November 19, 2018
I'm really not opposed to autonomous organising - within class lines. Yeah, sorry, but I don't think you should organise class-blindly. Alan Joyce may be gay, but he's not my comrade, he's the CEO of Qantas. Class is relevant even within organising around other issues.
Why do you think we're so worried about the glass ceiling, when the sticky bottom of poverty is a much greater concern for most people?
posted by AnhydrousLove at 10:01 PM on November 19, 2018
And my extremely cynical answer to that is that "class-based" usually means "progressives" who want to keep everything centered on white men.
posted by tavella at 10:24 PM on November 19, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by tavella at 10:24 PM on November 19, 2018 [9 favorites]
The Left: Why doesn't someone just start this Marxist revolution?!
Also The Left: Gets in a slapfight just talking about maybe getting organized someday for the inevitable Marxist revolution
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 11:58 PM on November 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
Also The Left: Gets in a slapfight just talking about maybe getting organized someday for the inevitable Marxist revolution
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 11:58 PM on November 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
I think that this particular kind of argument suffers from a lack of specificity - I mean the argument we're having here on metafilter.
1. What kind of class-based organizing? What specifically does one propose? Not just "let's organize and seize power" or "we should have unions", but what sectors, with who organizing and how will they be supported as they do? Like, how to actually begin?
2. What kind of non-profits? Every activist meeting space I can think of in town is set up as a nonprofit, and having spaces that aren't "someone's house" is really important. A lot of groups doing on-the-ground, let's-not-murder-the-rivers-while-we-wait-for-the-revolution groups are non-profits. The "let us help you with your taxes so you don't get dinged unjustly" group for which I'll be volunteering this year is a nonprofit. Now, none of those tackle the problem of capitalism, but I argue that they all build capacity. They're housekeeping. We need places to meet, we need to halt as much environmental devastation as we can now until larger changes can be wrought, and it's pretty reasonable for working people not to want to get caught up in IRS problems just because English is their second language or they had ten casual jobs last year.
I'm reading the memoir of Vera Figner (man is it dry! and virtuous! I'd like to know if she was that virtuous all her life or if it's ret-conning in the interests of the Cause) and she's all "well I was a doctor in the villages and treated all these people's long-standing complaints, they'd never had a doctor before and I saw 9000 people in six months....and that was a total waste of time because it didn't attack the root causes of poverty". And while she's partially right - you might as well cry into the ocean as try to heal all the sick Russian peasants through individual service - there's also, like, a real tension there just in terms of "hey, perhaps this woman would prefer not to die of a chronic treatable condition because there's no doctor and the revolution is forty years off".
I dunno, my suspicion is that revolution/large-scale-dramatic-social-change isn't going to happen because everyone bends their will to nothing but the creation of one umbrella organization but because there will be a big convulsion in civil society which comes from many, many places at once. That's what will make it unstoppable.
On that note: I get the sense that while there's a real difference between people in terms of theories of large scale social change, that difference probably gets exaggerated because we're not actually articulating the theories. Like, "everyone gets organized and then there's a general strike and the government falls" isn't enough as a theory of social change - it doesn't take into account either the specifics of a large, federated country with a very well-established and complex government or how other large scale upheavals have happened at other periods in other places.
posted by Frowner at 5:24 AM on November 20, 2018 [11 favorites]
1. What kind of class-based organizing? What specifically does one propose? Not just "let's organize and seize power" or "we should have unions", but what sectors, with who organizing and how will they be supported as they do? Like, how to actually begin?
2. What kind of non-profits? Every activist meeting space I can think of in town is set up as a nonprofit, and having spaces that aren't "someone's house" is really important. A lot of groups doing on-the-ground, let's-not-murder-the-rivers-while-we-wait-for-the-revolution groups are non-profits. The "let us help you with your taxes so you don't get dinged unjustly" group for which I'll be volunteering this year is a nonprofit. Now, none of those tackle the problem of capitalism, but I argue that they all build capacity. They're housekeeping. We need places to meet, we need to halt as much environmental devastation as we can now until larger changes can be wrought, and it's pretty reasonable for working people not to want to get caught up in IRS problems just because English is their second language or they had ten casual jobs last year.
