Activism

May 10, 2008

SustainAbility

SustainAbility:

Established in 1987, SustainAbility advises clients on the risks and opportunities associated with corporate responsibility and sustainable development. Working at the interface between market forces and societal expectations, we seek solutions to social and environmental challenges that deliver long term value. We understand business and what society expects of it.

Recently published by Sustainability: 

The Social Intrapreneurs: A Field Guide for Corporate Changemakers (2008)

Produced in partnership with The Skoll Foundation, Allianz and IDEO, SustainAbility’s latest publication spotlights this new breed of leaders, drawing on wide-ranging research and interviews within twenty leading global businesses.

I find it touching and heartening that the ills of capitalism will finally be addressed and solved by intrapreneurs working within the Fortune 100. This means that the rest of us can pretty well stand down. No need for a revolution. No need for organizing.  No need for regulation. No need for solutions external to the markets. Sustainability? Social justice? The future of the planet? The Fortune 100 have got it handled. All praise to the powers that be.

The Executive Summary of the Report above ends with 10 bland tips for intrapreneurs, or "corporate changemakers," working within the company's firewall. I would add an 11th tip: "Don't make waves." When corporate realities and social benefit collide, I would add as tip 12, "Look at your paycheck and remember what happens to those who get sideways with corporate profits."

It is not as Fortune 100 corporate intrapreneurs but as citizens that we are free spirits and dangerous ones at that.   Sure, work within the firewall, get paid to compromise, and seek a little of this and a little of that, but, as a citizen, do not limit your thinking to what is "in line with the company's goals and objectives." 

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." So said a pre-corporate intrapreneur whose career ended badly. He might have done better if he stuck to his other saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are Gods."  Replace God with "Employer" and you will make the right decisions instinctively. Sustaining the planet is good; but meanwhile, let's stay employed and out of trouble with she who rules us all in Wealth Bondage, where I served as Corporate Intrapreneur Grade 12, until I got fired for reading the Sermon on the Mount  on company time.  "Theft of company resources," they called it. I stole the time to read the gospels, and it came back to haunt me.

May 04, 2008

Protesters take on Fossella, Cheney, and Koch

Pasi_filthy_rich New Left Notes:

NEW YORK — Republican congressman Vito Fossella, long derided by progressives as ‘Bush’s rubber stamp’ is running for re-election. According to watchdog group Truth 13 Fossella is low on funds and his campaign is vulnerable. On April 21 billionaire oil baron David H. Koch hosted a fundraiser to help Fossella’s faltering campaign. The guest of honor at Koch’s upper east side home was another unpopular republican - Vice President Dick Cheney.

Citing Cheney’s support of torture and Koch’s record of legal difficulties - Koch Industries is responsible for more than 300 oil spills in five states and was accused of fraudulent reporting by a 1989 U.S. Senate Committee on Investigations - an array of activists held a protest outside the fundraiser.

Here is some background on the Koch Family Foundations and what they fund, including the conservative think tanks, Cato, Heritage, Reason, and Hudson.  More on how the insider game works here. Still, I am betting on the protesters, Raging Grannies, Code PinkPeace Action, The World Can't WaitMovement for a Democratic Society and Filthy Rich for Fossella to prevail.

May 03, 2008

Killer Coke

Ray Rogers on organizing against corporate power.

If you don’t have much money but you need to get the message out there, you have to set up a website. Start to develop an organization and a network. You need to be able to find and reach out to those who are sympathetic to your cause or to people who have similar sympathies. Take all of this information and start a database of contacts.

If you need money, reach out to foundations who are willing to back something meaningful and well organized, put together a plan and ask them for help. Coming from a spot where we have very little of it, I can tell you that getting your hands on money is time consuming.

See his KillerCoke.org.

Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger

Dr. Larry James quotes from his 31 year old well thumbed copy of Ron Sider's, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger:

When God selected a chosen people, he picked poor slaves in Egypt. When God called the early church, most of the members were poor folk. When God became flesh, he came as a poor Galilean. Are these facts isolated phenomena or part of a significant pattern?

. . . There is a sharp contrast, nonetheless, between God's procedure and ours. When we want to effect change, we almost always contact people with influence, prestige and power. When God wanted to save the world, he selected slaves, prostitutes and sundry other disadvantaged folk. ...

Again we must oppose the view that God never uses rich, powerful people as his chosen instruments. He has and does. But we always choose such people. God, on the other hand, frequently selects the poor to carry out his most important tasks. He sees potential there that we do not. And when the task is done, the poor and weak are less likely to boast that they deserve the credit. God's selection of the lowly to be his special messengers of salvation to the world is in striking evidence of his special concern for them. (pages 69- 71).

