[CIMC-work] re: principles of decentralized structuring, using such ideas in indymedia?

[Doug Morris]

Hi folks,

I sent the reply below to a note to me on the strategies list.
The note I was replying to is longish.  My reply is longer yet.

About 15 or 20 folks from various locals logged onto that imc strategies 
list in the last few months. Finally, some dialog is getting going 
there.  Hopefully folks from most imc locals will participate in strategy 
and planning discussions.  Got to start somewhere.

Question:
Do you agree more with the ideas expressed by Deva below or by myself in 
reply or neither or what?
Going over the principles discussed below might be helpful as a lead in to 
the April 2 strategy meeting

Note in summary:
Sorry for the theory jargon.... but, I think we fall short often in our 
theorizing of decentralization vs. centralization and we need to shift the 
dialog somehow around this to see freedom and group process as part of one 
co-emergent process.

I think that vital and workable and just social processes which expressing 
freedom and equality together  include both decentralized networking and 
cooperation in collectives.

I think some unhealthy extremes in society are to overemphasize in the 
direction of either libertarian strategies of freedom without 
accountability or towards collectivist oppressive group processes of total 
accountability and group control -- too much of either extreme is deadly to 
ongoing creation of a free, equal, and just society.

Hopefully.... freedom and grassroots democratically principled 
cooperation/competition go hand in hand in a dynamic cooperative and 
dialectically competitive balance.

Hopefully... in our local and in our region and in our globe, we can create 
processes with a lot of decentralized circulation of participation that 
also are able to generate collective works on things that need that.  This 
involves ongoing inquiry and *dialog*....

Best,
Doug

Hi Deva and all,

Thanks Deva very much for your comments.

This is a response to Deva's thoughtful note.

First a summary then point by point responses.

Summary:

I agree with a lot of your points actually.  But, there is a major area of 
difference.

I am also very interested in organic, fluid organic network processes.
I agree that more decentralization is needed in the indymedia network.

But, we actually need some global processes that work.  If plans and 
decisions are bottom up, global collective work does not equal centralization.

So, I have a major difference with you about theory and methods for 
decentralization.

So, I want to focus on a few key difference in this summary:

Too much centralization is a real danger.
Too much decentralization is also a real danger.

Freedom doesn't come without equality.  We live in a very unequal 
world.  Just focusing on freedom of process and media in imc locals in the 
global north leaves out the many who are very oppressed, 
politically/economically/culturally.

We have to work for freedom and equality together, in solidarity, to help 
the many, more than half the six billion folks on the planet, to have a 
stake in creating together social freedom and equality and a sustainable 
way of life.

At the end of this is some discussion of these points in more detail.

However, perhaps you are more correct on these things.  Or, perhaps neither 
of us are sharing a fundamentally correct theory approach to this... as the 
path of freedom together may be somewhere in the mix of the many possible 
views (whether critical, creative or supportive) that might be expressed on 
these issues. I hope we can explore that in depth with other folks in more 
dialog here.  And, I hope we and others can express and share about 
nonwestern ways of viewing the self and community in relation to issues of 
freedom, equality and mutual aid in our media networks.

Note: I believe long notes are probably needed at times to deal with these 
complicated and thorny issues.

Discussion

Thanks again for sharing your points.

To respond to deva's points:

>Hi Doug,
>
>It is obvious that you are seeking in good faith to address certain issues 
>that
>you see hindering the growth of indymedia.

Thanks. I appreciate also your communicating about our different ideas in a 
collaborative way.

>First, are there really any decisions that do need to be made on a global 
>level?

There are existing global network editorial, financial, and tech processes.

>I suggest the possibility that none of these things need to be decided at a
>global level.

Yes, all of those could be decentralized away from global listserves and 
processes.
I am not opposed to that in principle, as long as the processes happen.

Key amongst these are:
         the support of global south imcs to form
         maintaining servers and mutual tech aid for large convergence
         the global indymedia.org as a portal to local media
         approving new imcs - this is a key global process (and eventually 
audits of old ones)

>Here in portland, we are setting up our own server, using our own 
>resources. At
>that point, we will be essentially autonomous.

Great.

>We will still be using the
>indymedia domain name, but will also have our own domain as a backup for 
>reasons
>of security. We feel that the existing indymedia principles of unity are
>adequate as a guide and have adopted them as our local guiding principles.

I believe the unity principles need revision, particularly on area of 
economic justice/equality and on issues of relation to political processes 
perhaps.

