[Imc-birmingham] 'The Revolution Will Not Be Funded'

[flatline at aktivix.org]

Based on what I have read and heard and some ideas i started off with before
delving into the material I basically agree with you phunkee (reading between
the lines :-). The radio show thingy on 'The Revolution will not be
Funded:Beyond the industrial complex' was very interesting. It is difficult not
to agree with what he was saying and he makes it plainly obvious how some
American organisations are being compromised by seeking foundation status (the
one with the funny reference number?) and by their participation and
involvement in the sector this has created (by the analysis in the show/book
etc). But how does this relate to our situation in the UK? Widening the
discussion would touch on the role of other incorporated organisations, like
co-operatives, or the idea of the social economy and how all this fits into our
UK situation, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate on this list (as it moves
away from indymedia), but an interesting discussion nevertheless which i think
needs to be had again in relation to what's going on in Birmingham and what
could happen in the future.  

I think its important to separate issues of pay from autonomy and
sustainability, which aren't necessarily  compromised (but definitely could be)
by 'pay'. A lot of the discussion was on issues with money, such as taking
grants etc. I think this can clearly breach the principles of autonomy
enshrined in the (draft) Indymedia documents referenced in the list as you are
ultimately sourcing money from something you are seeking to undermine (if you
adopt the ideas propounded in 'revolution' thing), and in my opinion it should
be about working out ways of doing things without these convenient sources in
an autonomous and progressive way, instead of running the real risk which I
perceive of groups becoming dependent upon and begin to adapt their
organisational structures to such support in a way which begins to compromise
their autonomy etc (see: slippery slope argument). I believe this autonomy is
also linked to the sustainability of the indymedia project, which was used as a
defence for taking funding on the list. Again, as I see the autonomy being
compromised it then follows that you undermine the sustainability of indymedia.
However, 'pay' could be separated from this. I see this as possible (at this
stage) by claiming that 'pay' could be autonomous by keeping the source of
funding within the group (donations etc. ). I would agree with the sentiment
that “I'm not certain that a dichotomy between "paid" and "volunteer" captures
the complexity of concerns.”, but mainly because we need to again seperate
'pay' from reasonable expenses and running costs for the purpose of discussion.
Running costs seem acceptable as it would be impossible to run, for example,
websites without paying for hosting or access. There is costs somewhere, this
cant be avoided. Expenses are different, and seem to be pay by any other name
to me in most cases. Lets say we were able to fund the group ourselves (not
perhaps very plausible, but possible...some form of collectivism perhaps) but
we reject the notion of pay on the basis of what one person called 'ideological
purism', of linking the basic idea of 'pay' and 'wages' to a system which we
reject. Is it possible then to redefine 'pay' in a way which is amenable to the
drafted principles of Indymedia? Some people seemed to think so and several
models were suggested and touted, some people even resorting to stressing that
what was under taken was not 'pay' but 'stipends' because there was no wage and
other seemingly meaningless distinctions etc (most models took funding though).
At the end of the day are you not exchanging money for labour? Is it not
basically the same as labour in the market? Does it have the same impacts on
the structural and social divisions in an organisation seen in conventional
organisations under the state?  

Ultimately a practical pay settlement would probably depend on the large block
funding as seen in grants, so there is already a good reason to reject 'pay' in
my opinion. But there is a much better reason to reject 'pay', even if you
could invent some wonderful group structure which captured all the concerns
around  'pay', and this was put quite nicely by this poster:

“i'm all for sustainability of the network. but it seems to me more sustainable
for activists and collectives to learn how to do indymedia work in a way that
it can be done by different people and not just a few 'professional' activists
that everybody relies on.”

Now this is based on ideological convictions which I perceive indymedia to
embrace, but, in any case, indymedia has to be something doesn't it? There has
to be an idea? And the idea I was introduced to was one of a network which was
not just an antidote to 'corporate media' (which is acceptable to NGOs,
foundations, and even governments e.g. socialists) but which ultimately was
seeking to support those who wish to undermine the current system (which I
don't thing really is acceptable to the above, as they kind of depend on it).
This seems to be embraced by the principles etc. As i see it only volunteering
could be compatible with this. It really does seem as if some of the groups
have just given up trying to develop a more progressive model of organisation
and fallen back on (the incredibly widespread , given some of the information
provided in the radio show on 'revolution...' ) a convenient but ultimately
compromised and potentially divisive organisational structure entailed by the
use of money.

I'm aware of the multitude of different ways indymedia groups organise and I
don't think collectives should really confront each other over this as it
erodes autonomy, but I believe that 'pay' could ultimately cause schisms in the
network, which can only be a bad thing. Its a shame that my views lack the
cultural and global scope that indymedia itself possesses and good knowledge of
the network as is and its history (i would like to know about funding issues in
the uk which was talked about on the list...that seems like a good thing to
base a discussion on as it would bring up the specific options in this country
:-), but i thought i would contribute something to the list anyway. 

flatline