Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

April 8, 2008

Darfur, microcredit loan-sharks and Woody Allen’s creepy son

Filed under: China,Darfur,economics — louisproyect @ 6:06 pm

Darfur activist Jill Savitt and Mia Farrow of “Rosemary’s Baby” renown

A couple of years ago I used to scratch my head in wonder at those nearly weekly full-page “Save Darfur” ads that appeared in the NY Times. Even if they were discounted in moveon.org fashion, they still cost $65,000. (The full price is about $180,000). My guess is that there were probably at least 20 of them back in 2005 or so. That would add up to a tidy sum, even at a discount: $1,300,000. Where the hell does that kind of money come from?

I finally found out in an article that appeared in the March 30, 2008 NY Times Sunday Magazine. Titled “Changing the Rules of the Game”, it is a profile of some of the “activists” who are involved with the movement, including Mia Farrow and her son Ronan Seamus Farrow. (This is Woody’s offspring. After he was born, Woody named him Satchel Farrow in honor of Satchel Paige, the legendary African-American baseball player, but Mia renamed him after their famous split-up.) Much of their activity seems to revolve around strong-arming their Hollywood pals who lent their name to the Olympics, including Stephen Spielberg.

Pierre Omidyar: eBay billionaire and Darfur funder

But I doubt that they could have gotten very far without the big bucks that helps to keep Darfur on the front-burner, largely through very expensive public relations campaigns. The article explains:

Around the same time, Savitt and Reeves connected with Humanity United, an unusual grant-making organization in Redwood City, Calif., underwritten by Pam Omidyar, the wife of the founder of eBay, Pierre Omidyar. It focuses on financing efforts to stop contemporary slavery and mass atrocities around the world and is committed to spending $100 million over five years. The organization takes its cue from Silicon Valley’s famed tolerance for failure, according to Randy Newcomb, Humanity United’s executive director. He says his strategy is to make big bets on game-changing ideas, a philosophy that “at best annoys the elite policy community; at worst, it threatens them.” Newcomb was talking on the phone from Richard Branson’s Caribbean estate, where he was participating, along with Nelson Mandela and Peter Gabriel, in a conference on conflict resolution. Newcomb drew a long breath and changed his tone: “But frankly, where were they? Where has the traditional foreign-policy establishment been in pressuring China in relation to the Olympics about Sudan? A lot of people tell me that we’re wasting our money on this kind of long-shot campaign. But our ethos is the willingness and ability to take a greater risk for the ultimate yield that will come from that risk. We aren’t saying that we do things without rigor. But we’re willing to absorb greater risk.”

Last spring, Humanity United wrote Dream for Darfur a check for $500,000. The financing followed publication of Farrow’s “Genocide Olympics” article — Reeves and the actress were already closely collaborating. “Now we had a campaign, a phrase and a target,” Reeves says. As Ruth Messinger explained to me: “Maybe China’s vulnerability on the Olympics is starting to look obvious to people now. But the amazing thing about this campaign — and the genius of Jill and Eric and Mia — was in making the connection. They were the first and for a long time the only ones to make it.”

Pierre Omidyar (a French-Iranian by birth) is the 120th richest man in the United States. Like many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, his ideology is a curious mixture of Mother Jones type liberalism and Cato Institute libertarianism. He has set something up called the Omidyar Network that makes investments in both non-profit and for-profit enterprises. The for-profit enterprises are almost exclusively microcredit affairs in keeping with the vision of Nobel Prize winner Mohammad Yunus’s Grameen Bank–sort of. The October 30 2006 New Yorker Magazine reported on the connection between the two men:

Over the Labor Day weekend of 1995, a ponytailed, bearded young software engineer named Pierre Omidyar wrote a code that enabled people to buy and sell items on the Internet. In the first few weeks after the program was introduced, items ranging from a Maxx comic book to a 1952 Rolls-Royce Silver Dawn changed hands. That program eventually became eBay. Not long after the company went public, in 1998, Omidyar’s share of the stock offering was roughly ten billion dollars, and he became the richest thirty-two-year-old in the world. He found the experience slightly unsettling—he told friends that he had never planned to get rich—and he continued driving his Volkswagen Golf. With his wife, Pam, he started a foundation to give away large sums of money, but he was frustrated by the constraints and inefficiencies of the nonprofit world. Omidyar was searching for a way to change things on a grand scale, and, like many other highly successful young West Coast entrepreneurs, he became interested in a field called microfinance, or microcredit. In November, 2004, he and Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the co-founders of Google, and other leaders of the high-tech community gathered at the San Francisco home of the venture capitalist John Doerr for a weekend session with Muhammad Yunus, who is considered the godfather of microcredit.