I'm reading the memoir of Vera Figner (man is it dry! and virtuous! I'd like to know if she was that virtuous all her life or if it's ret-conning in the interests of the Cause) and she's all "well I was a doctor in the villages and treated all these people's long-standing complaints, they'd never had a doctor before and I saw 9000 people in six months....and that was a total waste of time because it didn't attack the root causes of poverty". And while she's partially right - you might as well cry into the ocean as try to heal all the sick Russian peasants through individual service - there's also, like, a real tension there just in terms of "hey, perhaps this woman would prefer not to die of a chronic treatable condition because there's no doctor and the revolution is forty years off".
I dunno, my suspicion is that revolution/large-scale-dramatic-social-change isn't going to happen because everyone bends their will to nothing but the creation of one umbrella organization but because there will be a big convulsion in civil society which comes from many, many places at once. That's what will make it unstoppable.
On that note: I get the sense that while there's a real difference between people in terms of theories of large scale social change, that difference probably gets exaggerated because we're not actually articulating the theories. Like, "everyone gets organized and then there's a general strike and the government falls" isn't enough as a theory of social change - it doesn't take into account either the specifics of a large, federated country with a very well-established and complex government or how other large scale upheavals have happened at other periods in other places.
posted by Frowner at 5:24 AM on November 20, 2018 [11 favorites]
Theres a passage in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars that struck me when I first read it as a teenager and that I have returned to many times over the years.
“You damned liberals.” [Arkady said.]posted by Wretch729 at 5:50 AM on November 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
“I don’t know what that means.” [Nadia said.]
“It means you’re too soft-hearted to ever actually do anything.”
But they were now within sight of the low mound of Underhill, looking like a fresh squarish crater, its ejecta scattered around it. Nadia pointed at it. “I did that. You damned radicals—” she jabbed him in the ribs with her elbow, hard—”you hate liberalism because it works.”
He snorted.
“It does! It works in increments over time, after hard labor, without fireworks or easy dramatics or people getting hurt. Without your sexy revolutions and all the pain and hatred they bring. It only works.”
“Ah, Nadia.” He put his arm over her shoulders, and they started walking again to the base. “Earth is a perfectly liberal world. But half of it is starving, and always has been, and always will be. Very liberally.” (pp. 174-175)
-Red Mars, Kim Stanley Robinson
Maybe, a significant part of that organizing includes creating spaces for people facing violence to run to, venues for the unpublishable voices, and meeting spaces for the culturally untouchable. Because dead people don't organize, and frequently people who are in dire fear of dying alone and hated don't either.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 6:19 AM on November 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 6:19 AM on November 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
I think that this particular kind of argument suffers from a lack of specificity - I mean the argument we're having here on metafilter.
And I think we can bring this back around to a fundamental flaw of TFA, because it utterly fails to specify between the kind of non-profit that the author thinks are bad and doomed to fail and the kind that the author endorses by, apparently, giving his labour to it.
This is a persistent issue with a lot of the jeremiads I've read from hard-lefties. I'm beginning to get the sense they just don't care about the details, to be quite honest.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:15 AM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
And I think we can bring this back around to a fundamental flaw of TFA, because it utterly fails to specify between the kind of non-profit that the author thinks are bad and doomed to fail and the kind that the author endorses by, apparently, giving his labour to it.
This is a persistent issue with a lot of the jeremiads I've read from hard-lefties. I'm beginning to get the sense they just don't care about the details, to be quite honest.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:15 AM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
I think that the dynamic that the writer details -- the millionaire philanthropy-dilettante who ends up deforming the work of all these experts and devotees of a cause and deforming their organization's vision, without a drop of malice but simply because he has all the power and yet none of the expertise or devotion himself -- is spot on. And I think it's a really insidious dynamic because the only people who can see it are the people who actually are experts in and devoted to the cause at hand, and yet the reason their organization is courting the millionaire in the first place is because they are powerless on their own, despite their expertise and devotion -- they can only become disillusioned and alienated.
