Antonio Olmedo writes here about the new undemocratic, unaccountable Philanthrocapitalism, as embodied by the Gates Foundation:
In 2008, in their Ode to philanthrocapitalism, Bishop and Green claimed that philanthrocapitalists are “hyperagents who have the capacity to do some essential things far better than anyone else”. Apparently, the fact that they “do not face elections every few years, like politicians, or suffer the tyranny of shareholder demands for ever-increasing quarterly profits, like CEOs of most private companies” or that they do not have to devote “vast amounts of time and resources to raising money, like most heads of NGOs”, situates them in a privileged position to “think long term”, to go “against conventional wisdom”, to take up ideas “too risky for government” and to deploy “substantial resources quickly when the situation demands it”. These new super agents can solve the problems of the world, and do it fast, cleanly, and absolutely.
Behind Bishop and Green’s philanthrocapitalim, Bill Gates’ creative capitalism, and David Cameron’s Big Society, which are closely related conceptions, is a new relation of ‘giving’ and enacting policy. This relation is based on a more direct involvement of givers in policy communities, that is a more ‘hands on’ approach to the use of donations. In previous writings we have referred to this new political landscape as philanthropic governance, that is the ways in which, through their philanthropic action, these actors are able to modify meanings, mobilise assets, generate new policy technologies and exert pressure on, or even decide, the direction of policy in specific contexts.
Democratic deficit
The problem here, or the problem for some of us, is that the claims and practices of new philanthropy are premised on the residualisation of established methods and traditions of democracy. They see no need to respond to or be accountable for their philanthropic investments to anyone else but themselves. This is what Horne indicates when he claimed that new philanthropists operate in a ‘para-political sphere’[1] within which they can develop their own policy agenda untrammelled by the vicissitudes of politics. What we are facing here is more than just givers who ‘vote with their dollars’[2]. As Parmar puts it: “the foundation-state relationship, therefore, is not a conspiracy – it may be quite secretive and operate behind the scenes, but it is not criminal enterprise. It is, however, strongly undemocratic, because it privileges the right people, usually those with the right social backgrounds and/or attitudes”. The direct involvement of new philanthropists in the para-political sphere enables “some individuals to act as their own private governments, whose power can be used to challenge that of the state and force it to re-examine its priorities and policies”
Gambling with children’s future
Essentially this is a simplification of policy, a cutting out of the messy compromises, dissensus and accommodations that attend ‘normal’ policymaking. But perhaps change is less simple than it seems initially from the perspective of great wealth! In a recent public letter from of Sue Desmond-Hellmann, CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, there is a frank recognition that single-mindedness and a deliberate circumvention of traditional policy actors may not actually be constructive or effective in getting change done.
“… we’re facing the fact that it is a real struggle to make system-wide change.
Hi Diane, I wrote a little piece on the role of schools foundations in undermining the democratic promise of public education. Published in the current issue of Rethinking Schools: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/31_01/31-1_wolfe-rocca.shtml. Hope you find the time to take a look.
Good article, Ursula…this has been going on all over So. California for years. The Principal told parents who are vying for a spot in public kindergarten (in our Lake Oswego-like areas) for their child, that they are expected to donate at least $4,000 to the 501c3 PTO, and that if they want after school program entry it is another $4,000. This is a fact in the local public school in my son’s district. He finally chose a private school for my 5 year old grandson, since I made him aware of the Common Core strangulation with testing of small children.
With the cost of $8,000 per student in public school, plus the inordinately high property taxes, this is a travesty. Although old people profit from the tax relief of notorious Prop. 13, young families who are first time home buyers do not.
Indian gambling casinos were supposed to take up some of this economic slack for our schools, as was the lottery, but that is a farce, and only hurts poor people hoping for magic. What kind of country uses gambling to finance education??? Both were voted in as ballot measures by the thugs in this destructive industry, and with payoffs from lobbyists to rotten legislators…but then, California government seems to have NO shame and is among the lowest financing of public ed in the nation….so it is easy for the profiteers to con the inner city parents into demanding charter schools.
Your report is right on the button.
BTW…the other public school nearby my son’s house is covered with gang graffiti which causes parents to cave in from fear and enroll children in private and parochial schools. Every time I drive by and see this desecration, I cannot understand why the district, or the principal, or the parents, do not paint over it. The city cleans graffiti off the freeway walls, but not the public schools.
Philanthrotyranny (n.) global dictatorship; the lowest ring of the inferno; the complete loss of moral value (see fascism, see eugenics, see William Gates the Third)
and just in….
Sanders discourages third-party votes: ‘Not the time for a protest vote’
By Jessie Hellmann
“It’s time to look at which candidate will work best for the middle class and working families.”
Read the full story here
Neither will work for the middle class but she will definitely do less harm . Unless she takes both houses she will be stuck in four more years of obstructionism. Which I am sure her Wall Street backers will not mind. As I will not mind if her neo liberal agenda is left in the dust.
