[Imc-communication] Process, the global network, communication, liaisons / (lessons?)

[Petros Evdokas]

Copies to:
imc-process, imc-communication,
imc-cyprus, Sheri, Jay


Jay,

Thanks for the update and the initiative to give a graceful end to an
uncomfortable situation with the proposal to formally disaffiliate the
Virginia Beach IMC from the network:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-May/0507-pr.html


I think that there is no reason at all to include a self- criticism on
your behalf on this issue. We all do our best and you did more than the
rest of us, you went beyond the call of duty as a member of the new-imc
work group to deal with that situation well, with good sense, and
according to our principles.

I agree with you fully that "the Principles of Unity and membership
Criteria are solid documents and IMCs that actually fulfill them are off
to a great start."

Surely, we do not need to add more barriers to the new-imc process, I
agree with you. But let's also not forget that there are some voices
(influential voices) within the imc network which say that even the
little bit that we do is "too much bureaucracy", they say we operate
"like the State" and that any group should have use of the indymedia
name if they want "with no questions asked". Instead of improving, they
want to destroy even the little bit of process we have, and to throw our
principles entirely out the window.

That's the reason why I agree with you only partially that there is no
need for us right now change the way we do things ...in big ways. But I
would add that we might need to find ways to improve things in subtle,
perhaps small, but *substantial* ways.


Ultimately, everything revolves around whether we want indymedia to be a
network of activists and journalists who freely choose to be accountable
to each other, who appreciate that collective liberty goes together with
mutual aid, interdependence, dependability, reliability, personal and
organizational responsibility, and who *want* to co-operate on that
basis. I feel very bad that we constantly receive opposition to this
idea, both in the sense of personal accountability and in the sense of
collective accountability ...in the name of "freedom", and "anarchy".

Every effort to create among us imc bodies (collectives, work groups,
entities) which will be able to someday deserve the trust of everyone
within and around them and therefore be empowered with some kind of
mandate to help regulate our work as a global network, is opposed,
sabotaged, maligned, distorted, torpedoed.

You saw what happened in the effort to create one such collective body
when we tried to resurrect the imc-communication group with a new sense
of mission based on liaisons from all our groups and with a "roadmap"
(as Condoleeza would say) to creating a globally relevant collective
body. It was led to the water and held under until it's now only able to
barely experience itself as existing.

Part of the reason I mention this is because you mentioned the
imc-process group as a place to refer certain difficult decisions. We
all know (and often prefer to not remember), that the imc-process group
does not have a mandate, nor the jurisdiction, nor the recognition, nor
enough participation to make it an appropriate body for decision making
for the network. It kinds of acts like that de facto, in the absence of
process among us.

All the good people who contribute to it do whatever they can, in good
faith, but that still does not change the situation. Please have a look
at the archives of imc-process for the months of 2006:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/
Does it seem like the archives of a body that's handling decisions of a
global network consisting of more than a hundred collectives and at
least ten vital global work groups? Not to me, not to anyone I think.

At this point, the question glaring at all of us is
"where is our decision making process, and what are its methods?" I'm
kind of ashamed that this is the state of political reality among us. We
are all active to some degree or other in the alternative globalization
and global pro-democracy movement, active in many fields, wings,
campaigns and efforts of the global liberation movement, and harsh
critics of the lack of democracy within the structures of Corporate
Capital and the authoritarian State. But where is *our* democratic
process, even in embryonic form?


I know that you know all this. And that in the past we tried several
times, together, and with the help of others like Sheri Herndon plus a
few others from time to time, to fix the problem. We found mostly broad
but mild acceptance from our colleagues, not very vocal, and we also
found some determined and very vocal opposition which stooped to every
conceivable lie and manipulation to poison our efforts to improve the
democratic process at the global imc level. Even *stating* the problem
brings on objections, sometimes. Still, perhaps it's time to start
again? We keep on hoping that local imc groups will remain true to the
values and principles of democratic collectivism, isn't it reasonable to
try to organize ourselves in democratic collectives at the global level
of our work?

Perhaps we might find a few more colleagues who are concerned about it,
and we can hammer out together some kind of path, a direction that might
embrace more of our imc colleagues, empowering all of us to take a more
active path in expanding and deepening our democratic process?

Petros
_______


Some Relevant Readings, for those who wish to study more on our situation:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/ImcProcessLiason

Example of a denial of the role of Liaisons, even after years of
efforts, and even by a hard working colleague:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-communication/2006-March/0319-zm.html

Example of a type of oppositional argumentation which - even with good
intentions - keeps forcing us to have to start all over again to build
our concepts and collective efforts from zero, as if no ground was
covered all these years:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-communication/2006-February/0212-de.html

An agreement with that distorted (even if well-intentioned) view, shows
that the ideological base of the confusion is among us, is influential:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-communication/2006-February/0212-xe.html

Thanks,
Petros
_________