While I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions about organizing/etc that the writer then jumps to, I don't really see how he got from his spot-on description of Foundation-style philanthropy to his conclusions about Marx. But that kind of illustrates the problem that the writer was complaining about in the first place, right? The millionaire dilettante who draws uninformed and sugar-spun conclusions about what should be done to fix a complex and systemic problem is analogous to the nonprofit worker who starts spouting political theory about revolution.
I don't say that in a harsh way, I think both the philanthropist and the nonprofit worker are both coming from a really good place. But power dynamics warps all this stuff anyway.
posted by rue72 at 7:22 AM on November 20, 2018 [6 favorites]
While I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions about organizing/etc that the writer then jumps to, I don't really see how he got from his spot-on description of Foundation-style philanthropy to his conclusions about Marx. But that kind of illustrates the problem that the writer was complaining about in the first place, right? The millionaire dilettante who draws uninformed and sugar-spun conclusions about what should be done to fix a complex and systemic problem is analogous to the nonprofit worker who starts spouting political theory about revolution.
I don't say that in a harsh way, I think both the philanthropist and the nonprofit worker are both coming from a really good place. But power dynamics warps all this stuff anyway.
posted by rue72 at 7:22 AM on November 20, 2018 [6 favorites]
The Left: Why doesn't someone just start this Marxist revolution?!
Because ...
posted by philip-random at 8:13 AM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
Because ...
posted by philip-random at 8:13 AM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
- it doesn't take into account either the specifics of a large, federated country with a very well-established and complex government or how other large scale upheavals have happened at other periods in other places.
an old friend, as committed and as effective an anarchist as I've ever known, used to say whenever the revolutionary talk got too heated, too violent -- "Seriously, given this immediate neighborhood, this square mile, what would you change in terms of immediate needs infrastructure like housing and heat and electricity and food supplies and warehousing and distribution and transportation if you were king for a few days?"
And the answer, after some analysis and reflection, was generally not that much, the reality being that for that particular square mile of generally lower class, lower rent urban reality, things kind of worked. They were woefully imperfect but the way toward improvement was not SMASHING the existing complexity of roots and branches that had evolved over generations of struggles and governments, wars and recessions and technological innovations, but rather to just keep on keeping on at the hard work of evolving things.
Which brings to mind some graffiti I once saw and it made me laugh. "The Revolution will be Boring"
posted by philip-random at 8:37 AM on November 20, 2018 [13 favorites]
an old friend, as committed and as effective an anarchist as I've ever known, used to say whenever the revolutionary talk got too heated, too violent -- "Seriously, given this immediate neighborhood, this square mile, what would you change in terms of immediate needs infrastructure like housing and heat and electricity and food supplies and warehousing and distribution and transportation if you were king for a few days?"
And the answer, after some analysis and reflection, was generally not that much, the reality being that for that particular square mile of generally lower class, lower rent urban reality, things kind of worked. They were woefully imperfect but the way toward improvement was not SMASHING the existing complexity of roots and branches that had evolved over generations of struggles and governments, wars and recessions and technological innovations, but rather to just keep on keeping on at the hard work of evolving things.
Which brings to mind some graffiti I once saw and it made me laugh. "The Revolution will be Boring"
posted by philip-random at 8:37 AM on November 20, 2018 [13 favorites]
This guy is going to be so disappointed when the revolution comes and no one lets him run that either.
This a thousand times. We see this dude in organizing all the time: we tell him he has to meet the boring markers, get people in the union to pay their dues and come to trainings, that the work of building a union is slow and there’s no “one neat trick” to fix it. He tries to find one. He always tries to find one, like “I know you’ve been organizing low wage workers for a hundred years but what if I have an idea of how to do it better that has never been tried before?” It is never new. It never works. It always gets people fired.
There are totally legit critiques of the non-profit industrial complex - as referenced above, the Incite! collective has done most of the heavy lifting here. There are critiques of how it bends around money. But that’s not just a problem with nonprofits, but also “this guy came along with a pot of money and wants to do X.”
