Follow the Money: Reform work in the US

My students often ask when examining the problems of oppression and social inequalities, what can be done? In answer to this question journalist and historian, Husayn Al-Kurdi wrote that the number one point for activists today is that we begin real change for a better world by Not trying to reform the system---stop trying to reform it, he says...

Practices and polices to reform this system by conservatives and progressives alike typically advise and enforce a reform praxis as opposed to revolutionary praxis... A reform praxis is theory based action which maintains things as they are while making alterations which ultimately benefit power holders while trickling down some benefits to the rest of the people. By revolutionary praxis I mean theory-inspired action which revolves to the core of what it means to be human by eradicating dehumanizing, oppressive and exploitative systems and relationships...

PHILANTHROPISTS AND THEIR AGENTS

Through-out the twentieth century a new presence of philanthropy emerged... (philanthropies) directed efforts using their money and resources to ensure that a shift occurred from organized radical and revolutionary activist efforts such as those manifesting in the streets all over the world in the 1960’s to reformist governmental, non-governmental and non-profit programmatic reforms, such as new laws empowering the state to manage discrimination and diversity. In other words, instead of destroying capitalism and imperialism by breaking down its walls and breaking its balls many activists took jobs in programs and university departments created by the super rich. These programs and projects were developed in such a way so that they threw a bone at social and economic problems, widened consumer bases and in fact, supported the capitalists and their empire building campaigns through out the so called cold war.

How is that people in positions of power with tons of money win the consent of people to focus on reform instead of revolution? One way is by not killing them or imprisoning them and instead giving them money and jobs to take over cultural forms of protest such as hip hop and make it about bling and booty. Another way to distract people is with stories that give social meanings to the violence of the oppressor and the oppressed... This is an example of cultural hegemony. Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without a stated threat of force, in every aspect of life and death. Hegemony results in the dominance of cultural stories, cultural beliefs, values, and practices to the submersion and partial exclusion of others.

http://juneterpstra.com/about.html

Outstanding, a must read.

So succinct in its conclusion, an entire 'professional' class focused on managing/controlling the oppressed as opposed to freeing them.

Thank you for posting this

:-)

I have come across many references to these kinds of covert manipulations. We all already know how various enforcement agencies plant operatives in organizations to not only gather information, but to influence and even entrap various groups.

This article is crucial to understanding the system we are in. It stands to reason, if you have a vested interest in certain outcomes and you have the money and various human and material resources to execute them over long periods of time, then you would want to assure that you can influence, shape and direct the social sphere.

The thing is, if this continues unabated, what with the technology available, we can extrapolate not only the refinement of this process, but its expansion and, eventually, a total dominance. We are clearly in the final stages.

Regardless of how intricate, subtle and effective the foundations and fronts are, does this represent any kind of clear and present danger? I think of all the energy and attention that is directed towards the overt, political sphere and then consider the pervasive impact of this front in the war of classes, (which seems to be the real and only war behind all wars).

Good selection to use from the article, real tough one to select 4 paragraphs from... as some people here seem to read only the post, or have slow servers, I'm posting the last four paragraphs here, again, thanks very much! K&R of course

Today radicalism and revolutionary theory and practice in and out of the academy barely exists. It has been well tempered. Criticalists occasionally throw some bones to the idea of producing dangerous knowledge yet most attempts to incorporate such a praxis meets fierce resistance in the academy from liberal and conservative gatekeepers alike.

The vision promoted by the ruling groups in the philanthropic foundations, think tanks and the academy structures the material relations of people sponsoring and utilizing social programs. Those working in the programs are forced to participate within the confines of that vision or lose their jobs, their grants, their positions (Hartsock 1998). As a liminal (a person situated at a threshold, barely perceptible but offering a fresh take on a classic formula) in the academy I place myself in the historical, political, and theoretical process of constituting myself as a revolutionary subject as well as an object of history in my interpretation of social relations as seen from the threshold. I stand with one foot in the academic door and one foot in the “street” manifesting a protest for theories and actions that recognize oppression for what it is, insisting on economic redistribution and maintaining the preferential option for the poor. I believe that providing accounts of experiences of domination, especially from those working with the system, offers critical understandings about social and economic realities which produce knowledge ways to fundamentally change the system.

This is the point of this essay, many radicals and revolutionaries, after gaining access to the academy, conceded to directions, agendas and approaches set in place by super rich people and their managers. Often times people desiring social justice become agents and assets (albeit at times unconsciously) in order to keep jobs/retain positions, receive promotions and tenure, by telling ourselves that we are opening doors for women and men across race and ethnicity, who will change the system. Although at times we would challenge and lobby elites to fund efforts for real systemic change which recognizes and redistributes resources, in my extensive experience with philanthropists and the women and men who manage philanthropic funds, these efforts do not benefit them and so they do not fund them. They fund “acceptable” strategies such as “welfare reform,” leadership development, gay and lesbian art projects, trauma therapy research, domestic violence programs, and professional development programs.

This brings us full circle, revolving back to the core theme of the essay. If we are truly committed to ending oppression and supporting self-determination then it is time to stop trying to reform the system. Our work now must be fundamental change which goes to the root causes of the problems.