derelictspaces making some space

The following is from ‘Just Another Emperor‘ [PDF]

I argue that:
• The hype surrounding philanthrocapitalism runs far ahead of its ability to deliver real results. It’s time for more humility.
• The increasing concentration of wealth and power among philanthrocapitalists is unhealthy for democracy. It’s time for more accountability.
• The use of business thinking can damage civil society, which is the crucible of democratic politics and social transformation. It’s time to differentiate
• the two and re-assert the independence of global citizen action.
• Philanthrocapitalism is a symptom of a disordered and profoundly unequal world. It hasn’t yet demonstrated that it provides the cure.

The stakes are very high. Fifty-five trillion dollars in philanthropic resources are expected to be created in the United States alone in the next forty years. It matters whether these vast resources are used to pursue social transformation or just to address the symptoms of global problems. And for the philanthrocapitalists themselves, it matters that they are seen to be serious about engaging with this question. If they aren’t, they may find themselves on the receiving end of the same kind of backlash that greeted previous concentrations of private wealth and power.

I’m currently working in the Charity sector (though NGO’s and Charities are technically different, Charity is the name for all of them in the UK), which employs approx. 2% of the Adult workforce by recent estimates (though the total not for profit sector employs as much as 5% so I’ve heard…). And this is something that gets put around a lot - the need to be more professional in our approach and structure - which is code for more corporate. Which means structured like a corporation, using corporate methods and PR, and, ultimately, pay the senior management corporate wages. Which implies staff getting corporate (i.e. shitty) wages. Hence the Shelter strike. Though, it has to be said, the ‘Tesco-isation‘ of the charity sector does not go without contestation. Following on from the previous post on inflation, and reproduction, I find myself wondering how much the institutions of ‘civil society’, insofar as they were once institutions born from social movements have been incorporated into the structures of governance (the state, medical and legal structures, housing and welfare, etc) and are being corporatised in turn alongside the public services in an attempt to draw not only profit from them but to reinforce the societal norms of an entrepreneurial capitalism. I’m sure a long list of examples could be found - ‘philanthrocapitalism‘ is just one trend, alongside microcredit and all the rest of it. It is interesting though how profit can be made from ‘politics’ in the small p sense of the word - the desire for non-monetary value, social change, participation, etc, can all generate a steady cash flow and jobs. It can provide for a place to creatively ‘destroy’ excessive capital that can’t be profitably reinvested elsewhere. And in mobilises a whole range of people in the re/production of policy, law, and various governance processes that, whilst aimed at social change, also reinvigorate and maintain the current social system. Which is not to say that this is necessarily a bad thing - my take on it all is much like Cam and I’s take on rights - that is, these institutions ultimately form a space carved out from struggle, and continue to be informed by not only the memory of that struggle (as Foucault says in Society must be Defended) but the continuation of that struggle and others. But they are also built around the maintenance of that space - that is, their own reproduction. Which is not the same thing - and is quite often at odds - with the trajectory and desire of the social movement from which it comes.