The problem with nonprofits is the same problem that any large enough organization has. You frequently need money to do things - trainings, flights, feeding people. It is most effective when concentrated in one place. No one person is resilient enough to temptation to hold all the money, so it becomes an organization. And an organization can be sued when its actors do wrong. Thus, the fact of getting well funded and large means that you’re inherently going to be less revolutionary.
posted by corb at 9:09 AM on November 20, 2018 [11 favorites]
This a thousand times. We see this dude in organizing all the time: we tell him he has to meet the boring markers, get people in the union to pay their dues and come to trainings, that the work of building a union is slow and there’s no “one neat trick” to fix it. He tries to find one. He always tries to find one, like “I know you’ve been organizing low wage workers for a hundred years but what if I have an idea of how to do it better that has never been tried before?” It is never new. It never works. It always gets people fired.
There are totally legit critiques of the non-profit industrial complex - as referenced above, the Incite! collective has done most of the heavy lifting here. There are critiques of how it bends around money. But that’s not just a problem with nonprofits, but also “this guy came along with a pot of money and wants to do X.”
The problem with nonprofits is the same problem that any large enough organization has. You frequently need money to do things - trainings, flights, feeding people. It is most effective when concentrated in one place. No one person is resilient enough to temptation to hold all the money, so it becomes an organization. And an organization can be sued when its actors do wrong. Thus, the fact of getting well funded and large means that you’re inherently going to be less revolutionary.
posted by corb at 9:09 AM on November 20, 2018 [11 favorites]
I'm really not opposed to autonomous organising - within class lines. Yeah, sorry, but I don't think you should organise class-blindly.
Treating class as the uniquely fundamental organizing principle is treating white men's interests as the uniquely fundamental organizing principle. Period. It's really only the white boys who can view gender or racial/ethnic identity as some kind of a superstructural add-on. The idea that not making class uniquely central means being "class-blind"--that is Super Ultra Beast Mode White Boy.
(Really a separate issue from whether the present nonprofit model functions well.)
posted by praemunire at 9:59 AM on November 20, 2018 [6 favorites]
Treating class as the uniquely fundamental organizing principle is treating white men's interests as the uniquely fundamental organizing principle. Period. It's really only the white boys who can view gender or racial/ethnic identity as some kind of a superstructural add-on. The idea that not making class uniquely central means being "class-blind"--that is Super Ultra Beast Mode White Boy.
(Really a separate issue from whether the present nonprofit model functions well.)
posted by praemunire at 9:59 AM on November 20, 2018 [6 favorites]
Most of this article is like a poor mimeograph version of the issues raised in "The Revolution will not be Funded", and excerpt here, Please share it instead.
A 'non-profit' is one type of organization under the US tax code. It can be many things, good or ill. Think "member-based organization" or co-ops if you want to think about politically nimble organizations that won't get tied to canny political machines.
It sounds like the organization this person worked for just planned poorly, and he extrapolated that to every group in existence. There are many racisms and classisms symptomatic to the environmental movement, it's worth considering those in any discussion of the failures he discusses here.
posted by eustatic at 10:24 AM on November 20, 2018 [3 favorites]
A 'non-profit' is one type of organization under the US tax code. It can be many things, good or ill. Think "member-based organization" or co-ops if you want to think about politically nimble organizations that won't get tied to canny political machines.
It sounds like the organization this person worked for just planned poorly, and he extrapolated that to every group in existence. There are many racisms and classisms symptomatic to the environmental movement, it's worth considering those in any discussion of the failures he discusses here.
posted by eustatic at 10:24 AM on November 20, 2018 [3 favorites]
It seems odd to suggest that the only nonprofits that should exist are the ones offering direct services. That essentially requires that every entity, except for those delineated ones, be profit-seeking.
If what's really being meant is that only certain varieties of nonprofit should be tax exempt, then sure, that's definitely true—and it's already the case. Lots of nonprofits don't qualify for tax exempt status, because they don't fall into one of the qualifying categories. I think it's important not to conflate "nonprofit" and "tax exempt", because there are some really neat stuff you can do with nonprofits even when they are in taxpaying (non-exempt) fields.
