[Payment-discuss] 503c(3) - Isn't is 501?
Stacy Scheff
sscheff at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 15 11:58:51 PST 2007
For me the issue is not whether money is changing hands, but rather who are
the parties to the transaction and what are their interests.
My big bugaboo is the 501(c)3 status. This makes the US Government (George
W. Bush) a party to our transactions, and that makes me incredibly
uncomfortable. And this for the sake of a percentage saved in taxes. I'd
feel better if the money was kept in a shoebox in someone's closet. Michele
raises the issue of embezzlement, but if everything is transparent, and the
liaisons on the imc-finance listserv pay attention, that shouldn't be a
problem.
But that makes it considerably harder to own property and have sustainable
activist cooperatives who can do business with the wider capitalist system.
At some point a threshold is crossed where the maintenance of the capital
(property and assets) becomes more important than the activist cooperative.
It is not an obvious line. It is a vague fuzzy grey blur, but at some
point, the means become more important than the ends.
One of the downsides of the 501(c)3 is that they "...may not attempt to
influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not
participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
So, for example, that immediately puts the coverage of immigration
legislation in questionable territory. Perhaps nobody is concerned about
that now, but it is a big fat handle attached to indymedia - not just
strings - should someone decide they'd like to jerk us around a bit.
In addition, when we are dealing with international transfers of thousands
of dollars, the issue of accountability comes up. The imc-finance list is
not the most organized of groups, and to be honest, we have no way of
knowing exactly what the money is being spent on. I have never seen a
single report back from any of the disbursements we've made. There again,
is another possible lever for anyone who wanted to waste our time.
I for one thought that indymedia was born out of anarchist principles. To
me that means that the local should always have priority over the global. I
think that should apply to money too. It's better to get money from the
immediate community, the friends and family of local indymedia, and then
only look to the global community for emergencies or special events. But I
think that the step of going to the US Gov and asking for money to support
indymedia should be the absolute last resort, if at all. But that is in
fact what we've done by having tax exempt status.
I'm not sure how to make a system to replace the one we have now, and so I
am trying to work with the finance working group to make it work better.
But I would very much like to try an alternative system that doesn't allow
George W. to have a say in what we do.
cheers,
stacy
>From: "Michelle Shumate" <shumate at uiuc.edu>
>To: payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>Subject: [Payment-discuss] 503c(3)
>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:22:20 -0600
>
>There seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly being a 503c(3)
>means, and I apologize for potentially dragging out a conversation which
>may
>not be of interest to our friends outside of the United States.. First,
>the
>code in the IRS tax code does not make U-C Indymedia a non-profit
>corporation. That term comes from state tax code, not US federal tax code.
>A 503c(3) in United States tax code is synonymous with a "charitable
>organization". A charitable organization is another bad IRS turn of
>phrase, meaning: "The term *charitable* is used in its generally accepted
>legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the
>underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or
>science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works;
>lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions;
>eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights
>secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile
>delinquency" (
>http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html).
>
>Being a 503c(3) requires U-C IMC to have some structures, which largely
>don't meet except to keep state requirements (I think it has been over a
>year since our board of directors met). In functioning, the U-C IMC is
>structured in a very traditional IMC way: steering group, working groups,
>consensus based decision making, lots of discussion. Anyone can be a part
>of the finance working group at any time and immediately have a say in what
>we do. I view this consensus-based decision making, both at the local
>level
>and at the global level, not as "weak" as some have alluded to, but
>important to who we are and how voices are heard. Although the process is
>sometimes lengthy and maddening, it means that we influence others through
>persuasion and remain open to listening to what others have to say. To me,
>this is the essence of the U-C IMC and the larger indymedia community.
>
>Having anyone paid for any work, should be separated from the tax status
>discussion, since it isn't a requirement for the tax status.
>
>Why would U-C IMC want to be a 503c(3)? While I was not part of the
>collective at the time, I would like to highlight some pros of the status
>in
>the United States (since so many cons have been already stated):
>
>1) It provides tax exemption for the building that we own. This means that
>we don't have to pay a very large yearly tax bill for the property.