The article explains how Omidyar viewed eBay as a confirmation of the wisdom of free markets and a model for doing business through microcredit:

A few years ago, Pierre Omidyar left Silicon Valley and moved his family to Henderson, Nevada, just outside Las Vegas. A slight, unprepossessing figure with hints of gray in his wavy black hair, he tends to think aloud, following desultory paths, looking for theoretical solutions to problems. If anything, his approach has become more abstract over the years. As a young software engineer, he solved problems as they arose, but now he likes to reflect on the nature of the eBay phenomenon and how it supports his philosophy. He often cites Adam Smith’s doctrine that unrestrained market forces and self-interest drive the most efficient—and socially beneficial—use of resources. Omidyar sees Smith’s principles at work in eBay; he believes that eBay’s commercial success was linked to a profound social good. “I did an early investors’ road show in the fall of 1997, and I went to New York and talked to some Wall Street folks, and I said, O.K., this is strangers from all over the country, sometimes internationally, and they’re doing business together over the Internet. And people were shaking their heads. ‘That’ll never work! It’s impossible! You can’t trust anybody—you’re going to get ripped off!’ ” Now, he says, eBay has taught “more than two hundred million people that they can trust a complete stranger.”

At a gathering for Yunus out in Silicon Valley, a bunch of billionaires decided to advance funds to the Grameen Bank. Omidyar was not one of them. He felt that Yunus lacked the entrepreneurial spirit that was necessary for transforming the Third World.

As much as he admired Yunus’s belief that anyone, provided the means, can become self-sufficient—even successful—he has a different idea about the future of microfinance. Yunus is now seen by Omidyar and many others as the archetypal founder, too wedded to his original vision. In recent years, younger and nimbler players have been taking microfinance—their preferred term—toward the idea of building a fully commercial, profit-making sector.

Through the Omidyar Network, the eBay magnate has invested in a host of small enterprises with the full expectation that he will make a profit. I guess the idea that you can do well by doing good. This profit-making do-goodism seems to have captured the imagination of Dell Computer’s Michael Dell, who according to the New Yorker, “has begun making grants to microfinance institutions in India, a country of 1.1 billion people, most of whom have no access to financial services.” How generous of him, this long-time financial backer of George W. Bush.

Despite the gushing over Mohammad Yunus’s microcredit model—not to speak of Pierre Omidyar and Michael Dell’s profit-making appropriation of it—there are signs that it is not all that it was cracked up to be:

MONEYLENDERS bad; microcredit good. That has been the common view about financial services in much of the Indian countryside. Traditional moneylenders charge extortionate interest rates to those in desperate need. Microcredit-providers, which are charities that lend tiny amounts to the poor without necessarily expecting to make a profit in return, are globally trendy and socially responsible. So it came as a shock earlier this year when the government of Andhra Pradesh, the Indian state where microcredit has spread fastest, accused some leading microfinance institutions (MFIs) of behaving no better than old-style usurers. The lenders say they are being defamed, in a row that raises questions about their future in the state.

The dispute centres on one poor rural district, Krishna. Some women were reported to have killed themselves because they could not repay the MFIs. In March a top government official in Krishna temporarily shut 50 branch offices of four MFIs, seized and destroyed their records and told their borrowers not to repay their loans. He accused the microfinance groups of charging exorbitant rates.

–The Economist, August 19, 2006

There is a certain logic to all this, of course. Apparently, Michael Dell set up help desks in India for the same reason he got involved in microcredit: to make a fast buck.

So behind all this high-minded philanthropy is the same old “what’s in it for me” attitude that motivated Andrew Carnegie and other tycoons to set up foundations in the first place. It is simply another way to control their wealth.

