[New-imc] Re: Online form: Proposed new IMC! (IMC London)

[Petros Evdokas]

Hello,

I wanted to thank Andi of the new London-imc group for
the update and the summary of the various conflicts and
difficulties at this new phase of the expansion of the
UK imc collectives.

The 100% objection raised by the London Working Group
(lwg), even though totally unprincipled and disruptive,
has brought up two questions which need to be resolved,
not by our colleagues in London, but by the members of
the new-imc working group:

1. How do we, as a working group, allocate the weight,
or interpret the significance, of such a strong block
coming from *any* source  (not just the lwg as in this
case)? Who exactly has the right to such a strong
objection (veto) in the context of our work? I've been
a close observer and participant to the procedures of
the new-imc working group since the Spring of 2001, and
I have not seen anyone, not even a single member of the
group, pose such a strong objection on anything.  Even
where there are disagreements, and there have been
plenty, there's always an approach which leaves room
(from the very beginning) for exploration and dialogue.
If we ourselves, are careful to not exercise such
drastic measures in our work and dialogue here, how do
we handle such an uncompromising, totally absolute
position as the 100% objection we were served *from the
very beginning* of this application? 

We need to explore our own process here at the new-imc
group, to see what is appropriate and what is not, both
for among ourselves, and also for what comes this way
from other "interested parties" on various new group
applications.

2. On the particular application, things are clear
enough for me that I'm willing to state a position.
This position is open to re-consideration, if anyone
has better suggestions, or any new information that
would help re-shape it.

My position: 
I'm eager to see that we signal a green light to andi,
ana, and others of the new London- imc group to proceed
with their application. I know that they have already
done a lot of the organizing work beforehand, and that
they can update us on that work (outreach, meetings,
etc.), to show that they not only comply "in theory"
with, but actually embody imc principles. We'll need to
hear a little more about that work, I mean about things
outside of the conflict with the lwg, things that all
imc groups deal with in the organizational phase, so
that everyone here at the new-imc group can see all of
that work. The fact that there are several experienced
imc people affiliated with this new London- imc effort,
means that there won't be many gaps and holes left for
us to help point out; nevertheless, if we notice
anything that needs improvement, we can point it out to
the group, as we do to every new group, and ask that
whatever suggestions we give be implemented before we
pass the application "upstairs". 

But all of this, for me, is dependent on one condition:
that we should be assured by the new London-imc group,
that passwords and other sensitive information shall
not be shared with members of the lwg *unless* they go
through some period of showing behaviour which is not
disruptive, authoritarian, or controlling. They have
shown already that through control of password
information and disruptive practices, they know how to
paralyze an entire country's imc, and they were also
able to spead this disruptive behaviour to global
channels (I experienced that on the imc-finance working
group). So my view is *not* to exclude the lwg from the
new group, but that the new group should make a
concrete decision on how on the one hand to protect the
new London- imc from the possibility of being taken
over, controlled, disrupted, and on the other hand at
the same time remain open to collaboration with lwg, if
the members of the lwg show a willingness to practice a
different policy for a sustained time period, until
some kind of trust is created.

Those are my thoughts. I'm open to changing my mind if
you have some new information or suggestions on other
ways of viewing these things.

London is too important in the structure of the global
Empire, and so the needs of the global Liberation
Movement dictate that the London- imc group must be
given the best support to remain free of disruption,
control, or manipulation. We're talking about an
instrument of expression whose mission influences the
lives and deaths of millions on the planet. I see that
the members of the new London- imc group have the
willingness to create and maintain an independent imc,
but we also need to see how, exactly, this will be done
in the light of the current threats.

Petros
http://PetrosEvdokas.mainpage.net
-----------------------