>
>2) It means that those who donate can deduct donations of books, money,
>computer equipment, sound equipment (we have a stage for live performances
>of local artists in the space), etc from their personal income taxes.
>
>3) This one may be more controversial, but I contend it ensures a greater
>degree of financial accountability to both the members of the collective
>and
>the community at large. How money is spent, including bills that every IMC
>with any space has, are publicly available as part of our tax paperwork and
>must be audited by an outside accountant. Such audits ensure that U-C IMC
>has an accurate accounting of who we paid (including lawyers and outside
>vendors (e.g, locksmiths, plumbers)) and where each dime of IMC money is
>going. Although not openly talked about, embezzlement is a big issue in
>many volunteer organizations (not talking about IMCs but other grassroots
>organizations I have been a part of). The 503c(3) status helps to make
>that
>much, much harder to do.
>
>Hope this helps to clarify, rather than to obscure the issues that are
>being
>raised here.
>
>Michelle
>
>
>
>
>
>On 2/15/07, payment-discuss-request at lists.indymedia.org <
>payment-discuss-request at lists.indymedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>Send Payment-discuss mailing list submissions to
>> payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>>
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> payment-discuss-request at lists.indymedia.org
>>
>>You can reach the person managing the list at
>> payment-discuss-owner at lists.indymedia.org
>>
>>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>than "Re: Contents of Payment-discuss digest..."
>>
>>
>>Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: feedback for my articleabout payment for indybook
>>(eric)
>> 2. Re: Introduction and some comments (Todd Wolfson)
>> 3. Re: Introduction and some comments (catherine at resist.ca)
>> 4. Re: feedback for my articleabout payment for indybook
>> (bmedia at riseup.net)
>> 5. Re: Introduction and some comments (dan blah)
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 1
>>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:49:39 -0600
>>From: "eric" <eric at egyptian.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Payment-discuss] feedback for my articleabout payment
>> for indybook
>>To: <payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org>
>>Message-ID: <003101c75079$a5ddf440$668cfea9 at egyptian>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>>to say that because a great many volunteers did not know about something
>>disputes it is a little disingenuous. i only say that because i have
>>noticed
>>that frequently people have many misconceptions about imcs. i have spoken
>>to
>>a great many volunteers who are under the impression that all imcs are
>>anarchist in their ideology. since this is not true but they believe it to
>>be the case and they, being anarchists, believe all should also be
>>anarchist, does that mean that they have been deceived?
>>
>> i do not believe that ignorance of facts can be used as an excuse to
>>insulate us from the truth. the fact that some imcs have paid staff and
>>that
>>there are some that are nonprofit has never been kept secret. at no time
>>did
>>ucimc deny its nonprofit status. in fact, it was very open about it from
>>the
>>beginning. additionally, seattle was upfront about payment as was ny. the
>>fact that film makers were paid through grants is most certainly a method
>>of
>>payment. what about those who were able to pass around the hat at various
>>imcs that screened their work, isn't that also a method of payment? if
>>money
>>is a corrupting influence, shouldn't all such methods of payment be
>>curtailed?
>>best
>>eric
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "deva" <drdartist at riseup.net>
>>To: <payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:36 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Payment-discuss] feedback for my articleabout payment for
>>indybook
>>
>>
>> > The evidence of the great many imc volunteers who did not know that
>> > people were being paid disputes it. Almost every IMC person that I
>> > have talked to over the past some years DID NOT KNOW. Each time some
>> > volunteer learned this, they expressed varying degrees of shock, and
>> > dislike/anger. And I have talked to many many dozens at events,
>> > mobilizations, on lists as I have helped other imc's and so on.
>> >
>> > That is not evidence of shame, but when you have a secretive practice
>> > that is counter to the public presentation of what indymedia is, then
>> > it is a very obvious thing to wonder what motivations brought the
>> > situation about.
>> >
>> > What does it say about the ideology of consensus, openness and
>> > transparency when something has been going on that so many disapprove
>> > of and do not know about? This is an obvious failure. We would not
>> > now have this list and this level of frustrated feelings otherwise.