With financial backing like this, it is easy to understand why the “Save Darfur” movement has so little impact as a real movement. Back in September 2006, as I was jogging in Central Park, I ran smack dab into a rally. As far as I know, no other mass action has been organized by this movement since then. Mostly, it is all about expensive newspaper ads and public relations campaigns formulated by outfits such as Malkin and Ross.

Unlike most activism in the U.S., the “Save Darfur” movement is not directed against the policies of the American government. Such movements generally do not get funded by the likes of a Pierre Omidyar and are generally one step away from bankruptcy. On any campus, getting involved with protesting the war in Iraq is a generally thankless proposition but Darfur advocacy will most certainly open doors to a good NGO job after graduation.

Jill Savitt, the executive director of Dream for Darfur, the outfit that is spearheading these absolutely disgusting assaults on the Olympic torchlight ceremonies lately, clearly knew what side her bread would be buttered on when she discovered “genocide” as a hot button issue. She has had one job after another in this cottage industry since it got started practically. In addition to her job with Dream for Darfur, she is an adjunct professor in Columbia University’s School for International Affairs. The title of the course tells it all: U6020 — Public Sector Marketing.

Woody’s offspring and WSJ editorialist

Just a final word on Ronan Farrow, whose photo practically oozes sanctimony. The kid is some kind of genius apparently, having graduated from my alma mater Bard College 5 years ago at the age of 15, the youngest ever. (I thought I was something special when I became a freshman back in 1961 at the age of 16!) He was accepted at Yale Law School at the age of 16, but decided to defer admission until 2006 since he wanted to take a job with Richard Holbrooke, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Cruise Missile scourge of Yugoslavia. It is not surprising that he would find such a job attractive since the “Save Darfur” movement is riddled with State Department type liberals like Samantha Power.

Young Mr. Farrow seems to prefer the Wall Street Journal editorial page to other mainstream media venues, having appeared there no less than 4 times in the past 3 years. Only last January 29th, Woody’s offspring used the WSJ to lash out at the United Nations “Human-Rights” sham. He found it unconscionable that the U.N. Human Rights Council has passed 13 condemnations, 12 of them against Israel, since its inception 17 months earlier. And the obvious reason for this Jew hatred must be the miscreants who sit on the committee:

The problems begin with the council’s composition. Only 25 of its 47 members are classified as “free democracies,” according to Freedom House’s ranking of civil liberties. Nine are classified as “not free.” Four — China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia — are ranked as the “worst of the worst.” These nations are responsible for repeated violations of the U.N.’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it is they who dominate the council, leading a powerful bloc of predominantly Arab and African nations that consistently vote as a unit.

Now this might ring a bell, especially if you follow right-wing talk radio, Fox Cable News, the Murdoch press, or for that matter, the WSJ editorial pages. There has been an ongoing campaign against the U.N. Human Rights Council because it has the temerity to point out the obvious, namely that Israel is a thuggish and racist state. Too bad Woody Allen’s kid lacks his dad’s humor (well, at least the sense of humor he had 30 years ago) or otherwise he’d understand immediately what a rightwing joke he is.

18 Comments »

  1. Thanks for this post.

    As a sidenote, this is rather emphatic: these absolutely disgusting assaults on the Olympic torchlight ceremonies lately,

    Did Andy Rooney commandeer your keyboard while you were out of the room? “absolutely disgusting *assualts*”? To what may I attribute your unequivocal moral indignation at any breach of the sanctity of this noble institution?

    Comment by Guy — April 8, 2008 @ 9:02 pm

  2. I don’t give a shit about the Olympics. They can call them off permanently as far as I am concerned. I was referring to the goon squad character of the “activists” who grabbed the torch out of a diminutive runner’s hands. If the left did something like this, we’d be called stormtroopers.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 8, 2008 @ 11:50 pm

  3. Interesting post, Louis. I recall a little while back the FPIF website hosted a debate about micro-credit. One criticism of micro-credit schemes was that the interest charged was too high and that predatory behaviour had crept in. Besides that, it should be pointed out that individuals – especially poor women – need a whole lot more than just a loan in order to set up a viable business. I’d thought for a while that those pushing micro-credit as a (partial) solution to developing world poverty were doing so for ideological reasons. I’m now leaning toward the view that some are also doing it out of self-interest – they want to make a buck – justified by ideology.