I would like to see lots more nonprofits, in all corners of the economy. In a rational marketplace, a nonprofit ought to be able to outcompete a for-profit company by virtue of not having the dead-weight overhead of speculative investors demanding dividends. (Okay, before anyone jumps on me, yes there are some caveats to this analysis, like the ability to raise funds, but nonprofits can issue debt—they just can't raise capital by selling equity, or at least not shares that pay dividends.) Nonprofit corporations allow ownership of the organization to be divvied up along non-economic lines, leading to all sorts of intriguing ownership structures.
I'd like to see a lot fewer tax-exempt categories, whittled down to just service-providing institutions and maybe only those that by their existence end up offsetting what would otherwise be a public expenditure. Churches, IMO, are the worst offenders that I'd like to make put up or shut up. But I think that would require some USSC court-packing to get through... a boy can dream, though, right?
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:34 AM on November 20, 2018 [3 favorites]
If what's really being meant is that only certain varieties of nonprofit should be tax exempt, then sure, that's definitely true—and it's already the case. Lots of nonprofits don't qualify for tax exempt status, because they don't fall into one of the qualifying categories. I think it's important not to conflate "nonprofit" and "tax exempt", because there are some really neat stuff you can do with nonprofits even when they are in taxpaying (non-exempt) fields.
I would like to see lots more nonprofits, in all corners of the economy. In a rational marketplace, a nonprofit ought to be able to outcompete a for-profit company by virtue of not having the dead-weight overhead of speculative investors demanding dividends. (Okay, before anyone jumps on me, yes there are some caveats to this analysis, like the ability to raise funds, but nonprofits can issue debt—they just can't raise capital by selling equity, or at least not shares that pay dividends.) Nonprofit corporations allow ownership of the organization to be divvied up along non-economic lines, leading to all sorts of intriguing ownership structures.
I'd like to see a lot fewer tax-exempt categories, whittled down to just service-providing institutions and maybe only those that by their existence end up offsetting what would otherwise be a public expenditure. Churches, IMO, are the worst offenders that I'd like to make put up or shut up. But I think that would require some USSC court-packing to get through... a boy can dream, though, right?
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:34 AM on November 20, 2018 [3 favorites]
Most of this article is like a poor mimeograph version of the issues raised in "The Revolution will not be Funded", and excerpt here, Please share it instead.
Also linked from the article, but a bit opaquely (the link text is "This is hardly an original critique" but you won't see the title of the book without clicking or hovering over it).
posted by atoxyl at 10:37 AM on November 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
Also linked from the article, but a bit opaquely (the link text is "This is hardly an original critique" but you won't see the title of the book without clicking or hovering over it).
posted by atoxyl at 10:37 AM on November 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
There are some particularly good and wise comments here.
"The Revolution will not be Funded" is one I will read, the excerpt at least. 'The nonprofit system has tamed a generation of activists...'
In the article, what I found interesting was the author's account of how working 'across party lines' seemed like such a good idea, but ended up paralyzing the nonprofit. How, in the trenches, do well-intentioned people know what to do when faced with such decisions? What kind of role-playing structure (a game? case studies, an MBA for nonprofit activism?) would help the people involved to foresee what would happen, and does it already exist somewhere?
posted by Baeria at 10:49 AM on November 20, 2018
"The Revolution will not be Funded" is one I will read, the excerpt at least. 'The nonprofit system has tamed a generation of activists...'
In the article, what I found interesting was the author's account of how working 'across party lines' seemed like such a good idea, but ended up paralyzing the nonprofit. How, in the trenches, do well-intentioned people know what to do when faced with such decisions? What kind of role-playing structure (a game? case studies, an MBA for nonprofit activism?) would help the people involved to foresee what would happen, and does it already exist somewhere?
posted by Baeria at 10:49 AM on November 20, 2018
In many contexts I see it as good if people from many sides can be working together, in case that was not clear.
posted by Baeria at 11:06 AM on November 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Baeria at 11:06 AM on November 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
Kadin2048: What I really mean is that it's unreasonable to extrapolate from the author's experience as part of a failed advocacy organization to the broad generalization made in the FPP that all nonprofit organizations are similarly directionless and vulnerable to hostile economic control.