>> >
>> > To me this is exactly the influence of money. It fosters a self-
>> > interest and is divisive. It is a tool designed to allow the
>> > accumulation by the few against the interests of the many or the
>> > whole. It is not coincidence that the most materialistic country is
>> > the place where people want payment in indymedia.
>> >
>> > Now we are stuck in that failure.
>> >
>> > So again, I support the call by Libertinus for the Consulta.
>> > Otherwise if some few of us, mostly from the US, continue to talk
>> > amongst our few selves we are just repeating that failure.
>> >
>> > deva
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Feb 13, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Guy Berliner wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I mean, everyone here who has related their firsthand
>> >> involvement in situations where paid roles were used in Indymedia has
>> >> attested that the decisions were publicly advertised and consensed
>> >> upon,
>> >> and no one has (yet) disputed their factual observations, so
>> >> where's the
>> >> shame?
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Demeanour wrote:
>> >>> bmedia at riseup.net wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Maybe it would be a good idea for us to do a comprehensive survey of
>> >>>> how many IMCs are paying salaries vs how many are not, and how many
>> >>>> IMCistas believe it is acceptable to start paying wages for this
>> >>>> work
>> >>>> vs how many believe that would be unacceptable. I think this
>> >>>> would be
>> >>>> a better strategy than building up a myth of precident based on a
>> >>>> few
>> >>>> aberrations.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This is a very interesting suggestion.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have been aware since a few months after first becoming
>> >>> involved, that
>> >>> some number of IMCs were paying staff. The only ones I knew of
>> >>> were in
>> >>> the USA, and that remains the case. People seemed reluctant to
>> >>> elaborate, or even express an opinion about this kind of behaviour; I
>> >>> suspect that was because it is seen here as an embarrassment -
>> >>> something
>> >>> rather shameful.
>> >>>
>> >>> So I don't know how many IMCs are in the habit of paying staff. I
>> >>> don't
>> >>> know how widespread the practice is, geographically; and I don't know
>> >>> how many IMCs formally disapprove of the practice. I think that
>> >>> kind of
>> >>> information would be valuable, and would inform this discussion.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Payment-discuss mailing list
>> >> Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>> >> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Payment-discuss mailing list
>> > Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/686 - Release Date:
>>2/14/2007
>> > 7:54 AM
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 2
>>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:39:17 -0500
>>From: Todd Wolfson <twolfson1998 at yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Payment-discuss] Introduction and some comments
>>To: bmedia at riseup.net
>>Cc: payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>>Message-ID: <45D3ABB5.7070100 at yahoo.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>Hi Cat and everyone,
>>
>>The point is not to theorize for theory sake, but rather to think more
>>deliberately about the issue at hand (payment and the nature of
>>indymedia resistance) so that we can make real world distinctions and
>>come to understand where and why we may have a theoretical, practical or
>>strategic divergence. In past social movements or revolutionary
>>movements there were journals that were spaces where people
>>discussed/argued for different strategies and points of view and this
>>listserve should be used in that capacity. I do not think we should
>>close down discussion on any level (not that anyone was doing that) but
>>rather open spaces of discussion and divergence so we understand the
>>root of the issue, and I believe this can happen while moving forward
>>with the consulta which is an excellent idea. Specifically then, the
>>window I would like to probe more:
>>
>>While to date, Philly IMC has not really paid anyone for a sustained
>>period, I have no problem with payment in certain instances. At the same
>>time, like you Cat, and many in this movement, my work is thoughtful
>>committed anti-capitalist resistance. But perhaps not like everyone i
>>think that anti capitalist resistance means deliberate grassroots class
>>based social movement building.
>>
>>I say this realizing that our real foe is not one another (and this
>>sectarian infighting has been the reason why the real adversary rules
>>over us) but rather capitalism, which is the most powerful cultural and
>>political formation in the history of the world. My strategic aim then
>>in working with indymedia is to build a powerful mass based antagonistic
>>resistance that is composed of those silenced and dispossessed and to
>>really think through and do the work to make this happen. I am committed
>>to Indymedia because I believe a global communications structure that
>>operates at the local, national and global level is vital to this
>>resistance in the 21st century.