    PS Your response to Guy sums up my thoughts on the Olympics precisely.

    Comment by Damian — April 9, 2008 @ 2:40 am

  4. The Olympics are a sham, basically used to sell advertising. Athletes ought to band together and start their own meets. Most real ones probably do.

    I’m so sorry to hear that Woody’s son is a humorless Zionist. Woody seems like a real human bean.

    Comment by Linda J — April 9, 2008 @ 4:26 am

  5. Speaking of Tibet and all that, Michael Parenti wrote an excellent historical review of what the Dalai and his mates and predecessors got up to when they were in charge.
    It’s online at http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

    Comment by Justin O'Hagan — April 9, 2008 @ 1:16 pm

  6. I think microfinance system is a crafty innovation in usury to reduce the variance of money lenders, but not of the poor. In other words, the interest rate is the expected value of a lender but in order to sustain his trick he must have enogh assets that provides resilience against the swings of variance because of unreturned loans. So how about minimizing the variance factor by decreasing the amount of units of loans?

    I just started to think on the subject, maybe I will write more tonight.

    Comment by Mehmet Çagatay — April 9, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

  7. Nice article, but could have been more focused. Quotes have been used liberally but the analysis is not deep enough to engage the attention.

    Comment by manish — April 10, 2008 @ 1:09 am

  8. The hypocrisy and hysteria is quite alarming. British MP Kate Hoey talks endlessly about “what China’s doing in Darfur” when she’s part of the warmongering Labour government. (Yes, she voted against the war, which just makes her even more valuable now and earns her reentry into the Labour fold.)

    China has an economic interest in Sudan and I certainy hope it’s applying pressure behind the scenes. But it doesn’t have military bases there, it isn’t killing people, it hasn’t murdered a million Iraqis and it isn’t threatening to nuke Iran.

    As well as the Sudan, China also has a major investment in the US but that doesn’t make it culpable in the Iraq war.

    I’ve tried to untagle some of the misinformation at mine.
    http://madammiaow.blogspot.com/2008/03/tibet-or-not-tibet-shangri-la.html

    There’s also been a fierce debate raging at the Socialistt Unity website with hundreds of comments. Warning: many of the arguments are circular and you may lose the will to live.

    Comment by Madam Miaow — April 11, 2008 @ 9:35 am

  9. See this.

    Comment by Renegade Eye — April 11, 2008 @ 5:52 pm

  10. I had to laugh at this thread. Louis Proyect leapt to the conclusion, based on A photograph and some very serious journalism that “Woody Allen’s kid lacks his dad’s humor (well, at least the sense of humor he had 30 years ago) or otherwise he’d understand immediately what a rightwing joke he is”…

    Linda J responds, “I’m so sorry to hear that Woody’s son is a humorless Zionist. Woody seems like a real human bean.”

    Woody Allen, the pedophile, is revered and his son who is trying to make a difference in the world is classified as a sanctimonious and humorless.

    Despite your attempts at intellectual gymnastics you are shallow and pathetically lack any worthwhile critical thinking skills. Your conclusions are as thoughtful as a Fox News indepth report.

    Comment by Jacklyn Arzio — April 18, 2008 @ 2:53 am

  11. Jacklyn, when you were 20 years old, would you have considered yourself a child? That is Soon-Yi Previn’s age the first time she went out with Woody Allen to a basketball game.

    I think Woody Allen got in hot water from the jealousy this relationship aroused with his ex-wife, Mia Farrell, who has powerful media (and other) friends.

    Comment by Linda J — April 18, 2008 @ 11:05 pm

  12. You don’t gotta be “rightwing” to have a problem with the UNHRC. Did you not notice when most of the western countries – including quite a few governed by third-way-and-left-of-that trade union parties – walked out of that circus in Durban?

