[Imc-communication] What is the UCIMC?

[nick]

[en] Some people want everyone to agree on things such as:
- we are all volunteers
- we will not form non profit corporations
- we will not take ads
- we will not have paid dues

We can't solve this by making a rule because someone will block it. So
there are only two
possible solutions, as I see it.  Either we:

- Keep disagreeing and bickering

OR

- negotiate an actual agreement

Negotiating will not be done by trying to make rules or by expressing
our outrage.  Negotiating is a different type of process, it would
require discussion, compromises, and patience.  It will require
seeking out each other's voices and listening.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[es] Algunos quisieron que todos estarán de acuerdo en cosas como:
- todos somos voluntarios
- no crearémos las corporaciones no lucrativas
- no aceptarémos propaganda
- no se tendrá que pagar deudas

No puedamos solucionar esto por hacer una regla, porque alguien la bloqueará.
Entonces, solamente hay dos soluciones posibles, como lo veo. Podemos:

- Continuar  luchar

O

 - Negociar un acuerdo en verdad.

La negociación no será hecha por intentar hacer reglas o expresar
nuestro ultraje.  La negociación es un otro tipo de proceso, la
requeriría la discusión, compromisos, y paciencia. Va a requeirir
buscar de los voces del otros y eschuchar.

Paz, Peace,
Nick

On 11/30/06, bmedia at riseup.net <bmedia at riseup.net> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> when i referred to sifting through bait, i meant the nasty and
> distracting nonsense that you had spewed out previously, which was
> beneath comment. as is most of this latest dismissive pedantry from
> you. i'm doing my best trying to balance the passion that i feel about
> this with my desire to be respectful toward you and other UC imcistas.
> it's not easy, and judging from your refusal to respond in kind, it is
> probably not even appropriate to do so at this point. but i will give
> it one more try.
>
> I did my best to figure out what you were really asking there, and
> responded to that. i really thought you were interested in what i mean
> when i say "moneyist." Pardon me if I missed your "real" point among
> all the trash talk. Did not realize you had one.... but in the
> unlikely event that you are really interested in an answer to a
> question, rather than just throwing a word tantrum, i will try again
> to respond to what seems to be your main concern. if you are asking
> whether or not it is only deva and i who have concerns about UC's
> money obsession, I can assure you it is not.
>
> If you are asking whether i am speaking for myself or presuming to
> speak for others, my friend, i *always* speak for myself. and i
> generally ask that others do the same.
>
> i think, though, that it's pretty clear from the responses on this
> list that there is a broader concern about this than you seem willing
> to acknowledge. i don't think any of us, either on this list or here
> in portland, have decided quite what to do about this yet. i know i
> haven't. that's what this discussion is about. trying to find a way
> through the sticky trap that our consumerist culture so continually
> lays out for us. if we can find a solution to this trap, then it will
> be a damn fine thing. it would be useful if we could rise above some
> of the rancor, my own included i suppose, and actually discuss this
> issue, because it's important to a lot of us. the truth is, though we
> may not have decided just what to do, many of us are in agreement that
> something must be done. that there is no place for this moneyist
> disease in our hearts and souls.
>
> and my friend, my definition was not vague or contradictory, and i am
> really just almost sick that you have so quickly dismissed the words i
> worked so hard to find for you. that was an honest attempt to answer
> what i took to be an honest question. i had no idea you did not really
> want an answer.
>
> perhaps it's time for you to stop lashing defensively out over this,
> and actually just try to hear what people are saying. look at the
> differences between UC's vision of indymedia, and the vision that many
> of the rest of us have tried to share with you.
>
> can you not just try to absorb what people are trying so desperately
> to tell you? i do not want to talk anymore about "shreds of evidence"
> and "canards" and "moralizing sophistry." i just want to figure out
> where we go from here.
>
> Cat
>
> Quoting Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>:
>
> > Cat,
> > I don?t think it is ?bait? to ask whether your position is one that is
> > officially Portland?s position. This is the global IMC Communications
> > list and I presume that people either speak on behalf of their
> > collective or they do NOT ? and that is something that everyone should
> > make clear when they speak here. It is a disservice to the global
> > process for you to leave this point unclear.
> >
> > I think a request for a clear and unambiguous answer from you on whether
> > the points you raise are the position of Portland IMC is perfectly
> > reasonable. If you want to see such a request for clarification as