>>
>>This leads me to believe that in some instances in indymedia and in any
>>movement building payment is alright. I do not think payment makes IMC a
>>corporate structure and I don't find it to be the core evil, I believe
>>placing profit before people is the true problem. At the same time, I do
>>not think I would accept payment myself and I am not sure that I would
>>support payment for the specific creation of media, but I would very
>>strongly support paying someone to organize in poor communities (which
>>done right would take 100 hours a week) so that this communications
>>structure operates in those communities. I would also strongly support
>>paying in the case of someone coordinating the use of indymedia as a
>>political tool that can help build across the many fragmented people and
>>communities that labor under our oppressive system.I support this
>>because I think it would give us the tools necessary to build a real
>>antagonistic resistance and in my calculus this far outweighs the
>>problems (though real) that others have enumerated.
>>
>>Anyway, I apologize for writing too much but I think my position
>>represents many people in the US and abroad and I offer it in an attempt
>>to promote discussion and really discern our strategic priorities and
>>divergences instead of leaving them unsaid and falling back on easy and
>>unfair stereotyping of one another's positions.
>>
>>Again in solidarity
>>Todd
>>
>>bmedia at riseup.net wrote:
>> > Quoting Guy Berliner <guy at sdimc.org>:
>> >
>> >
>> >> [.....snip........] So if we want to avoid
>> >> reproducing that pattern of relationships ourselves, even in cases
>>where
>> >> an Indymedia center makes use of paid roles, we should be asking
>> >> ourselves, do all Indymedia workers own and control the products of
>> >> their labor?
>> >>
>> >
>> > the problem with a lot of theorizing, though, is that it misses the
>> > real-world issue at hand. which, in this case, i think, is much bigger
>> > (and at the same time, much more subtle) than how we define or do not
>> > define capitalism.
>> >
>> > for instance, i think that instead of asking ourselves whether we all
>> > "own and control the products of our labor," we need to be asking
>> > whether we want what we do to be commodified. do we want to think of
>> > it (and therefore shape it) in terms of ownership at all?
>> >
>> > that's what money does. it shapes things according to self interests
>> > and ownership and property. so far, the work that i do with indymedia
>> > is not about any of those things. i would like to keep it that way. so
>> > it does matter to me that people are treated fairly in economic
>> > transactions, but it also matters to me that we not start paying
>> > people for IMC work, whatever fair and equitable arrangement we think
>> > we can come up with.
>> >
>> > Cat
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Payment-discuss mailing list
>> > Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 3
>>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:54:46 -0800 (PST)
>>From: catherine at resist.ca
>>Subject: Re: [Payment-discuss] Introduction and some comments
>>To: payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>>Message-ID: <52571.71.214.67.57.1171508086.squirrel at mail.resist.ca>
>>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>>
>>todd wrote:
>>
>>"I do not think payment makes IMC a
>>corporate structure."
>>
>>You know that UC-IMC is a corporation, yes? They ARE at this point a
>>corporate structure. A non-profit IS a corporation, and must operate as
>>such.
>>
>>Catherine
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Cat and everyone,
>> >
>> > The point is not to theorize for theory sake, but rather to think more
>>deliberately about the issue at hand (payment and the nature of
>> > indymedia resistance) so that we can make real world distinctions and
>>come to understand where and why we may have a theoretical, practical or
>>strategic divergence. In past social movements or revolutionary
>> > movements there were journals that were spaces where people
>> > discussed/argued for different strategies and points of view and this
>>listserve should be used in that capacity. I do not think we should
>>close down discussion on any level (not that anyone was doing that) but
>>rather open spaces of discussion and divergence so we understand the
>>root of the issue, and I believe this can happen while moving forward
>>with the consulta which is an excellent idea. Specifically then, the
>>window I would like to probe more:
>> >
>> > While to date, Philly IMC has not really paid anyone for a sustained
>>period, I have no problem with payment in certain instances. At the same
>>time, like you Cat, and many in this movement, my work is thoughtful
>>committed anti-capitalist resistance. But perhaps not like everyone i
>>think that anti capitalist resistance means deliberate grassroots class
>>based social movement building.
