Avaaz, 38 Degrees et al. Bonafide?

In 2008, Canadian conservative minister John Baird labeled Avaaz a "shadowy foreign organization" tied to billionaire philanthropist George Soros.[42]

Another conservative Canadian, Ezra Levant,[43] tried to make a link between Soros and Avaaz.org as an indirect supporter through MoveOn, but the article was later retracted as baseless and an apology was offered to Soros.[44][45][46][47]

Some question whether Avaaz's focus on online petitions and email campaigns may encourage laziness, transforming potential activism into 'clicktivism'.[8][48] A New Republic article accuses them of false claims regarding Paul Conroy's escape from Syria.[49] Jillian York has accused Avaaz of lack of transparency and arrogance.[50] The Defensor Da Natureza's blog has accused Avaaz of taking credit for the success of the Ficha Limpa anti-corruption bill in Brazil, which Luis Nassif reposted.[51][52] The Art of Annihilation blog have also published an investigative report.[53]

Controversies

38 Degrees director David Babbs was the subject of a controversial interview by Sky News anchorwoman Kay Burley who was accused of aggressively interrupting Babbs and telling him to leave a protest about electoral reform and to instead "go home and watch it on Sky News". The term "sack Kay Burley" subsequently trended on Twitter and hundreds of complaints were made to Ofcom.[35]

Dominic Raab (Conservative MP) criticised 38 Degrees for allowing members to send "clone emails" to MPs via its website.[36] Raab stated he would lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office about 38 Degrees using his parliamentary email address but upheld complaints are published, which it was not, and it remains possible to email Raab via the 38 Degrees website.[37]

A number of government politicians strongly criticised 38 Degrees members for their actions campaigning against changes to the NHS. Lord Tyler Liberal Democrat, described 38 Degrees members as "rent a mob".[38] In 2011 Transport Minister Simon Burns MP described 38 Degrees members as "almost zombie like".[39]

Some sources have accused 38 Degrees of being left-wing and of having links to the Labour Party. The website 38 Degrees debunked, which is run by a Conservative councillor states that "Although 38 Degrees professes to be 'not connected with any political parties' it is intensely political as are its campaigns. On first sight its position seems to be a mixture of mainstream Social Democratic and Green".[40] Conservative MP Robert Halfon described 38 Degrees as "a mass database of centrist/floating voters, albeit with a sizeable minority from the centre left..[which is]...controlled by leftists".[41] 38 Degrees has strongly denied these claims.[42]

Some disability rights campaigners have criticised 38 Degrees for failing to do more to campaign against changes to disability benefits. One disabled blogger, David Gillon, highlighted the fundamental tension between campaigns to protect minorities and the 38 Degrees method of choosing campaigns through member polls: "An organisation that builds its identity around its democratic mechanisms needs those mechanisms to be accessible to all, but the truth is that they aren’t. The near insurmountable difficulties disabled people have faced in getting support in the 38 Degrees votes on where to campaign next are just one aspect of that problem; any demonised minority, Travellers for instance, is going to face the same issues."[43] A guest post from Gillon on the 38 Degrees website provoked a fierce discussion.[44]

Whilst I would agree that the state is a pretty horrid and inbred institution, that does many bad things, it's about the only thing protecting the masses from the establishment. To my way of thinking it's a double edged sword.

I'm no statist BTW, however if the state were to vanish right this minute, it would result in a humanitarian catastrophy because the majority are so dependent on it. For me anarchism is about the struggle to pull society and the state towards more enlightenned thinking and eventually disgard it and I tend to follow Chomsky's view that anarchism is about challenging concentrations of power.

However at this moment in time, if there were no state then the establishment would be using private armies on us with no legal restrictions.

Quote:

However at this moment in time, if there were no state then the establishment would be using private armies on us with no legal restrictions.

You know I used to struggle with this too. Governments do occasionally take on powerful members of the "establishment" (I've always preferred the term oligarchy) but here's the rub, the State and government (if there is a difference) is the committee of the establishment. That means it represents them as a whole so when individual members of the establishment put their own needs and desires before the group, like say tax evasion, or causing social conflict it'll usually act.

Say I was a wealthy boss, its in my interests to pay as little as possible in both wages and maintenance of conditions. But what happens when I get my way and pay too little? the working population gets angry and violent. Militancy at my interests could easily spread to other bosses concerns. So its in the best interests of the whole establishment to bring in certain practices like minimum wages and some form of safety regulation.

The state makes concessions to the population because it needs them, and a direct full scale confrontation between the haves and have nots isn't in any of the haves interests.

The endless stream of requests now from 38 Degrees on dam near every issue that comes up and their bragging over supposed 'victories' convinces me that they are now doing a great service in the ideological buttressing of reformism and capitalist democracy and the average persons illusions in that.