>Past that, some idea of a global entity has no say over our direction and 
>efforts
>here in portland.

What to do about departures from the unity principles leaves a lot of 
questions open.
I am in favor of the balance of the network decision and power being 
decentralized.

The network needs to be able to choose to disaffiliate from locals the 
depart from the unity principles.

>So I suggest that there needs to be no global decision making bodies.

I disagree about the "no" part in absolute sense.  Perhaps some of the 
global processes need to be reconfigured as local and regional processes.
The network of locals needs to be able to decide about and work on some things.

>Lets decentralize what is currently too centralized, which are the servers 
>currently
>hosting too many sites, which is leading to significant technical problems
>anyway.

I agree.

>We should also decentralize the domain name as well, because if that
>single indymedia domain were to be shut down, it would have far too much 
>effect
>on the network.

I agree.

>We can see right from these two examples, that centralization is
>a danger.

To much decentralization is also a danger.
It allows forces of cooptation to divide and divert the energy of mutual aid.

I favor decentralized or grassroots networking where as much is possible is 
done at local and regional levels but with recognition that some things 
need to be done as global *collective* processes.

>So rather than create centralization to deal with existing centralized
>structures, my suggestion is to decentralize the technical and financial
>resources and then at that point there is no need for any global decision 
>making
>process.

Perhaps a lot of that can be done down to regional and nonlocal imc-to-imc 
networksa....
I think probably not all of that.

>What we have then, is a situation where people from a couple or many local 
>imc's
>can choose to work together as needed on a project basis.

More of that the better...

>We here in portland have contributed to the building of computers for ecuador
>and for argentina.

Great.

>A number of us, (but not all) do not like the idea of funding from this TMF.

I think the TMF project could have been done in dialog with the imc.
A projec like TMF could work as an autonomous but collaborative thing.

But, I think the way TMF was started and the Soros funds are both big problems.
However, perhaps the TMF process is being revised. Hope so.

>We can raise the money locally for such a project.

Projects.  They want do various things.

I agree about local... and one could add... regional fund raising efforts.

>I personally
>feel that the TMF was created as a way to bypass objections (which I share) to
>the nature of the funding.

Well, yah.  But it is also very natural for groups of people to get 
together to do stuff.

Decentralized approaches allow that... and just ask that if things impact a 
larger circle of folks that... those folks be included in planning and 
actions if interested.

>I believe local efforts and resources and direct
>communication between the individuals involved is the best way to accomplish
>things and to not be corrupted in our visions...

I believe that individual local responsibility *together* ***and**** dialog 
amongst individuals and locals is the best way to work for freedom and 
equality and community *together*.

Freedom doesn't come without equality.  We live in a very unequal world.
So, we have to work for freedom and equality together, in solidarity.

>I do not want to have a say over what another local imc is doing. As soon 
>as we
>create the idea of a global network, then we have opened the door for 
>ownership
>of it

I wish for many people in dialog, including individual critics, to be able 
to critique what another local imc is doing if their actions are against 
what I see as:
         expressing the imc unity principles
         and/or a strategic threat to the imc network

I disagree strongly about your interpretation of the ownership thing.

The focus on radical decentralized freedom is often built on a western 
concept of the autonomous self which is implicated in the construction of 
the concept of private property.  Private autonomous selves own private 
property.

Groups share collective space.  We need to undo a libertarian sense of self 
to undo private property.

>The worst thing I can see, is for people in other places to start having a 
>sense
>of ownership over what others thousands of miles away are doing. For example,
>you have no say over what we do here in portland. It is none of your business.
>At one time, you brought up the idea of sanctions against portland because you
>did not like how a feature was worded here. This is the sense of ownership 
>I am
>talking about.

The worse things I see are for the imc network to go towards either too 
much centralization and for too much decentralization that dissolves group 
processes.

Fostering freedom and equality and multual liberation together requires a 
flow of many individual efforts in cooperation on joint 
projects.  Decentralized as much as possible, but with some group processes.

>Our efforts here in portland have been to reduce as much as possible the 
>idea of
>ownership. It is ownership that has led the world to the place it is.

Actually it is the libertarian approach to ownership -- the radical 
libertarian freedom of individuals to do economically what they want that 
has empowered capitalism.

Libertarianism in relation to media content is not the way for indymedia to 
be an anti-capitalist network.

>So we ourselves have removed the sense of ownership of features in the 
>center column.
>As soon as there is ownership, then the fighting over it begins.