>> >
>> > I say this realizing that our real foe is not one another (and this
>>sectarian infighting has been the reason why the real adversary rules
>>over us) but rather capitalism, which is the most powerful cultural and
>>political formation in the history of the world. My strategic aim then
>>in working with indymedia is to build a powerful mass based antagonistic
>>resistance that is composed of those silenced and dispossessed and to
>>really think through and do the work to make this happen. I am committed
>>to Indymedia because I believe a global communications structure that
>>operates at the local, national and global level is vital to this
>>resistance in the 21st century.
>> >
>> > This leads me to believe that in some instances in indymedia and in any
>>movement building payment is alright. I do not think payment makes IMC a
>>corporate structure and I don't find it to be the core evil, I believe
>>placing profit before people is the true problem. At the same time, I do
>>not think I would accept payment myself and I am not sure that I would
>>support payment for the specific creation of media, but I would very
>>strongly support paying someone to organize in poor communities (which
>>done right would take 100 hours a week) so that this communications
>>structure operates in those communities. I would also strongly support
>>paying in the case of someone coordinating the use of indymedia as a
>>political tool that can help build across the many fragmented people and
>>communities that labor under our oppressive system.I support this
>>because I think it would give us the tools necessary to build a real
>>antagonistic resistance and in my calculus this far outweighs the
>>problems (though real) that others have enumerated.
>> >
>> > Anyway, I apologize for writing too much but I think my position
>>represents many people in the US and abroad and I offer it in an attempt
>>to promote discussion and really discern our strategic priorities and
>>divergences instead of leaving them unsaid and falling back on easy and
>>unfair stereotyping of one another's positions.
>> >
>> > Again in solidarity
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > bmedia at riseup.net wrote:
>> >> Quoting Guy Berliner <guy at sdimc.org>:
>> >>> [.....snip........] So if we want to avoid
>> >>> reproducing that pattern of relationships ourselves, even in cases
>>where
>> >>> an Indymedia center makes use of paid roles, we should be asking
>>ourselves, do all Indymedia workers own and control the products of
>>their labor?
>> >> the problem with a lot of theorizing, though, is that it misses the
>>real-world issue at hand. which, in this case, i think, is much bigger
>>(and at the same time, much more subtle) than how we define or do not
>>define capitalism.
>> >> for instance, i think that instead of asking ourselves whether we all
>>"own and control the products of our labor," we need to be asking
>>whether we want what we do to be commodified. do we want to think of it
>>(and therefore shape it) in terms of ownership at all?
>> >> that's what money does. it shapes things according to self interests
>>and ownership and property. so far, the work that i do with indymedia
>>is not about any of those things. i would like to keep it that way. so
>>it does matter to me that people are treated fairly in economic
>>transactions, but it also matters to me that we not start paying people
>>for IMC work, whatever fair and equitable arrangement we think we can
>>come up with.
>> >> Cat
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Payment-discuss mailing list
>> >> Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>> >> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Payment-discuss mailing list
>> > Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 4
>>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:08:48 -0800
>>From: bmedia at riseup.net
>>Subject: Re: [Payment-discuss] feedback for my articleabout payment
>> for indybook
>>To: payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>>Message-ID: <20070214220848.0f0tvdwde68kcw44 at petrel.riseup.net>
>>Content-Type: text/plain;
>>charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
>>
>>Quoting eric <eric at egyptian.com>:
>>
>> > what about those who were able to pass around the hat at various
>> > imcs that screened their work, isn't that also a method of payment? if
>>money
>> > is a corrupting influence, shouldn't all such methods of payment be
>> > curtailed?
>>
>>that depends. are you saying that people passed the hat and kept the
>>money? then yes, that is payment for work. which, in my opinion, is
>>parasitizing the movement. i say that as a filmmaker, because i would
>>never try to make a buck off the work i do as an activist. i can't
>>imagine my comrades letting me shoot the footage that i do, if they
>>thought i was doing it for personal gain. and i can't imagine ever
>>trying to capitalize on the courage and sacrifices of the people whom
>>i am usually filming. it's a gross thought.