    Comment by Knemon — May 12, 2009 @ 10:58 pm

  13. Woody Allen is a genius filmmaker and storyteller. His writing, particularly dialogue, is unsurpassed. And he’s not a pedophile. A pedophile is someone who acts out his/her fantasies on innocent children. That being said, I will admit to being creeped out by the whole thing between Allen and his adopted daughter. There is a 30-year age difference between them. BUT this is nothing new in the world. Tony Randall was married to someone at least that many years his junior. And there is Larry King, and many, many other examples too numerous to mention. This is not a defense, necessarily, because as a woman, I would certainly never think of dating someone as old as my father. At the same time, life is filled with unexpected twists and turns and unless it’s your personal business, you really shouldn’t trouble yourself about any of it. As for his biological son, it seems that so far, he takes after his mother exclusively but perhaps as he grows older, he will come to appreciate his father, too, and his work.

    Comment by ab — June 17, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

  14. I love Woody Allen’s work (with a few exceptions), but his relationship with Soon-Yi creeped me out completely. I *really* try not to judge the way people decide to couple up, but I felt that Woody put his kids in a terrible situation when he decided to follow his heart on this one. Even if Soon-Yi, as she claims, never saw him as a father (though she was only 7 when Woody came to live with Mia Farrow and her kids), what about the others? Ronan finds the fact that his father is also his brother-in-law disturbing enough that he wants nothing to do with him. He was just a little kid when this whole Woody/Soon-Yi story broke. The age difference made it merely creepy; the relationship made it, IMHO, unethical.

    Comment by atticus — July 17, 2009 @ 6:16 am

  15. Son of a gun, to have a father and a mother what more can we need? Ronan (SATCHEL) your are such a beautiful man now. I wish you all the best in your life…BUT rethink the need to forgive your actions and your dear dad for he is now 74 years OLD. I myself would give anything to be with my own father again and watch as he goes thru his day. He has been gone for over 25 years and often my heart aches and I go back to the place that is a bond beyond words. You have been a dutiful son to your mother, but she has done to you more harm which you will discover as years pass and when Woody is no longer here. “Our families” are each and everyones and you help kids you never will meet again… my wish hope and prays beg you to reconsider what you can easily do to reconnect with a blood parent by choice and STOP with the my sister/his son/ his brother-in-law. The time is ripe and dying for you to make the next huge step to love and respect your FATHER! It was not DONE just to YOU! Grow-up stretch your brain around a new way to SEE the past truth…. It’s really simple… pick up the phone and say HELLO DAD!
    Your mom was not 100% on the up and up….We know that and more, so sit still and feel the ties that bind us with love and respect to do the right thing while we can! love to you…. and will
    be waiting to see the headlines…. woody’s son bites the bullet!!!! What a headline. It will 100% free up any and all the past and you can now be free to pursue or not!
    P.S. for the people that were creeped out and did not understand.. just look at the life that was made together… and is a honest relationship as far as I have seen…no fights now police calls and always very much a couple in time with themselves…. so WHAT DO WE KNOW?
    Your mothers track record was more creepy to most of us for the men she lingered with… what is her relationship NOW? Can we say it is her work and you and your work? When children leave a nest no matter why the whole can devistate them…even make them tell fibs and more….tick tick

    Comment by Louanne — January 7, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

  16. […] that my readers have a look at what I wrote about Ms. Farrow (and her son) in a post titled Darfur, microcredit loan-sharks and Woody Allen’s creepy son.  Subsequent to writing this article, I learned that she advocated hiring the infamous Blackwater […]

    Pingback by War Don Don « Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — August 26, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

  17. […] encouraged to see the blog Can We Save Africa writing about it, and also linking to this article from Louis Proyect on the evils of microfinance. Keep them coming! […]

    Pingback by Kiva is a fraud, a criminal enterprise, and perhaps more… « Check Your Premises — October 2, 2010 @ 1:41 am

  18. […] have staked out a position for “humanitarian interventions” in places like Darfur and Rwanda. I wrote about the two lovely people back in April 2008 and called attention to Ronan’s op-ed piece in the Wall […]

    Pingback by Maureen Orth’s reporting on the Allen-Farrow controversy | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — February 9, 2014 @ 9:44 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: