The idea that many green groups are anti-capitalist is not exactly news. But what is news is when one of these groups states with clarity their anti-capitlist position. One environmental group recently did just this and stated their anti-capitalist policy in a Huffington Post article.
Rebecca Tarbottom, executive director of Rainforest Action Network (RAN), wrote in “Dismantling Corporate Power: A Call to Action on the Anniversary of Citizens United” that:
“Corporations themselves are victims and beneficiaries of a regulatory system that myopically values profit and shareholder value above all else. Even with the best intentions in the world, the CEOs of most companies can only do so much to change their business practices before they risk running afoul of the doctrine of the dollar. . . we need systemic change to meaningfully confront the breakdown of our economy and our environment.”
Given that she heads a group which claims to have as its goal the protection of the environment, it was nice that in that passage she managed to work in the word “environment.” Yet the overall theme of this paragraph is not foremost the protection of the environment, which is what one would expect from an environmental organization. Indeed the theme of this paragraph and the article entirely is one of anti-capitalism, one of “demanding structural change,” as she characterizes it toward the end of the article, to “our tax system, our trade system, our electoral system, and our judicial system.”
Ms. Tarbottom’s emphasis on the revamping of these societal institutions reveals her organization’s real intentions (as does some of the writing in the organization’s “Pressure Drop Primer,” see PDF page 8 in the link given.) For Rainforest Action Network, their reason for being is to change the nature of the economic and political system, all under the guise of “protecting the environment.”
Would-be donors of this organization need to keep this in mind when contemplating support of this group.
Earlier today I wrote about the punking of Chevron’s new “We Agree” promo campaign. For background on this campaign and how it was punked by activists, you may read that article “Could the Yes Men Get Punked in Return?” by clicking here.
In that article I noted that Chevron announced their “We Agree” campaign on the morning of Monday, October 18, 2010. There is further information concerning the timing of the announcement and how it was made.
A New York Times article states that Chevron made the announcement, in the form of emails sent to reporters, after an article about the promo campaign was published in The Wall Street Journal on the morning of Monday, October 18, 2010. Chevron also announced the new promo campaign via a corporate press release on their Web site on the morning of Monday, October 18, 2010.
The New York Times article also states, however, that several hours prior to those Chevron emails being sent out, emails resembling Chevron emails were sent out, referencing a Web address different from what was mentioned in the actual Chevron emails. These first emails turned out to be spoofs. That other Web address referenced in the spoof emails was a Web site that the Yes Men used in their spoofing campaign, Chevron-WeAgree.com.
If the information in the Times article is correct, (and it appears that the Times article is not a spoof itself) it would seem that someone on the activist side of this affair had foreknowledge of the announcement of the “We Agree” campaign.
Indeed, that possibility can be supported via an independent check of the domain registration for Chevron-WeAgree.com.
Go to Who.is and check the registration for Chevron-WeAgree.com. You won’t learn who registered that domain. But you will find out WHEN it was registered. The registration record for Chevron-WeAgree.com, according to Who.is, states that the domain was created on October 16, 2010. That’s two days before Chevron announced the “We Agree” campaign publicly.
This information raises at least two questions.
Was there a leak in the “We Agree” campaign? If so, where did it occur?
You have the information as shown above. You may draw your own conclusions.
UPDATE: October 19, 2010 – 7:45PM ET, In a post on their site (which does not appear to be a spoof), Rainforest Action Network (RAN) admits playing a role in this Yes Man protest campaign. RAN also admits sending out information prior to the Chevron emails “. . . we had the element of surprise . . . before Chevron’s press release announcing its ‘We Agree’ campaign could hit reporters’ inboxes, we sent out a press release of our own on their behalf.” RAN also admits to creating the Chervron-WeAgree.com Web site along with the first fake press release by saying in that same post “before we sent out our press release, we put together a spoof website and a fake press page.”
To do all of this along the
Continue reading Was There a Leak in the "We Agree" Campaign?
In a recent press statement, General Mills announced that:
General Mills supports the principles of the Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and RSPO efforts to encourage and certify sustainable palm oil production practices. To reinforce those principles, General Mills purchases palm oil only from RSPO members – with preference for purchasing RSPO certified sustainable palm oil.
General Mills also said:
Our work with environmental organizations, including Rainforest Action Network, helped focus us on this important issue.
These are interesting developments because General Mills has recently been a target of Rainforest Action Network in an extended and coercive campaign against General Mills and in efforts by that NGO to “encourage” General Mills to change its palm oil sourcing policy.
This General Mills acquiescence to the RAN demands makes me wonder how long it will be until Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace, or other NGOs involved in the palm oil campaign attack General Mills by saying that the RSPO policy is not responsible enough. I’ve seen this happen before, and this strategy has been well-documented in academic literature. (Hoffman, Andrew “Shades of Green, ” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2009, p 48)
NGOs often work in packs and tag-team a target that has displayed a willingness to acquiesce to one NGOs demands. Once a target accedes to the first NGOs demands, such as is the case here with General Mills, then the second NGO moves in for further attacks. Weakness always draws attackers.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
As Monty Python used to say . . . and now for something completely different.
