[Imc-communication] What is the UCIMC?

[bmedia at riseup.net]

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
>