1. Most people who responded agree that NGOs can be many diffrent things, some of them better than others. That is precisely the point I tried to get across. NGOs are not predestined to be a tool of foundation liberals. They can and have been representing interests of the poor/working class as well. Other can be pretty reactionary.
But the fact that some NGOs are liberal or reactionary does not mean that the Left should write the whole spectrum off.
2. There are different types of NGOs - some of them providing human services, other serving as channels for development aid (which is a totally seprate issue for another discussion), and still other representing rights and interests of various underprivileged groups. Lumping them together confuses their true identity.
3. The term NGO is a misnomer, as most those organizations (especially service-providing) receive substantial public funding, mostly in the form of public contracts, that amount on average to over 40% of their revenues. That, however, vary from country to country. In Western European countries, public funding and contracts contribue from 2/3 to 3/4 of the revenue; in Latin America that source is below 20% of the total revenues.
The single largest NGO revenue is service fees - nearly 50% on average. Private donations amount to about 10% on average and about 7% in Western Europe.
For that reason I used the term "civil society" to denote those organizations collectively - - but that does not constitute my endorsemennt of the "civil society" lit-crit stuff which is, for the most part, hogwash.
4. "Civil society" organizations are not necessarily limited to charity work - with which they are associated in laissez faire countries (like the US). They are often a political mobilization platform, especially in Western European and Scandinavian countries. Although relatively few of them engage in direct political work, they mobilize people for political action. For example, one study of Italian "civil society" showed that the administrative districts that had a strong presence of the communist party and a large number of NGOs - the efficacy and responsiveness of local governments was visibly higher than in other areas.
There is also evidence that international NGO networks can be very effective in addressing the human rights issues, especially women's rights.
I can also add to it some anecdotal evidence that union organizing campaigns in this country tend to be much more successful if they form networks with local civic groups and organizations, even churches.
5. As to the point that NGOs diffused the already existing revolutionary potential - I do not think this argument has much merits. Virtually every study of social movement I know shows that social movements trabsform, diversify, split, disintegrate, becomo coopeted. NGOs are a manifestation of that process - not its cause.
Moreover, there is considerable evidence for the opposite argument (cf. the resource mobilisation school in social movements), namely that the more existing organizational form the gerater the potential for collective action, because of the greater availability of organizational resources necessary for such an action. Thinking that social movements can be sparked by the sheer will power alone, without material resources, sounds to me like culturalist-idealistic hogwash.
6. In that light, the main point I argued was that this organizational form has a considerable organizing potential for the Left - a potential that so far is underutilized. That is also consistent with what I know of social movements - they need human networks for recruitment and organizational resource base to function. NGOs can provide both.
I did not argue that all NGOs can be converted to agents of radical social changes. Most will probably prefer moderate reforms, and some of them even the status quo. But they can be used as a valuable resource for mobilizing the Left in general, and labor-oriented movement in particular.
That appears to be the only viable alternative. Sorry, Lou, not that I argue against a socialist revolution resembling those heoric days of 1917 - I just do not think such a revolution will happen any time soon, not even in Latin America, Africa or Asia, let alone the US or Europe. Waiting for heroic days of mass mobilisation to come back can cause the Left to miss the boat, and become marginalised even further.
7. I think one of the benefits of the electronic forum like this one is discussion of the strategy how to use the existing organizational resources (including NGOs) for organizing and mobilizing the Left. Let's just face it, not only are we marginalised, but the last days were painfully revealed that we cannot even agree who our allies are. Some even argued for an alliance with NATO. In that light, using "civil society" organizations is not such a bad proposal.
8. As to the yuppification of some NGOs. I do not put too much weight to cultural identities. Where some of you see a yuppie, I see a person who sells his/her labour for wages i.e. a worker. Moreover, workers selling their mental labour become an important segments of the working class. Dismissing this segment of the working class based on their cultural identity does not appear to me as a Marxist idea of social organizing.
Again, I do not believe that all mental workers can be converted to develop a "true consciousness" - many will prefer their yuppie status and libertarian ideology. But that does not mean all. Unfortunately, the Left has not been very effective in developing a class consciousness for this type of workers. There is a pomo, lit-crit, text-worshiping crowd on the one hand, and the crowd romanticizing the blue-collar culture on the other.
Neither seem particularly attractive, to say the least.
Again, the point is not who those people are now, but who they can be.
Cheers,
Wojtek