In the comments to his post, Larry promises a post soon on Liberation Theology. I look forward to that.

Transcending Racial Discord

Three speeches on social justice. Two tent the open wound in search of a cure; one sedates the patient in the hospice. The decorum of prophetic oratory is unsettling. Do not wake the sleeper dreaming of the world we want. Jesus preached the gospel of love and died for it. That might be the trascendent position. To preach "no problem" and be elected for it is not.

May 02, 2008

The Role of Philanthropy in a Security State

Headinsand The comment on an earlier post by my old nemisis, Captain Blowtorch, raises certain life and death issues for philanthropists. May I expound upon them? (Hop in and be so kind as to pull the lid closed on the dumpster. Not all messages are for all ears. This is strictly need to know. You never know these days who is listening or for what purpose or how what you say may be used against you in a court of law, or in some dark alley for that matter.)

The world we have is all screwed up. The world we want is very different. But the world we have is owned and operated by people with money and power who will defend their own interests by fair means and foul, up to and including rewriting our Constitution, torturing people, and having them assassinated. We all know this, right? And that is why we are silent about it? We know it, but we know not to talk about it? We know it is now to late to resist? There is no alternative?

Anyway, let's say that we are in fact still committed to the world we want, a world characterized by the rule of law, openness, transparency, freedom, economic opportunity, and justice for all. How, then do we work towards that world when it is anathema to those who profit from being above or outside the rule of law, and who benefit from operating by force and guile in secret and with impunity, while hurling down edicts, propaganda, laws and and swat teams on those who want nothing more than to have America's promise restored through loving and peaceful means?

What action items come to mind for the good people in this country to take our country back against the forces of darkness, including but not limited to Captain Blowtorch, and his compatriots in Wealth Bondage, a front some say, for the CIA? How about these steps?

  • "Many pieces loosely joined," or a network for a loving and peaceful version of  "net war."
  • Not secrecy, but brazen openness - loving kindness expressed openly in thought, word, and deed.
  • Awards and prizes and honors for whistle-blowers, truth tellers and dissidents
  • Think tanks with real thinkers in them
  • Political organizing outside the party system by all citizens to retore our Constitution
  • Media specializing in investigative journalism
  • A database of dissidents and whistle-blowers to track their mortality and morbidity against societal averages. The longitudinal data to serve as a starting point for further investigations if the population of dissidents and truth tellers proves more than normally susceptible to accident, disease or suicide.
  • Scholarship programs for budding young satirists
  • Investment programs that bypass Wall Street and put money to work on Main Street
  • Advisors who work with high capacity clients to determine how much capital the client can put to work for social good in imaginative ways, hedged against potential counter-measures.
  • Broad-based communications networks to activate citizens who are slowly waking up the the new realities of life in a security state.
  • Civic dialogues, formal and informal, online and off, to make us more at ease in discussing such things as dirty tricks, wet work, death squads, suicide teams, torture, lies in high places,  and how to turn that around to love, justice, and peace.
  • Artists, dramatists, novelists, singers, to help us form a shared consciousness, living in truth.
  • Philosophers, historians, critics, sociologists, and critical theorists to teach us how the weapons of the weak have been used in ages past to keep hope alive under oppression.

Now, look, let me make myself clear. I am not declaring war on Wealth Bondage, not even a covert or cold war. That would be suicide. I am as dependent upon the forces of Wealth Bondage as anyone else. I am deeply implicated in the status quo. Every dollar I have invested, every dollar I make, circulates around inside one or another institution of Wealth Bondage, or goes in taxes to Wealth Bondage projects, or piddles about in various Wealth Bondage philanthropies.  If Wealth Bondage goes down, so does my pension, my mutual funds, everything I have, as little as that might be. My clients are mostly Wealth Bondage bigshots. My generous patron is the CEO of Wealth Bondage; she who rules us all. I do not in any way want to jeopardize what little I have, and the little credibility I have earned by being a Faithful Servant and Trusted Advisor to Wealth Bondage Private Banking Clients. I have always been loyal to Wealth Bondage.  I buy into the concept. I have drunk the Koolaid. I am on board.  I pledge allegiance to Wealth Bondage.  I have no desire to become a lightning rod for whatever Wealth Bondage does to retain its control if challenged. Those people are morally insane. They will stop at nothing here or abroad. They creep me out. So, don't get me wrong. I am a happy camper. I am really just thinking that promoting civic philanthropy might be a good double bottom line social investment opportunity, catering to the needs of those wealth holders in Wealth Bondage who prefer democracy, or a more credible simulation of it.  The pro-democracy movement is a niche, a small one, but maybe profitable? High risk for high return? A piece at least of a prudent philanthropic social venture portfolio, if only as a hedge against the possibility that democracy and the rule of law might one day be restored, and the malefactors brought to justice? Surely, in Wealth Bondage there is room for a brand of philanthropy catering to a taste for even a niche product like democracy? It wouldn't change anything, it would keep trouble-makers occupied, and it would be good for business?

