The Nonprofit Industrial Complex: How the Politics of Funding can Hijack a Movement

I am one of the many radical, idealist youths, who, fresh out of college, trekked my way to the Washington, DC progressive world, to get a job at a nonprofit that could, hopefully, reconcile my desire to improve the world with my desire to make a living. When I got there, I thought I was unbelievably lucky to actually get paid to do work that falls within throwing distance of my political beliefs. Now that I have finished my one and only year in the DC nonprofit world, I must say I am a bit disillusioned.

During my time in that city, I learned that the DC nonprofit system is a tangled mess of good intentions, damaging compromises, and political contradictions. In a capitalist society, DC nonprofits must do what it takes to survive – often by making their goals, agendas, and cultures palatable to funders, and by narrowing in on niche social change markets – a distinction that is always somewhat arbitrary. In this nuts and bolts city, nonprofits focus on getting things done within their narrow fields, drowning out much needed discussions about political ideas and visions. The survival of the organization, furthermore, often becomes an end in itself, making it rather difficult for nonprofits to admit when they have outlived their usefulness. While many DC organizations start out with radical intentions, once they have been processed through the nonprofit system, they often no longer pose a threat to the status quo.

Recently, there has been an explosion of criticisms of the “non-profit industrial complex” coming from left magazines like Adbusters, and even former nonprofit organizations like Incite. And while it is exciting that this issue is being thrown out into the open for open criticism and analysis, we are still left with the question: what do we put in its place?

There are undeniable advantages to being a part of the nonprofit industrial complex, namely, survival. Volunteer activists must scrape together what little free-time they have outside of their regular jobs to devote themselves to their cause. Not only is this exhausting, but it simply does not give them the time and resources they need to develop their movement to the point that it can be at all effective. Becoming a nonprofit, and getting funding, allows you to have an office, supplies, and time to spending working on an issue.

But there are other models for funding radical projects. Organizations could do what labor unions have been doing for years: build membership and collect member dues. Not only will this provide funding, but it will also provide a base of support for an organization’s efforts and give its members a measure of ownership of the project. Nonprofits could also have an entirely separate business just to fund its efforts, like a cafe or a bookstore. This would allow it to act with total autonomy; it would not be beholden to any corporate foundations. Another option, though it might seem somewhat impractical, is that certain “legitimate” nonprofits could act as front groups for more radical nonprofits. They could solicit funding and then secretly embezzle it to fund more radical projects.

We live in world with complex problems that demand thoughtful, nuanced solutions. We cannot afford to base our plans of action on what gets the most funding. We need to start building models for organizing and agitation that allow us to truly act on our beliefs without compromise. While there are undeniable advantages to securing funding for radical projects, there are also considerable costs, and we must ask ourselves, Is it worth it?