> > ?bait? then fine, but leaving it ambiguous certainly speaks of a certain
> > defensiveness on your part about what the real situation is. Either it
> > is just your opinion or it is something more. I think it would be pretty
> > telling that if Portland itself cannot agree on this, then it is a bit
> > of a stretch to expect the network as a whole could come to a consensus.
> >
> > As for your rather vague, lengthy, and somewhat contradictory definition
> > of what you consider ?moneyism? to be, it seems to be driven by what you
> > _presume_ about UC IMC and bears no resemblance to the way we actually
> > operate. I hope you?ll be relieved to hear that it just does not apply
> > here, but you seem to prefer beating a dead horse than dealing with
> > facts. We spend very little time on fundraising. In fact, after six
> > years, we?ve only recently gotten our membership list into a form where
> > it can be used for a mailing. We have done no general overall
> > fundraising campaign since the original campaign to raise funds to
> > purchase our building, which occurred in 2002-2003, long before we
> > bought the building in May 2005.
> >
> > Generally, when it comes to our many other projects, we figure out what
> > we want to do and then, if any fundraising is required, we do that in
> > various ways, all of which are vetted so that it is clear that no one
> > has any special influence through their contributions on decisions about
> > the project. In fact, we prefer that funding come from diverse sources
> > so that no one ever has a lever to influence our decision making. If you
> > can name any evidence that a UC IMC contributor has ever affected how
> > such projects are executed, please put it forward, rather than
> > continuing to send forth a huge school of red herrings about how you are
> > just certain that something must be wrong, based on preconceived
> > assumptions and without a shred of empirical evidence.
> >
> > As for one of the other canards raised about UC IMC that I have seen
> > repeated over and over despite previous clarifications is that we impose
> > a ?dues paying membership.? No one is obligated to pay anything to join
> > UC IMC. However, we do believe in and practice the longstanding
> > anarchist principle of ?from each according to their means, to each
> > according to their needs.? That is a principle worth defending, but I am
> > willing to state so plainly and have no need for ?defensiveness? nor
> > should anyone else in the network who requests that those able to help
> > Indymedia do so within their means.
> >
> > So, yes, we request that those who are able to contribute to sustaining
> > UC IMC to do so. But, no, there is NO dues-paying requirement to be a
> > member of UC IMC. In fact, the public is invited to our meetings to
> > participate in our processes at all levels, as well as to ?be the media?
> > in whatever way they desire with the resources that we are able to make
> > available here. We do not bother checking anyone?s membership who
> > attends or participates in our meetings. The only time when membership
> > is even an issue within our process is that we do require you to be a
> > member in order to get a key to the building for access when the IMC is
> > not staffed.
> >
> > I do agree with one of your propositions, though. If you find yourself
> > ?focusing obsessively over it so that it becomes central to what you
> > do?[that] is moneyism.? Given this seems to be something you continue to
> > repeatedly obsess over, I think your position far better meets your own
> > definition of what ?moneyism? is than anything UC IMC does, has done, or
> > is likely to do in the future.
> >
> > For the other comrades who have concerns, I ask only that you deal with
> > the facts and not base your comments on preconceived assumptions that
> > simply do not apply here. We have always realized that ?people are funny
> > about money? ? whatever their politics -- and we?ve always had an open
> > book on anything that involves it. Since we are all stuck with utilizing
> > it in one form or another, what really counts is transparency. In fact,
> > I think that it is UC IMC?s very transparency about money which tends to
> > precipitate these discussions, since they invariably come up when we
> > publicly document what we?re up to financially. Some people are just not
> > comfortable talking about it, but doing without it is hardly a solution
> > to the role it plays as a resource.
> >
> > Finally, no one is forcing anyone to do anything in the network that
> > requires money. Yet given the number of requests that the global IMC
> > Finance list receives to fund various projects, it is also clear that it
> > is very unlikely that any network consensus can be built around the
> > proposition that IMCs should renounce the use of money -- anymore than
> > they should renounce the use of an internet that is a product of
> > military research, cameras and recording gear manufactured by
> > multinationals, or paying for travel that generates CO2 if it is too far
> > to walk to get a story. All of those things take money, all of them keep
