[Payment-discuss] feedback for my article about payment for indybook

[nick]

any thoughts?

A Volunteer Network?
by Nick - houston.indymedia.org - nickcooper.com

Libertinus from Uruguay expresses opinions about indymedia having paid
positions which I have heard often from the global South: "When
Indymedia started in 1999, we wanted to be a new form. Traditional
alternative media, like community radio, was nothing new.  But we saw
it as using organizational models of capitalism, as hierarchical,
bureaucratic, dependent economically on institutions and states,
providing alternative information without building real alternatives
in their internal structures. With Indymedia, we broke this tradition.
 But now, some local collectives like Urbana-Champaign (UC) are
reproducing the familiar pattern of dependence..."  Toya from Brazil
adds: "i believe payment inside imc could create needs that would
probably drive us against our principles and at some point make us not
what we, at the beginning, started it all to be."

Sascha from UC answers such criticisms: "Indymedia has, throughout its
history, been run by volunteers.  Many projects, initiatives, and IMCs
have also benefited from paying workers to fulfill rolls and
responsibilities.  Indymedia was founded on principles of equality,
decentralization and local autonomy -- and within this network a
multitude of different strategies and tactics have arisen, based on
local conditions to help fulfill Indymedia's mission to create
radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth."  Mike from UC
adds: "I don't see a problem with different IMC's taking different
approaches to funding as long as what is done is transparent and
agreed to by consensus within the relevant Indymedia structure."

For the many of us who wanted the project of indymedia to challenge
Northern hemisphere dominance and encourage listening to the South, it
is uncomfortable that a tension has arisen about this. But here it is.
 Even worse, few in the North have an idea how many in Latin American
IMCs might agree with Libertinus and Toya, because non-English
participation on global email lists is extremely limited.  However,
there has been enough to indicate that many from Latin America and
elsewhere have serious concerns about payment.  When Brad Will was
killed, Subcomandante Marcos spoke about him at a public meeting,
saying: "This person that they killed was from the alternative media
that are here with us. He didn't work for the big television news
companies and didn't receive pay. He is like the people who came here
with us on the bus, who are carrying the voices of the people from
below so that they would be known."  For Marcos, and for many IMCistas
of the global South, not receiving pay is one of the essential aspects
of being part of our movement.

Indymedia global decision making structures are weak -- any collective
can block any proposal, and we have too many autonomous collectives
ever to be very consistent.  We took $50,000 from Chumbawamba (money
they got from a General Motors commercial), but we had a big conflict
and ended up rejecting a grant from the Ford Foundation.  Some
collectives accept advertisements, others have various levels of
non-profit corporate status.  The only thing about payment on which we
all seem to agree is from our principles of unity: "The IMC Network
and all local IMC collectives shall be not-for-profit."  So, we are
left with ongoing disagreements about other aspects of how we deal
with money which occasionally flare up on emails lists.

In 2004, Houston Indymedia, where I volunteer, tried to chart a middle
course in this polarized debate.  We self-declared as an all-volunteer
collective, hoping that other collectives around the world will join
us and create a trend within indymedia.  We didn't make a proposal to
create new rules, we wanted to transform the dialogue consensually. We
stated our opinions -- that volunteerism itself encourages more
volunteerism and role-sharing, sets a clear line to avoid the
"slippery slope," mirrors Zapatista organizing, and lessens hierarchy.
 A few collectives joined us, but the conflict continues.  Recently, I
helped start an email list to take on some of these issues within
indymedia.  If we succeed at forming a helpful and healthy proposal,
it could be a first in the history of inter-regional indymedia
conflicts.

The slippery slope argument was articulated by Deva from Portland: "I
am reminded of the environmental movement for forest protection in
North America. Whether willingly, or in the legal system, timber
representatives sit down with government officials, and
environmentalists. Some compromise effort is worked out to protect a
percentage of the forest and cut a percentage of the forest. A few
years later, the force of greed is back, demanding another compromise.
Those who do not wish to compromise are labeled radical extremists and
the remaining wild places keep shrinking. At some point, those who
want to protect the forest are again supposed to sit and compromise as
they discuss the fate of the tiny percentage that is left, yet its
fate is already decided because the force of greed itself is never
addressed... Here in the US, and perhaps elsewhere, the system has
become smarter. Rather than just fight against visionary movements,
creatives, artists, etc, the system now pays those people/movements
money and so works to seduce them and turn them over time. The carrot
is more effective than the stick and so more dangerous. Money and the
systems it requires is the great divider of people and it has done its
work again. The issue of money and how to deal with it is a point of
deep conflict in indymedia."  Cat from Portland adds: "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."

A response to this, as expressed by Mike from UC, is to point out that
we are already all using things that cost money, though some of us may
pretend we aren't:  "...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."

UCIMC has a huge office space doing all kinds of cool projects.  New
York IMC's "Indypendent" newspaper, which also pays some workers, is
one of Indymedia's most well known projects. Though other indymedias
might manage to mooch server space, borrow equipment, or even get
donated offices, at some level, someone is still paying.  Clear
advantages exist within indymedia, just as they do elsewhere in
society, for the people wealthy enough to buy their own stuff.
Although payment is  hot-button issue within our network right now,
monetary influence exists on many levels, and payment is just part of
that.  Those of us in all-volunteer imcs might focus on the payment
issue without sufficiently examining privilege as it relates to who is
part of our collectives, who is publishing to our sites, and who
accesses our coverage.  When we criticize others, we seem to imply
that our own activism is clean and exempt from societal imbalances in
which members of the dominant race, gender, and class have
disproportionate access to resources.

Instead of seeing this only as a conflict between the all-volunteer
tendencies within the network against some collectives that have paid
members, we could also approach this conflict as it applies to
ourselves, asking "how do we resolve our desire to be free from the
evil effects of money when many things we do require money."  Most
other disputes that have arisen within indymedia are personality
conflicts, instructive only to encourage us to be more intelligent in
our conflict resolution.  But here, the substance of the conflict
itself is relevant to all activists -- we are interconnected with the
system we are struggling against.

Some frame the debate not in terms of payment itself, but of promoting
autonomy.  Eric from Big Muddy writes: "we are attempting to decide
which ideology is good and which is bad. do we have the capacity to
make such a determination nonjudgmentally? i think not."  Mike from UC
adds: "UC IMC itself uses a number of different funding approaches and
has always supported sticking to the Indymedia principle of autonomy
on this question for every other IMC. At no time have we ever
suggested imposing a particular approach on another IMC."

The payment conflict has unfortunately created some distrust and
anger.  I am disheartened when I read emails from activists trying to
expose each other as not good enough.  Communicating with care is
something we have much to learn about.  I can't imagine a Zapatista
writing angry emails to a member of another collective to complain
about how they do things.  For myself, I want our collectives to look
more like the Zapatista movement in terms of being all-volunteer, but
also more like the Zapatista movement in terms of collectives
supporting each other.  Resolutions of conflicts between autonomous
collectives can't be done by confrontation, intimidation, or
expressing indignation -- it is a different type of process.  It
requires discussion, compromises, and patience.  It requires seeking
out each other's voices and listening.