“has been hijacked by activists who care more about their doctrine than the vulnerable people they ostensibly speak for.”
This is ubiquitous.
The Shirky Principle: “institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
Fuck activists. The full-time permanent version. Really, I mean it. We need to reverse the positive status juice it derives. Activism in a working democracy is a part time gig… taking time away from a regular productive life to agitate for policy to address a cause. After the voting in done, the agitator needs to go back to her productive life. The activism should not be a career. The activism should not be the cream filling of an otherwise meaningless life. Because if so, it corrupts the mission and intent of the cause. It shifts the focus of importance to protecting the career of the activist and perpetuates the need for it.
Not until “professional activist” becomes an identity label much worse than MAGA will the perpetuation of problems not continue.
My beautiful and super intelligent niece is about done with her four year undergraduate degree from a known-prestigious school where she she dropped her interest in business and seeks a job in a non-profit where she will "have an impact changing the world". The problem is that she sees the latter as more status-making than the former. She will not be lazy in that role and that is a big part of the problem.
Elon Musk just had a great quote:
“History is written by the victors. Well, yes, but not if your enemies are still alive and have a lot of time on their hands to edit Wikipedia.”
I really think the key is for all of us to stop walking on egg shells around all this ideology of grievance and start pointing out that activism is a sewer profession. This is difficult for example when Hollywood portrays the activist as the hero and the business as the devil. But Hollywood is also a sewer.
I and many other radicals draw a distinction between activism and organizing. The former is exactly as you describe, while the latter seeks to build power that can solve the problem. The activist wants to draw a paycheck to perpetually raise awareness about poverty, while the organizer builds a union to bargain for higher wages.
The best organizers organize themselves out of a job.
I am very good with organizing and activism for a cause as a project. Projects are defined as a temporary endeavor with a unique goal. Projects end and the project participants return to their functional responsibilities and/or go on to the next project.
One thing that can be done to help with this is that the rules for non-profits involved in politics need to be strengthened. Non-profits that have a mission outside of politics that are found to be involved in politics should have their non-profit status revoked. Non-profits that are approved as political organizations should have to disclose donors and activities and be limited and restricted in that activity.
Let's use the mission of the Sierra Club as an example:
"To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives."
But in the 2019-2020 fiscal year, the Sierra Club gave about $400k to Democrat campaigns and $0 to Republican campaigns... even though many Republicans are committed to environmental causes.
In an annual audit of the Sierra Club, this should be a finding that could risk their non-profit status being revoked as they are acting more as a Democrat party PAC, than an organization focused on its approved mission.
The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) organization, deliberately, and every chapter and group will have a political committee that will make endorsements in elections. There is a separate Sierra Club Foundation, which is 501(c)(3), and they are, and need to be, very careful about separating c(3) and c(4) work, to not spend Foundation money on any political or otherwise prohibited work. Chapters and groups will have separate c(4) and c(3) accounts and ensure that only c(3)-qualified activities (e.g. educational) are paid from c(3) funds. The national office has compliance staff that chapters and groups need to get clearance from.
That is fine. But regardless, all 501 (x) non-profits have to get their application approved by the IRS and that application includes a designated mission. Today there is not much scrutiny of mission creep. There needs to be.
“has been hijacked by activists who care more about their doctrine than the vulnerable people they ostensibly speak for.”
This is ubiquitous.
The Shirky Principle: “institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
Fuck activists. The full-time permanent version. Really, I mean it. We need to reverse the positive status juice it derives. Activism in a working democracy is a part time gig… taking time away from a regular productive life to agitate for policy to address a cause. After the voting in done, the agitator needs to go back to her productive life. The activism should not be a career. The activism should not be the cream filling of an otherwise meaningless life. Because if so, it corrupts the mission and intent of the cause. It shifts the focus of importance to protecting the career of the activist and perpetuates the need for it.
Not until “professional activist” becomes an identity label much worse than MAGA will the perpetuation of problems not continue.
Activist to me means: I'm too lazy to actually help out, but I'll carry a sign, make noise, claim success, convince myself I'm helping.
My beautiful and super intelligent niece is about done with her four year undergraduate degree from a known-prestigious school where she she dropped her interest in business and seeks a job in a non-profit where she will "have an impact changing the world". The problem is that she sees the latter as more status-making than the former. She will not be lazy in that role and that is a big part of the problem.
Elon Musk just had a great quote:
“History is written by the victors. Well, yes, but not if your enemies are still alive and have a lot of time on their hands to edit Wikipedia.”
I really think the key is for all of us to stop walking on egg shells around all this ideology of grievance and start pointing out that activism is a sewer profession. This is difficult for example when Hollywood portrays the activist as the hero and the business as the devil. But Hollywood is also a sewer.
Yeah. I’ve often said that these are people who want to save the world and still make happy hour. Fundamentally unserious.
I and many other radicals draw a distinction between activism and organizing. The former is exactly as you describe, while the latter seeks to build power that can solve the problem. The activist wants to draw a paycheck to perpetually raise awareness about poverty, while the organizer builds a union to bargain for higher wages.
The best organizers organize themselves out of a job.
I am very good with organizing and activism for a cause as a project. Projects are defined as a temporary endeavor with a unique goal. Projects end and the project participants return to their functional responsibilities and/or go on to the next project.
One thing that can be done to help with this is that the rules for non-profits involved in politics need to be strengthened. Non-profits that have a mission outside of politics that are found to be involved in politics should have their non-profit status revoked. Non-profits that are approved as political organizations should have to disclose donors and activities and be limited and restricted in that activity.
Let's use the mission of the Sierra Club as an example:
"To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives."
But in the 2019-2020 fiscal year, the Sierra Club gave about $400k to Democrat campaigns and $0 to Republican campaigns... even though many Republicans are committed to environmental causes.
In an annual audit of the Sierra Club, this should be a finding that could risk their non-profit status being revoked as they are acting more as a Democrat party PAC, than an organization focused on its approved mission.
The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) organization, deliberately, and every chapter and group will have a political committee that will make endorsements in elections. There is a separate Sierra Club Foundation, which is 501(c)(3), and they are, and need to be, very careful about separating c(3) and c(4) work, to not spend Foundation money on any political or otherwise prohibited work. Chapters and groups will have separate c(4) and c(3) accounts and ensure that only c(3)-qualified activities (e.g. educational) are paid from c(3) funds. The national office has compliance staff that chapters and groups need to get clearance from.
That is fine. But regardless, all 501 (x) non-profits have to get their application approved by the IRS and that application includes a designated mission. Today there is not much scrutiny of mission creep. There needs to be.