> > dragging us ?back into the world we've broken free from in this one
> > little enclave?? just like maintaining a building or properly and
> > responsibly accounting for Indymedia network funds and the funds of
> > projects that operate under our fiscal sponsorship.
> >
> > It would be good if we could stick to facts in this discussion, instead
> > of trying to advance a position that is primarily one that has so far
> > been based primarily on moralizing sophistry. In fact, if we want to
> > have a network discussion on how UC IMC handles money, then a good place
> > to start would be to collect date on how every IMC handles money. The
> > results might be surprising and it would certainly be enlightening if
> > every IMC practiced the same level of transparency about finances that
> > UC IMC does.
> >
> > Speaking for myself,
> > Mike Lehman
> > UC IMC
> >
> > bmedia at riseup.net wrote:
> >> i'm really trying to get past the rancor in this conversation and move
> >> forward toward some kind of resolution. therefore, i will sift through
> >> the obvious bait, and simply respond to the one point that Mike has
> >> made which I think deserves a valid response.
> >>
> >> Quoting Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> BTW, it would be useful if the comrades from Portland involved in this
> >>> discussion actually give the rest of us a working definition of what
> >>> ?moneyism? actually is.
> >>>
> >>
> >> all snideness aside, i think this is a useful place to begin a real
> >> conversation about this. yes, i think being clear in what it is we are
> >> talking about is an important step toward finding a solution.
> >>
> >> moneyism. i've thought a lot about how to put words to this. i can
> >> tell you what i think, and others may want to offer up their own
> >> responses. for me, it means giving wealth a place of privilege in our
> >> work. it means reifying the dominant patterns of culture in which
> >> those with money weild it over those without it, however "benevolent"
> >> they imagine themselves to be about it. it means making compromises
> >> for money that are so second nature, they are not even recognized. it
> >> means looking for more money all the time, for its own sake (and then
> >> justifying it later with lots of projects under one's umbrella). it
> >> means seeking payment for work, which then creates a spiral in which
> >> the work becomes about the money and not the other way around. it
> >> means inserting economic motives into every interaction. it means
> >> looking for dollars to get something done before looking for a way to
> >> do it without dollars first. it means more. more is always better with
> >> the money thing. it means wasting resources because they are cheap. it
> >> means valuing the people who deal with the money more than the people
> >> who deal with reality. (ie, paid positions at UC to shepherd the
> >> money, but not paid positions for anything else.) it means setting up
> >> hierarchies because that's how the money flows. it means putting time,
> >> and effort, and energy into getting more money. and as you go along,
> >> you find that more and more time, more and more effort, more and more
> >> energy is required to get more and more money, and it is never, ever
> >> enough. you no longer have the time or the will to do whatever it was
> >> you were trying to get the money for, before you forgot what you were
> >> doing.
> >>
> >> i am late for work now, and do not have time to say more. (some will
> >> be thankful for that.) i do not have the time to say this eloquently
> >> this morning. but there is a very definite difference between using
> >> money now and then as a necessary tool, and focusing obsessively over
> >> it so that it becomes central to what you do. the latter is moneyism.
> >>
> >> just one more thing. mike (et al), i sense your defensiveness about
> >> this. i know you perceive this as a condemnation of the work that you
> >> do at UC. it is not meant to be. i do, in fact, appreciate much of the
> >> work that you do. this is not about who you are. it's about the money.
> >> it's about a desire, from many imcistas, to avoid being dragged back
> >> into the world we've broken free from in this one little enclave that
> >> is beginning to flower. yes. it's about giving something new a chance
> >> to grow. something that is delicate and beautiful, and that i honestly
> >> believe must be protected from the strangling influence of the money
> >> mindset. you will hear passion in what i say, and sometimes it sounds
> >> harsh. but to the core, i say what i say because i believe in the work
> >> we are trying to do, and i truly believe that the money thing is a
> >> very dangerous pull.
> >>
> >> Cat
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> IMC-communication mailing list
> >> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> >> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IMC-communication mailing list
> > IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
>


-- 
peace,
Nick
freerads.com
nickcooper.com
houston.indymedia.org
somadocumentary.com
nickcooper.com/antipowerworkshop.htm