[Imc-communication] What is the UCIMC?

[Mike Lehman]

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
>