I agree.
We need to abandon individual ownership and welcome joint creativity.

>The portland
>site is what the broader readership makes of it. Any original local reporting
>that is in accord with the principles of unity gets featured regardless of
>whether it fits my personal views. There used to be fights over what 
>should be a
>feature because everyone had ownership of it and so felt their personal self
>image was affected by what was posted there. The only ownership we have 
>now, is
>to insure that the site is protected from people who seek to control it, 
>to own it.

It is possible to cooperate on join projects without a sense of attached self.
We need to learn together how to be detached and cooperating.
And, conflict can be healthy.
Hopefully cooperation will become more the norm in imc work.

I think it is the greedy, ambitious self that is so encouraged by our 
modern societies that is a root problem here... not cooperation on join 
projects.

>If people want to get together and make network wide decisions, then they 
>will.

Yup.

>However, I feel no obligation to heed them. I would be happy to see lots of
>locals simply not bother with efforts at central global decisionmaking, 
>and also
>not feel any obligation to heed such decisions. That is my recommendation to
>everyone. I would say the general impotence of the global lists indicates a
>problem in the basic structure and approach.

The global lists were effective up to a year ago... various decisions were 
being made.
Then, flamewars (due to lack of list facilitation) and the Ford and then 
TMF/Soros things put a damper on list progress in the last 6 months.

There may be effective use of lists again.

>We are regularly reaching out and communicating with other local imc's and 
>have
>often assisted when we have skills or resources to share.

Great.
But, it takes some cooperation of folks doing that to make shure that the 
few who have time and resources are able to help the many who don't have help.
Take a look at the list of waiting new imcs, many are in the global south.
Remember how long imc istanbul (turkey) waited to get help....

Some networking around that would help.

Now, multiple imc networks might be a way to go...

Mathew in Australia did some writings about multiple and hybrid network 
processes that is interesting to consider.

>Through this approach
>we develop a fluid organic network that will be based on autonomous 
>respect, be
>strong and in the long run, this is where I believe the global network is 
>headed.

Yah, fluid and organic as possible.  But this needs lots of communication 
and cooperation in the network, which probably requires more outreach work 
than a hierarchical organization, not less.

I don't think your radical decentralization model is a way to realize a 
"fluid organic network" on the basis of the imc unity principles in a world 
where we have such vast inequalities.

Perhaps one way forward is to discuss things case by case:  finance, tech, 
support of global south imcs, new imc approval, etc....
And see which things can be really decentralized and which things need 
collective regional and/or global processes.

>so again, these are my thoughts on the matter. . .viva la diaspora . . .

Here is some more discussion of some of the above points:

Complete decentralization for the sake of freedom allows:
         - those who are less fortunate to be a little bit more ignored
         - forces of cooptation to divide and divert the energy of mutual aid
         - drifts in the local realizations of the imc mission to go in 
both strong reformist directions (to the detriment of imcs radical 
democratic mission) and in strong radical directions (that might harm the 
network of imcs in general in practical ways (through making state 
repression more likely).  What is the balance point in the middle -- a 
doable radicalism, hopfully is over on the radical end of the spectrum but 
in practice will have to evolve over time.  If the Patriot II/follow up act 
is passed, this will impact the 40 or so imcs in the usa significantly.  It 
would be wise to strategize about this together.

If a media group wants to be autonomous to disaffiliate from the imc 
network or be loosely affiliated, there may be various ways to do that.

If a media group wants to be part of the indymedia network, the unity 
principles probably entail an ongoing dialog with the imc network about 
what doing grassroots democratic media means and growing ways for that 
together in various collectives.

So, I believe for a liberation project like indymedia to work today 
requires lots of communication and some decentralized but collective 
methods of planning and decision making (at regional and global levels for 
somethings.)

I favor decentralized or grassroots networking where as much is possible is 
done at local and regional levels but with recognition that some things 
need to be done as global *collective* processes.

However, in various regions and across the global various networks of imc 
locals could try very radically decentralized processes....
But, at a certain point, there might be divergent networks....  in terms of 
interpretations of the imc principles of unity...
Hopefully for few years we will all work together to fashion flexible 
networking processes that are decentralized and that allow some joint 
collective work.

Viva both the shared and collective liberation of all humanity from all 
oppressions and viva the many differences we have and share with each other.

Love,
Doug
a Chicago imc participant


>deva
>a portland imc contributor