>>
>>on the other hand, if you're talking about passing the hat in order to
>>cover expenses only (and i'm not talking about hotels and meals and
>>rent and other personal expenses for the filmmaker," but rather tapes
>>and equipment), then i'm not really against that. (personal expenses
>>for the filmmaker would be payment, i think, in most cases.)
>>
>>we've really thought about this a lot in portland, and i'm not sure
>>it's completely resolved. but at our video shows, we never charge any
>>cover, and we rarely pass the hat. this is because i really want the
>>shows to be a place where people can come together and have a common
>>experience that isn't mediated through economic transactions. (like a
>>church that doesn't pass the collection plate....)
>>
>>however, i'm not completely against doing that. it's just not
>>something i find necessary or preferable if it can be avoided.
>>
>>on the few occasions when we've passed a hat around, it has never been
>>to pay anyone, and it's usually not even been for our collective.
>>we've raised money for the occasional cause -- legal defense for
>>comrades facing prison, money for comrades down south, and once we
>>passed the hat to help get a used camera after one of the collective
>>cams got arrested and stolen by the police.
>>
>>so i guess that's my perspective on that. but yes, it's preferable in
>>my opinion to do things without money when you can. when you can't,
>>then by all means, raise the money to accomplish a goal, but not for
>>your pocket. not for a paycheck. and not for ridiculous frivolities,
>>which is what i have occasionally seen happen with well-meaning
>>activist organizations that start down the money path. (even indy
>>projects... like when the newsreal folks sought a grant so they could
>>send a couple of people all over the country, driving around in rental
>>cars and staying in hotels and eating in restaurants, and making a
>>paycheck. all to promote the newsreal. that could easily have been
>>accomplished through networking with local collectives instead of
>>wasting so many resources, and no one would have required a stipend
>>aka paycheck. hell, they even planned to hire an outside videographer
>>to record the whole thing, when so many IMCistas are videographers who
>>would have done it for free.)
>>
>>i guess i'm saying that raising money should be a very specific, goal
>>oriented, and short term project. not a long term, self sustaining
>>occupation, and not a means in itself. it should be money raised for
>>the equipment and means to accomplish the work we need to accomplish,
>>but not to pay us. we need to do this work for its own sake, and not
>>for a paycheck. it means much more that way. let us parasitize our day
>>jobs, if we have them, for the money to feed our activism. let us not
>>parasitize our comrades to pay our bills.
>>
>>those are my thoughts.
>>
>>Cat
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 5
>>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:19:36 -0600
>>From: "dan blah" <dan.blah at gmail.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Payment-discuss] Introduction and some comments
>>Cc: payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>>Message-ID:
>> <a210c29f0702150819w27281ed9j2c19b74c3344ef79 at mail.gmail.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>On 2/14/07, catherine at resist.ca <catherine at resist.ca> wrote:
>> > todd wrote:
>> >
>> > "I do not think payment makes IMC a
>> > corporate structure."
>> >
>> > You know that UC-IMC is a corporation, yes? They ARE at this point a
>> > corporate structure. A non-profit IS a corporation, and must operate as
>> > such.
>> >
>> > Catherine
>> >
>>I do not believe the U-C IMC operates as most corporations. In it's
>>inception one of the first orders of business by the board was to dis
>>empower itself by empowering the membership. I am not aware of this
>>being a common corporate structure or being any different than any
>>other IMC's operating structure.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Cat and everyone,
>> > >
>> > > The point is not to theorize for theory sake, but rather to think
>>more
>> > deliberately about the issue at hand (payment and the nature of
>> > > indymedia resistance) so that we can make real world distinctions and
>> > come to understand where and why we may have a theoretical, practical
>>or
>> > strategic divergence. In past social movements or revolutionary
>> > > movements there were journals that were spaces where people
>> > > discussed/argued for different strategies and points of view and this
>> > listserve should be used in that capacity. I do not think we should
>> > close down discussion on any level (not that anyone was doing that) but
>> > rather open spaces of discussion and divergence so we understand the
>> > root of the issue, and I believe this can happen while moving forward
>> > with the consulta which is an excellent idea. Specifically then, the
>> > window I would like to probe more:
>> > >
>> > > While to date, Philly IMC has not really paid anyone for a sustained
>> > period, I have no problem with payment in certain instances. At the
>>same
>> > time, like you Cat, and many in this movement, my work is thoughtful
>> > committed anti-capitalist resistance. But perhaps not like everyone i
>> > think that anti capitalist resistance means deliberate grassroots class
>> > based social movement building.