To lay it out explicitly, organizations like Planned Parenthood and LGBT centers must exist now, next week, and probably for the next decade. If you don't have one, it's a moral imperative that someone needs to build it. Whether the policy advocacy organization described in the FPP should exist as described is a different question. The failure of the linked articled to recognize that in the buildup to "do unions instead" is terribly short-sighted.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 11:26 AM on November 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
To lay it out explicitly, organizations like Planned Parenthood and LGBT centers must exist now, next week, and probably for the next decade. If you don't have one, it's a moral imperative that someone needs to build it. Whether the policy advocacy organization described in the FPP should exist as described is a different question. The failure of the linked articled to recognize that in the buildup to "do unions instead" is terribly short-sighted.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 11:26 AM on November 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
I'm really not opposed to autonomous organising - within class lines. Yeah, sorry, but I don't think you should organise class-blindly.
There are no class lines in America. Just money. I don't think you know what class means.
And no low income uprising has EVER succeeded without the support of some of the people with money. The revolution is always funded and those people want a return on their investment which is why revolution is a stupid idea and democratic change is much better for everyone.
posted by fshgrl at 11:36 AM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
There are no class lines in America. Just money. I don't think you know what class means.
And no low income uprising has EVER succeeded without the support of some of the people with money. The revolution is always funded and those people want a return on their investment which is why revolution is a stupid idea and democratic change is much better for everyone.
posted by fshgrl at 11:36 AM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
May I enquire as to what class means to you?
I have to say, it does come as surprising news that you've established a classless society while I wasn't looking.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 12:19 PM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
I have to say, it does come as surprising news that you've established a classless society while I wasn't looking.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 12:19 PM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
There are no class lines in America. Just money. I don't think you know what class means.
Say what you want about Marxists but their definition of "class" is pretty clear and apparently not the same as what you mean.
posted by atoxyl at 12:57 PM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
Say what you want about Marxists but their definition of "class" is pretty clear and apparently not the same as what you mean.
posted by atoxyl at 12:57 PM on November 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
Class is a system of hereditary rights and privileges. It does not exist in the US, where you can buy your way into any social circle or place. India has a class system, so does the UK so do places like Brazil. Rigid and unbreakable no matter your wealth, beauty or whatever else. You can have all the money you what and you won't get into the corridors of power and if you do it'll only be as a tool for the people who were born there. The US does not have that. Not in the sense you are talking about.
Socioeconomic class is not really the basis for class warfare. If you can just buy power then people will do that. It's easier than having a revolution.
posted by fshgrl at 12:59 PM on November 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
Socioeconomic class is not really the basis for class warfare. If you can just buy power then people will do that. It's easier than having a revolution.
posted by fshgrl at 12:59 PM on November 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
Again, you're arguing with people who use the term in a specific way which is different from your definition. I'm not saying you've gotta convert to that worldview, wholesale - the exact circa-1850 interpretation of society summarized in that article might be a little bit out of date, not to say that nobody has developed on that foundation since - or at all. But just saying "that's not what class means" doesn't advance the conversation much.
posted by atoxyl at 1:51 PM on November 20, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 1:51 PM on November 20, 2018 [3 favorites]
So, I am a diehard Trillbilly Workers Party fan, to the point where I need to ante up to their Patreon because I love the podcast so much. No other podcast speaks to me quite so much as a leftist living across the river from Kentucky.
Read in the context of someone who's been listening to the podcast for over a year, this was super useful in connecting a lot of the dots on the podcast. You always hear them talking about this prison being built in Letcher County, and I can appreciate why they're so outraged - that a form of land recovery being used to recover from the coal industry is now being used to build prisons. It's basically the land use version of "Hire More Women Guards".
