Elvia Diego on Rojas

In the article “Are the Cops in our Heads and Hearts?”, Rojas discusses how there are different models for movements. There maybe some movements that are non-profit but also movements based on grassroots organizing. She address that although non-profit is probably not the ideal approach if you are trying to further your movement is it one that helps people in the organizations keep a steady income while still trying to achieve their movement goals.

While reading this is it became very clear that when an organization takes corporate funded money their main goals may be shifted in a different or opposite direction then intended. It turns social justice movements into a job where the few that are trying to make a change are put to work on a particular issue instead of the bigger picture. One thing that Rojas did mention was that she was a part of an organization that was non-profit and they got paid. They received steady checks and this way she could make a living out of trying to make a change. When her organization thought that they should no longer be non-profit and switched to more of a grassroots approach Rojas had become a mother. I believe that this pointed out to Rojas, it should also be pointed out to more people, that ideally a grassroots approach to an organization is better than non-profit because you have liberty of accomplishing your organization's goals without having others dictate what you can and cannot do but there is also a lack of a steady check. People out there want to make a change and with non-profit you do the work you can get paid for it but in order to truly make a change their needs to be a mass movement that requires the involvement of millions of people most of whom cannot get paid. It becomes then a struggle for people trying to be a part of these organizations because they need to be invested to the cause but now they also need a job so they can take care of themselves and their families. It’s a battle of doing what's right in all directions and juggling them all at once. In this situation one can see why a non-profit organization sounds appealing although it may not be the best way to go about making a change but it is a choice for people that need to make a living out of something they want to do.

The link that I’m sharing is basically a list of search engines for non-profit organizations. It’s almost become a thing of the past to go looking for nonprofits on foot when most people can just search for it on the internet. This makes me wonder how many people that get employed for those organizations actually contribute to change if any. I get that people do need to make a living but It also makes me wonder how many of those organizations are actually completing their goals or if they are being derailed.

https://www.thebalance.com/best-nonprofit-job-search-websites-4062204

How do movements stray away from corporate funding? If they stray away from corporate funding will they be able to further their movement and what might be some new strategies to do so?

Erik Dierks on Rojas

In the reading, “Are the Cops in Our Heads and Hearts?”, Rojas discusses how even non-profits fall into the trap of internalized capitalism due to the sponsorship/funding that these organizations receive in order to pay the community organizers that do this as their profession.

Rojas notes that this internalized capitalism still shows up even in movements that aim to abolish said systems due to the simple fact that we currently live in a capitalist society that is driven solely by money and labor for profit. She then goes on to talk about how this in turn leads to corporate interests dictating the stances that social movements and NGO’s will have on any given issue and the way they end up organizing around that specific topic. Rojas further stresses this point through a quote from her father who stated in response to how organizers are paid by foundations via the corporate funds they receive, “Clearly they are paying you to keep you from really challenging the system, to make sure that you are accounted for”. Her father’s statement goes to show how much power corporate interests hold over us and control even how we fight back against them. For me, this quote really solidified the realization of how deep in the capitalist state even the most progressive of movements can unintentionally be because of how necessary money is in order for us to survive.  Corporations also continue to hold this power over organizations and activists and have them stick to certain agenda’s because without their funding, their livelihood is at risk. Rojas brings this up in her discussion of how short-term goals with little to no real impact and “smoke and mirrors” come into play with non-profits. She then goes on to discuss the changing of activist tactics to models that focus heavily on everyday activism and how successful this type of organizing has been in Latin America.

 I really enjoyed reading Rojas’ discussion of the different types of activism and organizing that have worked so successfully compared to the typical activist work seen in the United States. Reading her discussion of how movements can truly divest from corporate interests and work alongside non-profits rather than through them, but still actively make a change in their society such as The Zapatistas work with an NGO to create video teaching community members how to document their work and abuse that they experience from the state. After this goal has been achieved, Rojas states how the NGO would then dissolve, therefore having no direct control over the movement and its goals

While not directly related, the irony of corporate money funding movements and foundations that are actively trying to fight against said capitalist system reminded me a lot of the 2016 Democratic primaries. Specifically, it reminded me of the reasons why a large majority of millennials so actively supported Bernie compared to Hillary. Similar to foundations and non-profits that are funded via corporate interests, Hillary’s campaign was largely funded through major donations from corporate interests and represented the establishment (ex. Super pacs, wallstreet etc.) which caused people to question whether or not she would actually enact more progressive policies or stay more centralist in her policies and viewpoints compared to Bernie’s grassroots campaign that was highly funded by donations and had a long history of progressive ideals.

On page 206/207 Rojas talks about how SIIS tried to address the issues of internalized capitalism and hierarchies by removing titles and paying everyone a flat salary. However, they found this was not equitable because as Rojas stated, “paying a single person with no dependents, like myself, the same as a single mother made no sense at all.”  I’d like to further discuss how issues such as this could be addressed and possible solutions.