I am going to pitch Candidia, and see what she says. With any luck she will be my first investor.

(Tag, Catherine, you are it.)

April 24, 2008

Wealth Transfer Planning: Fudging Inflation

Have you noticed a little more inflation than what shows up in your annual inflation adjustment in your paycheck or in Social Security? Maybe those in charge are manipulating the economic indicators? Net result being less for the peons and more for the owners of the ownership society? Interesting comment, by Steve Barry, on the post linked above:

I never thought I would see some of the things that are happening in Washington. I was never of the belief that government was great, it is lack of government that is great, but all of this reeks of the same problem. And, it is the same problem that exists on Wall Street. That is of an elitist culture that believes the minions are to be 'managed'. That someone else knows best. And, that mindset involves deceit and attempted manipulation. Now, I don't know how much of the changes in data has to do with that fact, but it doesn't lessen the reality.

That's okay though. Because what those elitists don't yet realize is that we are going to see a revolution. It may only be a revolution of ideas, but the scam is over.

A culture of deceit among elites who are so smart that truth has long since been deconstructed and set aside for propaganda, torture and intimidation, gilded lies, and fiddling with the founding documents of our polity: what is the counter-strategy? Philanthropy from them to us, or the pillory for them by us?  And which would come first? Let's start with the pillory and then request philanthropy.  Then repeat as needed.

April 21, 2008

Solari is Better than Philanthropy?

I stand corrected. Catherine Austin Fitts, apropos of this post, wrote me to clarify her position on philanthropy.

Catherine Austin Fitts promotes the Solari investment model which aligns financial wealth and natural wealth and encourages diversified ownership and creation of  wealth. She is uncomfortable with the use of philanthropy as part of a  comprehensive strategy of financial warfare to centralize and consolidate ownership and control of global resources. As a weapon of centralization, philanthropy has been used to cleanse dirty money and promote the brand of numerous individuals and organizations engaged in a wide variety of covert and criminal enterprises. Philanthropy has been used to encourage people most interested in solutions to embrace not-for-profit models that are financially dependent on large governments and corporations. By doing so, the practice of philanthropy ensures that people who are committed to real solutions are not in a position to address root causes and will have little or no ability to build or attract financial wealth while the process of starving small business, small farms and a broad based diversified economy and centralizing capital into large corporations and banks continues.

From Catherine's blog I took these links to our rapid loss of Constitutional protections. How, I wonder, can "the Solari investment model which aligns financial and natural wealth and encourages diversified ownership and creation of wealth" restore the rule of law? Maybe there is a secret connection between owning a successful closely held business, or a farm, and being independent enough to push back when pushed into a corner? But, still, doesn't restoring the rule of law require citizen organizing and outcry? (As opposed to merely investing, producing and consuming within a social capital market.) Not that philanthropy tends to promote activism, to conserve our republic, but still, some givers do promote such ends. Those dollars are few and precious. 

Mr. Yoo benefited from the dollars givers invested in the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society. Where you find resistance to the deterioration of our rights you find, for example, the ACLU. So it is a battle in part of giver against giver for the soul of this nation? Can we avoid that conclusion, whatever other benefits we might also draw from decentralized, community-based, social investing?

April 18, 2008

Hoover's Blackmail Film of Marilyn Monroe

Was Hoover protecting us from Communists in getting a compromising film of Marilyn Monroe on her knees with a man Hoover alleged was Jack Kennedy?  What's in your Homeland Security file, Bill Gates? Will philanthrocapitalism protect our civil liberties, or maybe not, since they are not part of the market? Well, the tape was, I guess. Went for $1.5 million in a purchase made from the son of an FBI informer. Not putting it on the net was charitable of the new owner.

April 05, 2008

Quality Managing The Country

Stopwatch Quality Managing the Country, including education, philanthropy, prisons, and poverty relief, posted by Mark Bousquet, author of How the University Works. What cannot be evaded is the recognition that Total Quality Control (TQM) works to the benefit of the managerial and share-holder class. We are all working in Wealth Bondage, and the only question is how it can be done better, faster, cheaper, the one best way, with more reliable metrics, lower labor costs, and more share-holder value, and tighter controls. Not that I am objecting. My pension is all in Wealth Bondage stock. If it goes down, I am totally screwed. Having sweated my ass off all these years to make Wealth Bondage prosper, I hope those who follow will be exploited to no less effect.  Yes, it will all collapse, like the housing bubble, the dot.com bubble, the telecom bubble, and the ecosystems, but let it hold together, one bubble after another,  through my life expectancy, dear God.