I'd really encourage people to RTFA and try to actually grapple with some of the very pertinent things he's brought up, one of which (and I notice no comments here have engaged with), is what should we do about the post-coal Appalachian economy? This is a central theme of the podcast, and in fact they sort of got famous by dragging JD Vance. If you know anything about the extractive history of Appalachia, and how often promises of reform have not been funded to actually realize their mission (the War on Poverty, SMCRA, etc), it's pretty understandable for why the author has such skepticism about nonprofits in the region. If anything, it's well-deserved. The greatest material gains that have ever been won in Appalachia have been through grassroots community organizing (from the ground-up, not from professionalized activism) and labor organizing work.
I'll note that many of the observations about the failures of nonprofits are also exceptionally well-addressed in Anand Giridharadas's book Winners Take All (previously). Either way, I'm glad we're having conversations about the limitations of philanthropy. Giridharadas makes the point that philanthropists would have us believe that privately-managed nonprofit work can overcome "broken government", but in order to serve the greatest number of people possible, we have to embrace political solutions. We need to re-assert that everyday people have the power to work in solidarity together to get shit done, and when everyday people get together and get shit done, it's generally going to meet people's needs far more than the latest flight of fancy from a well-meaning philanthropist (see also: the wildcat teacher's strikes in West Virginia).
posted by mostly vowels at 4:55 PM on November 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
Read in the context of someone who's been listening to the podcast for over a year, this was super useful in connecting a lot of the dots on the podcast. You always hear them talking about this prison being built in Letcher County, and I can appreciate why they're so outraged - that a form of land recovery being used to recover from the coal industry is now being used to build prisons. It's basically the land use version of "Hire More Women Guards".
I'd really encourage people to RTFA and try to actually grapple with some of the very pertinent things he's brought up, one of which (and I notice no comments here have engaged with), is what should we do about the post-coal Appalachian economy? This is a central theme of the podcast, and in fact they sort of got famous by dragging JD Vance. If you know anything about the extractive history of Appalachia, and how often promises of reform have not been funded to actually realize their mission (the War on Poverty, SMCRA, etc), it's pretty understandable for why the author has such skepticism about nonprofits in the region. If anything, it's well-deserved. The greatest material gains that have ever been won in Appalachia have been through grassroots community organizing (from the ground-up, not from professionalized activism) and labor organizing work.
I'll note that many of the observations about the failures of nonprofits are also exceptionally well-addressed in Anand Giridharadas's book Winners Take All (previously). Either way, I'm glad we're having conversations about the limitations of philanthropy. Giridharadas makes the point that philanthropists would have us believe that privately-managed nonprofit work can overcome "broken government", but in order to serve the greatest number of people possible, we have to embrace political solutions. We need to re-assert that everyday people have the power to work in solidarity together to get shit done, and when everyday people get together and get shit done, it's generally going to meet people's needs far more than the latest flight of fancy from a well-meaning philanthropist (see also: the wildcat teacher's strikes in West Virginia).
posted by mostly vowels at 4:55 PM on November 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
My favorite nonprofit project has been wildly successful, and has not caved at all to the evil forces of capitalism. It has weathered a few storms of internal drama and bickering, and seems to be nicely shifting to long-term survival mode. Of course, it's not directly competing with the forces of capitalism, either; it was specifically created to provide resources that the forces of capitalism steadfastly refused to provide, or even tolerate when they showed up.
It's nothing at all like the nonprofits mentioned in the article, or any kind of nonprofit the author seems to be aware of. Author seems to think a "nonprofit" is an activist group created to Destroy The Evil; he seems to be oblivious to the many thousands of nonprofits that exist to provide some service to their community that profit-motive capitalism has failed at. (And that's before we get to churches. Is he even aware that churches are nonprofits?)
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:47 PM on November 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
It's nothing at all like the nonprofits mentioned in the article, or any kind of nonprofit the author seems to be aware of. Author seems to think a "nonprofit" is an activist group created to Destroy The Evil; he seems to be oblivious to the many thousands of nonprofits that exist to provide some service to their community that profit-motive capitalism has failed at. (And that's before we get to churches. Is he even aware that churches are nonprofits?)
