[Imc-communication] What is the UCIMC?

[Mike Lehman]

For the couple of comrades from Portland, it would be useful if the 
hyperbole in use every time you refer to UC IMC was dialed back a bit. 
It has already been shown to be a problem just yesterday. After no one 
rose to the bait about UC IMC that Cat threw out some time ago, then the 
same tired argument was deployed again by deva. Both seem to imply that 
Portland IMC has taken an official stand on this, but neither actually 
states that is in fact the case. I suspect that both Cat and deva speak 
for themselves. Could you clarify that for everyone?

As for the hyperbolic discourse originating from a couple of members of 
the Portland collective, Sascha simply pointed out that what some people 
there label as “moneyism” actually facilitates many Indymedia projects, 
including the one they cited as an example of what other IMCs do and UC 
IMC should be doing. He made no claim, other than to point out the 
rather deep irony of your using a project that UC IMC helped facilitate 
to condemn UC IMC.

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. As far as I can tell from the way they deploy 
this sort of discourse, it means simply that when UC IMC deals with 
funds in ways consensed to by our collective that it is “moneyism” but 
the term is apparently not applicable when Portland IMC deals with funds 
as agreed to by its collective. Or has Portland discovered some means to 
operate without any funding ever changing hands? If that is so, then 
they should let the rest of the network know, as it is a technique that 
we would all like to know more about. In any case, it seems to me that 
you are using “moneyism” as a very vague and loaded definition. I think 
you need to do better than that if you are actually trying to facilitate 
a lucid discussion of the issue, rather than simply casting stones.

Finally, what appears on our newswire reflects our community. Are you 
arguing that we should put an editorial policy into place that would 
hide any story posted here that fails to pass ideological vetting at 
Portland IMC? I know, that sounds ridiculous, just as does your charge 
that the news here at UC IMC is insufficiently “radical” for your taste. 
Frankly, such a critique actually reeks of what I would call 
“commissarship” -- something which I would define as the desire to 
impose one’s own ideological blinders on others. And it judges the 
numerous UC IMC projects on the basis of one, the website, which is 
particularly inappropriate given that the bulk of our work is given over 
to projects other than maintaining a website.

Speaking at this moment only for myself,
Mike Lehman
UC IMC

deva wrote:
> What misinformation are you talking about? Did UC-IMC take $30,000  
> from the state? Do you have paid positions for money people? Do you  
> have a dues paying membership? The answer to all of them is Yes. No  
> mis-information there at all.
>
> As for what I said about the lack of radical voices on the website,  
> that is not mis-information either, it is my opinion after looking at  
> the site.
>
> And claiming that Eye of the Storm is a project of UC-IMC shows this  
> sort of arrogant legalese mindset. Same like you claimed one time  
> that UC was the global headquarters. Eye of the Storm Films is its  
> own project. It is not your program! Anymore than Global is YOUR  
> program just because UC is the fiscal sponsor, though you seem to  
> think so. People/projects find it useful to have a fiscal sponsor,  
> but that does not make that project yours. UC deserves credit for the  
> role it plays in fiscally sponsoring projects, but I am far from the  
> only person who has expressed dislike over the sense of ownership  
> that you have expressed and are expressing again. It is the  
> combination of attitude and direction that sets a warning bell  
> ringing in the consciousness.
>
> Portland IMC folks are not putting out misinformation. They are  
> expressing their deep concern about the direction of UC. I would say  
> we especially feel a responsibility to speak up because Portland IMC  
> is in the US and it is in the US (not unexpectedly) that the urge for  
> money, almost regardless of source, has manifest. I consider it  
> dangerous and long term detrimental to the wider indymedia movement.  
> Thus I speak my mind about it. Portland folks are far from the only  
> ones. Plenty of people say negative things about UC in regards to  
> paying people, dues paying membership and taking state money, just  
> few try to talk about it on global lists because of the general  
> feeling that the lists and global process are dysfunctional enough  
> that it is hard to even have a sustained conversation, let alone  
> positive outcomes.
>
>
> deva
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi Deva (et al.),
>>
>> Time and again Portland IMC folks have put out misinformation about  
>> the UCIMC
>> and berated the UCIMC for not being radical enough.  And yet, you  
>> seem to have
>> done particularly _bad_ due diligence about what the UCIMC actually  
>> is, how it
>> works, and what its politics are.
>>
>> In your most recent e-mail you say, "Indymedia was born of the  
>> militant spirit
>> of the Seattle WTO protests and which expresses itself even more  
>> fully in many
>> other places in the world. Watch the video from Argentina 'Eye of  
>> the Storm' for
>> an example."  Eye of the Storm Films is a project of the UCIMC and  
>> has been
>> under our umbrella for years.
>>
>> I feel that you see what you want to see, regardless of the the  
>> UCIMC actually
>> is and does.  Take a look at our front page: www.ucimc.org, take a  
>> look at our
>> books2prisoners program: http://www.books2prisoners.org, listen to  
>> our radio
>> station: http://www.radiofreeurbana.org/station/programs, or take a  
>> look at
>> what's actually happening at the UCIMC this month: http:// 
>> tinyurl.com/tzgqf --
>> the UCIMC isn't some monolithic entity with a singular perspective  
>> or rhetoric.
>>
>> Maybe the UCIMC doesn't fit your definition of what is "radical,"  
>> but I find it
>> ironic that you point to one of our programs as an exemplar of what  
>> you do
>> consider to be radical Indymedia.
>>
>> --Sascha
>>
>>     
>>> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:51:58 -0800
>>> From: deva <drdartist at riseup.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Imc-communication] [Imc] UCIMC: Concern about the
>>> 	direction	UCis going
>>> To: imc-communication at lists.indymedia.org
>>>
>>> hi eric,
>>>
>>> At some point, you would not longer feel comfortable with the
>>> direction of another collective. If some collective decided to pay
>>> their 'president' $200,000 per year, I think you would not be happy
>>> with that choice, and perhaps would not wish to be affiliated with
>>> that group. I give this exaggerated example to make the point that
>>> everyone, individual or group will have some place where they will
>>> draw a line and say this has gone too far from the spirit of where it
>>> started. The meaningful discussion is regarding those lines, not
>>> castigating people for their feelings and views.
>>>
>>> There have been some frank discussions among Portland folks. There
>>> has been discussion about what is the indymedia network, should
>>> affiliations be voluntary, and what effects such an action as taking
>>> UC off the Portland cities list would have on the network.
>>>
>>> Looking over the UC imc site, it is easy to see why it will attract
>>> $30,000 grants from the state agency. There are almost no militant/
>>> radical voices expressed there. Indymedia was born of the militant
>>> spirit of the Seattle WTO protests and which expresses itself even
>>> more fully in many other places in the world. Watch the video from
>>> Argentina "Eye of the Storm" for an example. UC takes money from the
>>> State, has ongoing paid positions for people who deal with money, and
>>> has little radical voice. It is becoming a mainstream, money based
>>> organization that moves farther and farther from the roots of
>>> worldwide indymedia and its message of radical social change.
>>>
>>> After Martin Luther King delivered his famous speech in 1967
>>> denouncing the war in Vietnam, mainstream Black leaders rebuked him
>>> for jeopardizing the financial support of liberal whites. "You might
>>> get yourself a foundation grant," King retorted, "but you won't get
>>> yourself into the Kingdom of Truth."
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> deva