Through the miracle of Google Alerts, I recently noticed a unique type of social media protest. This one is a situation where activists are targeting for protest other activist organizations because those organizations are, in the opinion of the protesters, too mercenary and not activist enough. Yes, you read that correctly, and I thought it peculiar as well. Here’s the story.
First, a tiny bit of background is needed. Change.org is a social site as well as an activist organization, which I have profiled (Interestingly in that profile, I found that Change.org is most likely a for-profit corporation, but that’s a different story. See my Change.org profile for more information.) Through their site, Change.org offers anyone the opportunity to create a petition drive, enabling the petition supporters to easily send messages of protest to the target of the petition. The petition targets are often companies accused of committing various behaviors found objectionable by the petitioner and its supporters. But not always. You probably realize by now where I am heading.
Now here’s the “something completely different” part. If you read this blog regularly, you will have read that I believe that some anti-corporate activist tactics can be turned back around on the activists themselves. “Payback is always a bitch.” Well, here’s a good example of such turnaround payback and it involves Change.org which recently featured a petition drive entitled “Less money collecting, more actions!” The petition asks its “signers” to demand that various activist organizations “act more” and “collect less.” (Why am I thinking of Jerry Maguire?) The targets of the petition are:
Rainforest Action Network,
Greenpeace National,
Earthjustice ,
1Sky National Office,
Sierra Club National Headquarters,
and five other activist organizations. Interesting, isn’t it?
As of the date that I wrote this post, in a little over one week, the petition had only 23 signers with a goal of 800. I’d say that was pretty slow progress, especially for a petition that’s on a site that is as highly trafficked as Change.org. This activist vs. activist petition certainly has a way to go to hit its goal. But you may check their progress currently by clicking here.
It’ll be interesting, in the game of activist vs. activist, to see how far this protest goes and if the targeted organizations are responsive to their protesters.
Today, let’s discuss responsible consumption, which can cut in more directions than one. Let me explain.
A current topic discussed in the news is for consumers to assume responsibility for their purchases, taking steps to be as certain as possible that their purchases don’t support companies committing environmentally harmful acts or companies that may behave in a socially irresponsible manner. These are certainly worthwhile goals. The world could do with less environmental harm and less social irresponsibility, committed by either corporations or individuals.
Of course, one problem that consumers would have in making such decisions would be with the identification of such companies. The problem lies in the semantics; just what does “environmentally harmful” or “socially irresponsible” mean, and who defines such things. If you read the business press regularly, or even if you occasionally read this blog, you’ll know that many of those definitions are set by NGO and activist groups such as Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, and Corporate Accountability International. It is these groups, these “semantical gatekeepers,” who have appointed themselves to define what is “environmentally harmful” or what is “socially irresponsible.” I suppose that’s better than no one taking on this task, but such power in the hands of a limited number of groups can be unsettling. Perhaps what is needed here, in addition to more “responsible consumption” of companies, is more responsible consumption of these “semantical gatekeepers,” a “monitoring of the monitors,” if you will. But what’s to motivate the public in taking such an interest? How about a financial interest? The criterion of money usually hits home.
Whether you know it or not, if you are an American taxpayer, you support these semantical gatekeepers, the groups who decide from whom you should buy and from whom you should not.
How so?
This is the sixth post in the continuing series about Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and how it involves children in its campaigns against companies. To have a look at the previous five articles in the series, just click here.
Today’s post is a short one.
Recently RAN released a report regarding their assertion of how children’s book publishers use paper that is linked to the destruction of the rainforest. Well, as are many of RAN’s reports arguable, so is this one. But I am not, today, commenting on the validity of the information within their report or on the integrity of their research processes. My post today is made simply to draw your attention to RAN’s strategic choice of the continued employment of children into their anti-corporate campaigns.
Why would RAN choose children’s books about which to write such a report? Why not, say pulp fiction books? Or how about romance novels? Or mysteries? Or graphic novels? Or even porno magazines? Why not? Because those other genres don’t carry the presumed innocence that children’s books carry, the very innocence that is attached to children themselves. There isn’t as much shock involved in stating that, say for example, mystery novels use paper that is contributing to deforestation of the rainforest. No. Focusing on the children’s genre attracts a lot more media attention than would focusing on most other genres. And residing within that attention is the shock that RAN wishes to strategically leverage for their purposes.
Truly shocking only if their report is correct. But is it? Or are they creating shock in kiddy paper? You may take a look here at their report and then decide for yourself. And after reading that report, you might want to regard it within the context of the findings that I have made regarding how RAN uses children in its private political campaigns against companies.
|
About  Here at " Richard Telofski on The War on Capitalism," I discuss and analyze the individuals and groups conducting campaigns against capitalism. In the articles on this site, I provide analysis on lesser known facts about this movement. More . . .
 |
Klout.com rates Richard as influential on the subject of activism. |
|
