[Imc-communication] NEW-IMC: a few more days of ideas, then . . . .

[melpomene]

hi,

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 01:51, Alster wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  new-imc process
> is very much dependant of a couple of other factors:
> - - the guidelines defined in the PoU
> - - the interest of local IMCs in making collaborative decisions
> - - the acceptance of the PoU guidelines by local IMCs as a basis of their
> work as single IMCs and collaboratively with other IMCs
> 
> - From the recent discussions on imc-communication I am under the
> impression that the various IMCs, at least various activists, have very
> different views on each of these factors. I think that, unless these
> have been harmonized in any way, there is no real joint basis for any
> new-imc work.

It is funny that you should say that! Because I agree with your factor
identification: the PoU is central to the work that is done in new-imc,
but I reach a completely different conclusion, or start from the
opposite position:

It is the very wide range of possible interpretations of the PoU that
makes new-imc a necessity, since the ideas behind the PoU are derived
from workable practices and desirable models of social organisation that
are shared and lived experiences--and people in new-imc working group
are people who have had the experience of a forming collective and so
have an "embodied" understanding of what that process is about, how the
global vision expressed in the PoU may introduce or cause value
conflicts with local wyas of doing things.

New-imc can help new people to see where the PoU are coming from - if a
new collective does not already understand the sentiment behind the PoU,
which many activist groups out there do, since it is an activist
sentiment, partly expressive of a current of thought that runs through
much of the wider global movement of movements, or whatever the global
uprising is called this week.

>>unless these
> have been harmonized in any way, there is no real joint basis for any
> new-imc work.

I would very much like to argue against any forms of harmonisation in
the way you suggest here, particularly in order to justify/legitimise
new-imc, since new-imc does not need a "harmonisation" of the PoU to
function, the wide range of interpretations of the PoU make new-imc
functions needed.

> I am very unhappy with this situation we are facing where there is *so*
> much diversity that we have about nothing in common which we can build
> anything on.

There is so much in common already. Resources are shared, ideas
exchanged and big events collaborated on. We can built on that!

> Diversity definately is good, and needed. But that does not
> mean you cannot make compromises and collectively join a common path.

I think there is a common path - and since Indymedia is such a diverse
network it is (and can only sensibly be) expressed in abstract terms 
(such as the PoU) that can both:

(i) be agreed to by most, if not all, and

(ii) interpreted so that it can be fitted (flexibly) with local
circumstances, but still remain a uniting factor.

> However, that seems to be what some activists or even local IMCs think.
> And this is why there can not be an 'Indymedia network' which
> collectively defines intentions, discusses topics and makes decisions
> which can be seen as being accepted by each local IMC at this time - at
> least this is the impression I currently have.

But which decisions are there to be made on a global level? Is it not
mainly a matter of coordination and knowledge/skill sharing on a global
Indymedia level? We can discuss and analyse anything - as indeed is
happening on this list and to which you contribute, but should this list
or any other global list really have an articulated and agreed upon
power to make decisions as such that all IMCs should accept? I don't
think so - what is going on on global lists, imo, is information
federation or syndication: by collecting local sentiments in a global
forum it becomes possible to review the global vision - that is to say
that we can collect opinions, as we are doing now, on global matters of
practice, such as a welcoming committee (currently called New-IMC) and
the wording of PoU, and thereby allow local input in order to facilitate
global adaptation and vice versa.

>  And as long this will
> remain, I do not see how there is any basis for the work of a working
> group whose work, rules, guidelines and decisions require both
> acceptance and support of all local IMCs. And that is (part of) what
> new-imc is.

I think this is backwards - try to see it the other way around: because
Indymedia is such as varied network with an open door where disparate
groups can join, it is a good thing to have some sort of first port of
call for new collectives that want to join. New-imc can help people to
understand that there are some disputes, confusions, misunderstandings
and random elements to the PoU, but that it is the closest we have come
to communicate what it is that binds this network together - and that
the network to quite some extent agrees that the PoU is a pretty close
image of where, how and why Indymedia wants to define its own community
boundaries - given that it is otherwise an open network of autonomous
collectives that could be threatened be either (i) a watering out of
principles (recuperation, co-option, primitive accumulation etc.) or
(ii) infiltration by not-well-meaning groups with hidden motives of an
oppositional political nature.

> Sad about (some) IMC's obvious unwilligness or inability to act jointly,
> Alster

I am not sure what you mean - any specific references? - but, again, I
do not think that Indymedia needs many central/global protocols of
decision making (the Belgium case of course may prove that a few certain
protocols are indeed muchly needed, or it may not?!, but if it does, I
think it will be protocols for dispute facilitation and not strictly
governance models or decision making processes anyway..)


ciao,
mp - lancaster/uk