>> > >
>> > > I say this realizing that our real foe is not one another (and this
>> > sectarian infighting has been the reason why the real adversary rules
>> > over us) but rather capitalism, which is the most powerful cultural and
>> > political formation in the history of the world. My strategic aim then
>> > in working with indymedia is to build a powerful mass based
>>antagonistic
>> > resistance that is composed of those silenced and dispossessed and to
>> > really think through and do the work to make this happen. I am
>>committed
>> > to Indymedia because I believe a global communications structure that
>> > operates at the local, national and global level is vital to this
>> > resistance in the 21st century.
>> > >
>> > > This leads me to believe that in some instances in indymedia and in
>>any
>> > movement building payment is alright. I do not think payment makes IMC
>>a
>> > corporate structure and I don't find it to be the core evil, I believe
>> > placing profit before people is the true problem. At the same time, I
>>do
>> > not think I would accept payment myself and I am not sure that I would
>> > support payment for the specific creation of media, but I would very
>> > strongly support paying someone to organize in poor communities (which
>> > done right would take 100 hours a week) so that this communications
>> > structure operates in those communities. I would also strongly support
>> > paying in the case of someone coordinating the use of indymedia as a
>> > political tool that can help build across the many fragmented people
>>and
>> > communities that labor under our oppressive system.I support this
>> > because I think it would give us the tools necessary to build a real
>> > antagonistic resistance and in my calculus this far outweighs the
>> > problems (though real) that others have enumerated.
>> > >
>> > > Anyway, I apologize for writing too much but I think my position
>> > represents many people in the US and abroad and I offer it in an
>>attempt
>> > to promote discussion and really discern our strategic priorities and
>> > divergences instead of leaving them unsaid and falling back on easy and
>> > unfair stereotyping of one another's positions.
>> > >
>> > > Again in solidarity
>> > > Todd
>> > >
>> > > bmedia at riseup.net wrote:
>> > >> Quoting Guy Berliner <guy at sdimc.org>:
>> > >>> [.....snip........] So if we want to avoid
>> > >>> reproducing that pattern of relationships ourselves, even in cases
>>where
>> > >>> an Indymedia center makes use of paid roles, we should be asking
>> > ourselves, do all Indymedia workers own and control the products of
>> > their labor?
>> > >> the problem with a lot of theorizing, though, is that it misses the
>> > real-world issue at hand. which, in this case, i think, is much bigger
>> > (and at the same time, much more subtle) than how we define or do not
>> > define capitalism.
>> > >> for instance, i think that instead of asking ourselves whether we
>>all
>> > "own and control the products of our labor," we need to be asking
>> > whether we want what we do to be commodified. do we want to think of it
>> > (and therefore shape it) in terms of ownership at all?
>> > >> that's what money does. it shapes things according to self interests
>> > and ownership and property. so far, the work that i do with indymedia
>> > is not about any of those things. i would like to keep it that way. so
>> > it does matter to me that people are treated fairly in economic
>> > transactions, but it also matters to me that we not start paying people
>> > for IMC work, whatever fair and equitable arrangement we think we can
>> > come up with.
>> > >> Cat
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> Payment-discuss mailing list
>> > >> Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>> > >> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Payment-discuss mailing list
>> > > Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>> > > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Payment-discuss mailing list
>> > Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>> >
>>
>>
>>--
>>Daniel
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Payment-discuss mailing list
>>Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>>
>>
>>End of Payment-discuss Digest, Vol 2, Issue 22
>>**********************************************
>>
>
>
>
>--
>________________________________
>Michelle Shumate
>Assistant Professor
>Department of Speech Communication
>University of Illinois
>244 Lincoln Hall
>702 S. Wright Street
>Urbana, IL 61801 USA
>shumate at uiuc.edu
>_______________________________________________
>Payment-discuss mailing list
>Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
_________________________________________________________________
More information about the Payment-discuss
mailing list