{"title":"革命不会是众筹:另类慈善的政治","authors":"Martha Lincoln","doi":"10.1002/nvsm.70040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This commentary on “Disrupting Philanthropy?: A Reality Check for Digital Crowdfunding” examines the self-contradictory moral economy of crowdfunding, noting its misleading characterization of its own politics. It discusses the limits of crowdfunding as continuous with the limits of philanthropy and charity. Noting the typically patrician inflection of the term “philanthropy,” it suggests the class conflicts that the project of “disrupting philanthropy” engenders (or pretends to). Extending the authors' close reading of discourse about crowdfunding, the essay offers a complementary critique of this new form of finance. It suggests that in trading on rhetoric about disruption, democratization, revolution, and the power of “crowds,” crowdfunding justifies its de facto status as a substitute for social entitlements. Finally, it suggests opportunities for further research that examines the utility of crowdfunding's material failures and its actual accomplishments.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100823,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing","volume":"30 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Revolution Will Not be Crowdfunded: Alternative Philanthropy's Politics\",\"authors\":\"Martha Lincoln\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/nvsm.70040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>This commentary on “Disrupting Philanthropy?: A Reality Check for Digital Crowdfunding” examines the self-contradictory moral economy of crowdfunding, noting its misleading characterization of its own politics. It discusses the limits of crowdfunding as continuous with the limits of philanthropy and charity. Noting the typically patrician inflection of the term “philanthropy,” it suggests the class conflicts that the project of “disrupting philanthropy” engenders (or pretends to). Extending the authors' close reading of discourse about crowdfunding, the essay offers a complementary critique of this new form of finance. It suggests that in trading on rhetoric about disruption, democratization, revolution, and the power of “crowds,” crowdfunding justifies its de facto status as a substitute for social entitlements. Finally, it suggests opportunities for further research that examines the utility of crowdfunding's material failures and its actual accomplishments.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100823,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing\",\"volume\":\"30 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.70040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.70040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Revolution Will Not be Crowdfunded: Alternative Philanthropy's Politics
This commentary on “Disrupting Philanthropy?: A Reality Check for Digital Crowdfunding” examines the self-contradictory moral economy of crowdfunding, noting its misleading characterization of its own politics. It discusses the limits of crowdfunding as continuous with the limits of philanthropy and charity. Noting the typically patrician inflection of the term “philanthropy,” it suggests the class conflicts that the project of “disrupting philanthropy” engenders (or pretends to). Extending the authors' close reading of discourse about crowdfunding, the essay offers a complementary critique of this new form of finance. It suggests that in trading on rhetoric about disruption, democratization, revolution, and the power of “crowds,” crowdfunding justifies its de facto status as a substitute for social entitlements. Finally, it suggests opportunities for further research that examines the utility of crowdfunding's material failures and its actual accomplishments.