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:47 PM on November 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
I'd really encourage people to RTFA and try to actually grapple with some of the very pertinent things he's brought up, one of which (and I notice no comments here have engaged with), is what should we do about the post-coal Appalachian economy? This is a central theme of the podcast, and in fact they sort of got famous by dragging JD Vance. If you know anything about the extractive history of Appalachia, and how often promises of reform have not been funded to actually realize their mission (the War on Poverty, SMCRA, etc), it's pretty understandable for why the author has such skepticism about nonprofits in the region. If anything, it's well-deserved. The greatest material gains that have ever been won in Appalachia have been through grassroots community organizing (from the ground-up, not from professionalized activism) and labor organizing work.
1. We absolutely need to grapple with "what should we do about the post-coal Appalachian economy?" That's a separate question from the valid critiques that have been levied towards the specific article, and it's worth noting that Tarence doesn't grapple with that question in the article, so I don't think critiques are invalid because they don't as well.
2. It's hard to know what to do because for a lot of folks in Appalachia, their identity is tied up with that economy. And until you unshackle the two, I don't know how you make progress in that. Note that I'm not saying we give up or whatever dross; I'm not. I'm saying that answers to that question have to address that implicitly and explicitly. I cannot emphasize just how much so many people in Appalachia want those coal/whatever jobs to come back, and how resistant they are to folks saying "they're not, here are some better jobs". There's a real grief process about that, and folks on the other side are exploiting it so that folks don't get to the acceptance stage, so to speak.
3. Marxist theory isn't an answer. It's a means to get to a place, there are others, but that's all it is -- a means. It doesn't have any more or less validity than any other. Try it, see if it works, but be open to other means if it doesn't. To the degree that I have beef or critiques of essays and polemics like Tarence's, it lies in treating things like Marxist theory like religion -- as a dogma that contains all the answers.
The greatest material gains that have ever been won in Appalachia have been through grassroots community organizing (from the ground-up, not from professionalized activism) and labor organizing work.
this is mostly true, and it is also true that the grassroots organizing is amplified by professional or semi-professional activists. you need both.
posted by arkhangel at 8:43 AM on November 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
1. We absolutely need to grapple with "what should we do about the post-coal Appalachian economy?" That's a separate question from the valid critiques that have been levied towards the specific article, and it's worth noting that Tarence doesn't grapple with that question in the article, so I don't think critiques are invalid because they don't as well.
2. It's hard to know what to do because for a lot of folks in Appalachia, their identity is tied up with that economy. And until you unshackle the two, I don't know how you make progress in that. Note that I'm not saying we give up or whatever dross; I'm not. I'm saying that answers to that question have to address that implicitly and explicitly. I cannot emphasize just how much so many people in Appalachia want those coal/whatever jobs to come back, and how resistant they are to folks saying "they're not, here are some better jobs". There's a real grief process about that, and folks on the other side are exploiting it so that folks don't get to the acceptance stage, so to speak.
3. Marxist theory isn't an answer. It's a means to get to a place, there are others, but that's all it is -- a means. It doesn't have any more or less validity than any other. Try it, see if it works, but be open to other means if it doesn't. To the degree that I have beef or critiques of essays and polemics like Tarence's, it lies in treating things like Marxist theory like religion -- as a dogma that contains all the answers.
The greatest material gains that have ever been won in Appalachia have been through grassroots community organizing (from the ground-up, not from professionalized activism) and labor organizing work.
this is mostly true, and it is also true that the grassroots organizing is amplified by professional or semi-professional activists. you need both.
posted by arkhangel at 8:43 AM on November 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
« Older Relationships Predictors: The Struggle Between... | "It would be a cool method to apply to the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The tone of this article reminded me of something I couldn't quite place my finger on until I got to this bit, and then I realized it was Michael Biehn's speech in the first Terminator film. Linda Hamilton's general countenance in this scene more or less mirrors my own whenever I think about these and related issues.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:03 AM on November 19, 2018 [15 favorites]