But
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/white-supremacy-and-trump-fever-toxic-combo-thats-killing-people-white-people
The conclusion:
“a large proportion of white Americans have been severely damaged by the legacy of white supremacy, and now suffer from a kind of dementia disorder. They seek to blame people of other races or people from other countries for problems that are either self-inflicted or the work of their capitalist overlords. And in the name of reclaiming a lost golden age, they are rushing to sign their own death warrant.”
Thank you again, Dr. Ravitch, for sharing this insight by another great scholar, Antonio Olmedo. Refuting the accusations that your blog is an echo chamber, you bring in fresh perspectives from around the planet.
Philanthrocapitalism? A scholarly way of saying “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.
Gates underestimated how tone-deaf he is, like those poor unfortunates on American Idol who can’t sing but think they can. Thankfully, we can look to scholars for an explanation http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyaug/11-singing-in-the-brain
Still, there’s a strong overtone of almighty privilege in Gates’ admission that they “underestimated the level of resources and support required” to push their agenda. In other words, “it’s not paying off for us!”.
And the assertion that “we take (the criticism) to heart” is also bogus, since corporations are not people and do not have a heart.
For me, Olmedo’s strongest point about philanthrocapitalism – “It is, however, strongly undemocratic, because it privileges the right people, usually those with the right social backgrounds and/or attitudes”
Sounds like the selectivity of charter schools.
Beware toxic “charity.”
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/was-carnegie-right-about-philanthropy
Our government promotes this. How do we stop it when both sides of the coin are in on the theft?
There are ways to do this “right:” to give one’s fortune to an entirely 3rd party, arms length organization, and such that the donor does not and cannot control or direct the actual use of the funding. Kind of like what Ted TTurner did, or what George Soros does.
Even better, just prevent people from getting so rich that they end up “donating” billions.
“Even better, just prevent people from getting so rich that they end up “donating” billions.”
I vote for that. In other words, they shouldn’t be allowed to take so much of our money—tax them appropriately.
During the Eisenjower years, the marginal tax rate on the richest was 91%. When you are a billionaire, you should have higher taxes.
Trump says he wants to cut taxes for corporations and the richest.
Reblogged this on BLOGGYWOCKY and commented:
And yet more anti-democratic oligarchy.
Just remember the re-worked “Golden Rule”- he who has the gold, rules.
Of course, this has been going on for quite awhile, with all the money and perks flowing to the politicians. The 1% has just found another way to influence (not to mention subvert) the democratic process, in the guise of philanthropic educational “reform.”
And the “best” thing is, the money they have given the PACS and the political campaigns is not considered “charitable” donations, whereas when their “charitable” foundations use money to influence their agendas, if anybody gives money to their foundations (such as Warren Buffett giving a lot of his fortune to the Gates Foundation)- hey, it’s a charitable contribution! It makes them look good, too! Maybe somebody ought to clue in “Uncle” Warren regarding the fact that some of the money he gave to the Gates Foundation may be being used in the attempt to undermine public schools and turn American students into little test-taking, data-driven machines. And if Warren’s money is not being used directly, it certainly frees up other Gates money to be used in this way.
Zorba: er, perhaps I had access to a different version of the rheephorm holy scriptures, but I remember it as going—
“He who has the gold, makes the rules.”
Of course, same diff…
😏
And as for the topic under discussion in this thread, someone far wittier than I once wrote on this blog that it was called “villainthropy.”
Again, same diff…
Thank you for your comments.
😎
This is the return of the aristocratic principle–if the working class is to have social rights, it is only at the whim of the parasitic elite.
See my report on the Zuckerberg operations…
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/12/08/zuck-d08.html
Hi Diane, I wrote a little piece on the role of schools foundations in undermining the democratic promise of public education. Published in the current issue of Rethinking Schools:http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/31_01/31-1_wolfe-rocca.shtml . Hope you find the time to take a look.
>
“This is a hard lesson, learned at great cost to children and to schools. In cities like Memphis, New Orleans, New York and Los Angeles the money and monopoly of Gates and his cohorts have fundamentally changed the landscape of education, children’s school experience, and patterns of access to school, and now we are being told ‘sorry it was a mistake’, we need to start again! Well, the problem is that such starting point will not be the same. Teachers are even more tired and breathless, students and their families feel lost and do not know who or what to wait for -now that Superman has accepted defeat-, local communities have been diminished and disempowered… And this is only the very beginning… what about Kenya, and Uganda, and Ghana, and India, and England, and the Philippines, and…”
Yes, What about them?
There is a book on the subject which I picked up at the Raleigh meeting.
https://www.amazon.com/Such-Thing-Free-Gift-Philanthropy/dp/1784786233/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474913776&sr=1-1
Reblogged this on Critical Consciousness – Spirit of Paulo Friere.