Traditional social change orgs are beholden to rich people. Internet organizers aren't.

On Wednesday I wrote a post about why grassroots digital activism is potentially more revolutionary than institution digital activism. My logic was based on a fuzzy proposition that institutions necessarily have "credibility, legitimacy, and resources" invested in the status quo, which makes them more likely to seek victories within the current system than try to create a new system.

Well, I'd like to flesh that argument out a bit by focusing on the resources part. The fact that social change institutions need a lot of money to operate makes them more conservative than grassroots activists who, thanks to the Internet, do not need large amounts of capital to spread a message and organize.

When Amnesty (for example) does an online action, they are limited in the how radical that action can be be the knowledge that they need to go ask a wealthy donor for money in 6 months. There certainly are liberal rich people (George Soros, Bill Gates) but there are very few radical rich people. Rich people want reform, they don't want revolutionary change. They are doing well for themselves in the status quo. What reason do they have to create a new system?

Traditional NGOs have high overhead costs (office space, salaries) and need to rely on rich people for money. They are limited in their actions by what rich people will support. Internet organizers don't have a lot of overhead costs. In fact, they may have no overhead costs. They may operate a web site out of their bedroom. They are not beholden to the desires of rich people because they do not need the money of rich people to create online campaigns. This allows them to be more radical.

One more reason why grassroots digital activists are more likely to be sources of political transformation.

photo credit: zzzack