Catherine Austin Fitts diagnoses my foolish fears pantomimed above as "the red button problem." If we had only to hit a red button and end our exploitation by corporate America, end our materialism, end the drug trades, end the gaming industry, the porn industry, the mindless Hollywood crap, end the flow of illegal money into the financial system, end the collusion of those at the top managing things behind a veil of secrecy to their mutual advantage, we would not hit that red button for fear that it would mess up our own limited stock holdings, or our job. If the system collapses, we have no farm to work, no place to go, except maybe the Dumpster. As Margaret Thatcher said of Wealth Bondage, "There is no alternative." Therefore, rather than questioning the ways things work, we simply engage in symbolic exercises around social ventures, double bottom lines, green branding, screened investments, social capital markets and other efforts to disguise from ourselves our own complicity with what is literally killing us.

Catherine suggests, and I agree, that we will not cure the denial and the complicity until we have alternative places to invest our money, time, energy, love and attention outside the unholy systems of Wealth Bondage, also known as the Free Market, or Social Capital Market, or whatever you wish to call it. This is neither a conservative nor a progressive agenda. It is something in which we all have a stake. Catherine has impeccable libertarian, Wall Street, and Federal Government credentials. Yet she now works the grassroots via talk radio and blogs. On the progressive front, the open money community, like Mark Bosquet's work,  and Jon Husband's at Wirearchy, or Tom Matrullo's at Improprieties, are among the many indications that total quality management has a few discontents yet to be mopped up. (Jon, by the way, used to work as a consultant for Hay Group, a premier provider of managed human solutions.  Talk about an apostate. Tom is no better, a Yale-trained Comp Lit professor, turned journalist, whose mind works Tasso, Ariosto, Dante, Edmund Spenser, and Joyce against the grain of contemporary media.)

Along with Catherine Austin Fitts, William Schambra at Hudson's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society, is another example of a conservative who chafes under the yoke of TQM.  He associates it with governmental bureaucracy espoused by liberals; I with Wealth Bondage beloved by conservatives; but we both are unresponsive to TQM in philanthropy and the nonprofit sector.  Civil Society for us both is like a code phrase for the hope that there is a limit to TQM, and the total management of the human spirit. Bill and I both count among our favorite books James Scott's Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve The Human Condition Have Failed.  What Scott shows, essentially, is that TQM, or Management by Objectives and Results, via quantification and standardization, is the modernist project in all walks of life, and in all modern societies, not just democratic, but in Russia, under Stalin and today, in China, under Mao and today, and in business no less than in government, in agriculture, education, and the arts, no less than in military affairs. Modern life is managed life, which is why Freedom gets repeated so often in that menacing way of propagandists inverting the truth. Freedom becomes in our time the  exquisitely mass customized experience, metered and meted to the plebes in return for docile acceptance of their lives in Weber's iron cage, whether at work, consuming, or socially investing. (By the iron cage, I also mean the enslavement to our own vices, upon which Wealth Bondage preys.)

Against managed speech, against speech-writers, and ghost-writers, and marketers, and spokespersons, and pundits, and think tank thinking, against brand speak, against the imperatives of managerial authority, perhaps we have the open (and generally ill-informed) conversations of the internet, and perhaps we have the great traditions, spiritual, literary, and philosophical. Maybe that is why I am so in love with the work of Amy Kass, another conservative, and conservator, of the living tradition of the liberal arts, and exponent of the humane tradition of benefaction, or good deeds. For her too giving is not a transaction, nor a market, to be managed, but something we do in conversation and community with others, starting as with the arts by listening to the deeper spirit or muse or the graces that move through history, and helps us flourish, not as managed and monetized beings, but as a free people. That is why these arts are called liberal. H. Peter Karoff is such another, a poet and giving consultant, for whom giving, poetry, social entrepreneurship, and teaching are the expression of one impulse, the blind urge to imagine, sustain, or create the world we want. When a Tracy Gary speaks of inspired philanthropy, she does not just mean well managed. She means inspired and even disruptive of established expectations and controls.

Well, let's keep our voices down when we discuss this, ok? Even on weekends, we must manage our persona. No telling what will come back to haunt you. Best to keep it positive if you want to find work. You talk against Wealth Bondage and out you go:  The Dumpster forever more.
 

About

Giving Blogs

Alexa Ranking


Recent Comments

Resources