[IMC-US] the future of the no $ proposal

Fri Feb 11 18:02:18 CST 2005

howdy,

i would like to take a step back and ask, "why does Indymedia not want
professionals working for it?"

i don't understand how paying people contradicts any of the principles
of unity (http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity).

i don't say this to inflame or provoke. but i have yet to hear (and
this may be my fault, i have tried to do as much background reading as
possible on this) a clearly articulated argument for the benefits of
an all-volunteer network vs. a network with paid employees. i don't
think that the houston proposal does this
(http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/33558.php, for reference).

i'm especially concerned with the 3rd "Payment creates hierarchies"
and 4th "IMC's can morph into typical NGOs" items on the houston
proposal. they are presented as if they need no explanation. it seems
as if this whole discussion is based off of the premises that 1) all
hierarchies are bad, 2) all NGOs are bad, 3) paying someone for their
time and effort is a bad thing, and 4) payment always creates
hierarchies based off of dominance and parasitism.  i disagree with
every one of these premises as well as all of the items on the houston
proposal.

in the following i would like to briefly argue against the all-volunteer vision:

i believe that keeping Indymedia all-volunteer is a greater detriment
to the goals and purposes of the movement than the hazards that $
creates.

keeping Indymedia an all-volunteer network severely limits the
resources that Indymedia has at its disposal. if Indymedia is
important enough for people to spend their spare time on, isn't it
important enough to devote their full-time work and energy? is there
any way to do that other than paying people for it? (do we set up a
system of communes or something?) does allowing someone to spend their
full day and week on indymedia somehow take away from their devotion
to this cause?  aren't there many other non-profit organizations out
there, including activist media organizations, that employee people
and still do good work?

i apologize if this is rehashing an old argument, but i think this is
a key time to readdress it, especially because of the houston
proposal.  again, i would like to see examples of other threads of
this discussion (i did not see an english translation of the brasil
discussion, but please point me to it if there is one).

i agree with the principles of transparency, limiting of hierarchy,
and emphasis on consensus-based decision making that the houston
proposal addresses.  money definitely changes relationships.  however,
i would like to see Indymedia embrace these changes. i would like to
see Indymedia work to create functional hierarchies that rely on
consensus-based decision making, respect, and best practice. i would
like to see Indymedia cull funding sources that foster positive
relationships b/w the work, the people, and the goals of Indymedia. i
would like to see Indymedia become more successful at engaging more
volunteers and empowering more people by providing more focused
support, resources, and ways for people to get involved. i would like
to see Indymedia provide an example for all groups on the left who are
struggling with ways to organize while maintaining principles of local
autonomy, community involvement, and consensus-based decision making.

so in closing: 

* i don't support the houston proposal for the US site (though if it
came down to a vote, i don't think i have done enough/at all work on
the US site to deserve to vote),
* would like to hear some more justification for the all-volunteer vision, 
* think it should be up to local imcs to decide the pay/no-pay/no-way
principle (especially recognizing some of the great work that the all
volunteer IMCs already do, esp houton/indybay/portland etc),
* thank everyone for reading my views on this subject
* look forward to meeting anyone who is going to austin next week!

-Aaron

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:17:06 -0600, nick <sarsnic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The NYC IMC stands for all of the principles articulated in the proposal as reasons for being all volunteer - flattening hierarchy, encouraging new volunteers, sharing responsibility, building collective processes, not being a typical NGO. It is offensive and divisive to suggest that we don't.
> 
> But no one suggested that you don't.  The suggestion is that a
> practice (not an individual, not a collective) is problematic, or
> might eventually become problematic.  Just as we all strive to
> criticize words or criticize actions and not the person doing them, I
> believe the Houston proposal is on target about a practice.  If
> someone criticized one aspect of how Houston operates, I would strive
> to focus on the practice they singled out, rather than feeling
> insulted or isolated by it.  That being said, I want to reiterate that
> there has never been a proposal to force NYC to adopt any different
> guidelines.
> 
> You will find many in Latin America who feel that there should be a
> prohibition on IMCs paying anyone.  I have spoken to many collectives
> that feel that no $ should not be a consensual process, but a
> Principle of Unity.  If you look through the Brasil list archives for
> October, you will see that the Houston proposal does not go far enough
> to satisfy them.  This is a truly divisive issue, and I think the
> Houston proposal is a good compromise.  I am worried by the prospect
> of not finding some middle ground on it.
> 
> > We have decided that the best way for our collective to adhere to those principles and to achieve those goals - along with others like accountability, consistency, and making useful media - is to compensate a couple of people for some specific tasks. From another perspective in another city with other people, you might think that's the wrong choice. But if you have faith in us as your partners in Indymedia, you should respect the actions that we believe are appropriate to our local conditions.
> 
> I think it is important to reiterate that I did not propose in any
> forum a course of action that would limit NYC's freedom to make
> decisions about this in its own collective.  The Houston proposal
> clearly states that it is consensual.  That being said, I was a part
> of the indypendent collective myself, doing cartoons, and no longer
> feel comfortable working in that collective for this reason.  My
> perspective is not just that of someone in another city, but as a
> part-time New Yorker, I feel isolated from a collective in which I
> participated.
> 
> > The only thing in the proposal I would say the NYC IMC disagrees with is that being all volunteer is "in keeping with the original purpose and roots of IMC." A lot of those people getting that footage of rubber bullets in the streets of Seattle or organizing the first Independent Media Center were paid employees of media organizations.
> 
> Of course they were, as they are still, but then they were not paid BY
> indymedia.
> 
> > And at the meeting in San Francisco in April 2001 that introduced the Principles of Unity, the question of paying people was specifically left to individual IMCs to decide.
> 
> I agree, and I respect what those people did at that time. I can
> understand how that wording might be offensive, maybe it would be
> better to reference the early influence on indymedia of the words of
> Marcos and the processes of the Zapatistas in a different way.
> 
> > Like NIck, I am looking forward to discussions of best practices in Austin. But I hope it goes a lot deeper than "don't pay anyone" (or "pay someone"), which, when you take out the principles that we all agree on, is all that this proposal amounts to.
> 
> True - if no one has a problem passing a simpler version of this
> proposal: "the US-IMC is an all-volunteer collective" without any
> rhetoric attached, I would be be happy to consense around those words.
> 
> Peace
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-US mailing list
> IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>