[CIMC-work] paid labor/IMC

Thu Jun 24 09:40:32 PDT 2004

I think the idealist stance on these issues is that Indymedia organizes
itself in a anticapitalist or non-capitalist fashion, which means the
creation of structures and group processes which rely on different
mechanisms of action other than profit motive or the invisible hand. 
Cooperation, collectivism, grassroots organizing, anarchism as examples.

>From a pragmatic point of view, our mental environment is inundated with
capitalistic paradigms and it is always a bit of a leap for the average
person to behave more progressively.  The other purpose, in my opinion, of
progressive movements like Indymedia, is to build bridges between where
our culture is and where we would like it to go.

My position would be that therefore we should always have some discomfort
around monetary issues and be looking forward to how we can move things
along more progressively, framing it in terms of moving forwards towards
more idealistic goals.

paz,
t
y

ChrisGeovanis at aol.com said:
> We should rally in on this discussion on global -- and from the position
> that
> people are volunteers, and do not get paid for their labor for IMC. One
> thing
> that really struck me about Chris Anderson's 'hypothetical' is the
> implicit
> assumption that the collective would crash and burn if this 'volunteer'
> took a
> paying gig rather than continued to volunteer for this collective. I'm all
> for
> paying workers -- actually, I'm all for abolishing wage slavery
> altogether,
> but in the interim I'll settle for living wages for the rest of us -- but
> the
> metamessage in Anderson's pitch undercuts Indymedia's core foundations of
> voluntary labor for a revolutionary project and in fact imposes a sort of
> heirarchy
> of importance of particular people to a particular IMC project. I mean, if
> this hypothetical IMC collective would collapse if this one volunteer took
> on a
> full-time job, then that's not a very healthy collective, it's more like a
> one-person project.
>
> We should, instead, be seeking to broaden the volunteer base and the skill
> set of people connected with indymedia, so if somebody drops out to take a
> job,
> gets hit by a truck, or gets collared by the feds, there are ten people
> who
> can step in to fill her shoes.
>
> That said, I'm not opposed to volunteers being compensated for expenses,
> but
> even in this situation decisions must be made collectively and with a mind
> to
> ensuring that it is the collective AND ITS LARGER CONSTITUENCY that
> benefits
> from said reimbursement. So, for example, I would support compensating
> individuals in an IMC video collective for expenses for tapes or burnable
> dvd disks;
> naturally, the collective should have a discussion about how those dvds
> are
> going to be distributed. But I would not support compensating an
> individual for
> an upgrade to her computer unless that computer was going to be available
> to
> collective members and their consituents. I would support subsidizing
> travel
> expenses for one or more collective members to a particular action, if
> that
> discussion had been held within the larger collective and the collective
> had
> consensed on the subsidy -- AND the traveler was making a commitment to
> produce
> something for the collective in terms of coverage or tactical assistance
> on the
> ground.
>
> See where I'm going here? People's thoughts?
>
> christine
>
> In a message dated 6/22/2004 2:39:34 AM Central Standard Time,
> garthliebhaber at care2.com writes:
> makes me think about the utility of our office...
>
>
> ---- Begin Included Message ----
>
> From: hep <hep at linefeed.org>
> Sent: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:47:04 -0700
> To: imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> Subject: Re: [imc-us-process] Definition of nonprofit, not-
> for profit
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Folks!
>
> I just wanna weigh in here with my opinion on this matter
> of need vs. pay, etc.
>
> I think this sort of scenario that Chris came up with, while
> in the best of intentions, is one that is far too easy to
> subvert.
> Because what really defines poor? I have a lot of friends
> who are jobless, they have no income and live very hand
> to mouth, yet
> they have extensive trust funds that they choose not to
> use, or rich parents who would be willing to help them if
> they wanted
> it. While there are others who have a job making decent
> wages, but since they have kids they really have no extra
> money at all
> and pretty much live paycheck to paycheck. Who in this
> case is the more needy? Who in this case has "more"? It's
> the same logic
> that the welfare to work program tried to use. The
> misperception that the person who has a job is less poor
> than the person who
> doesn't is a bad place to start. I can see this system
> ending up with abuse pretty easily. In Chris's scenario,
> while I would be
> sad to lose that IMC asset, I would suggest they go forth
> with the job, and hope that something else came a long.
> You never know
> what benefit might come from it in the long run, who is to
> say that company that they go work for doesn't find out
> about IMC
> from that person and want to donate old computer
> equipment? or something like that?
>
> In regards to the FSTV issue:
>
> Sooo, here is my opinion. Why don't we draft our own
> reverse proposal to them, and include all such ideas as
> "providing gas
> money" and "providing sleeping arrangements" etc. And
> have people from each IMC that wants to participate to
> sign on as liason
> to organize that part of the trip? Write it all up and send it
> back to the FSTV people? Instead of arguing about it for
> months
> on a list :)
>
> As for the "should people get paid for IMC work" issue, my
> personal opinion is no. I think a lot of activists can get too
> wrapped up in the activist "scene" and forget the very
> people they are trying to help. Instead of paying people
> for IMC work,
> instead devote those funds to more outreach in the
> community. A lot of times I see people starting new
> projects (for me it's
> probably different since I live in the most left city in the
> US, san francisco) in the activist scene and it disturbs me
> because
> it appears to me that they do it for their own benefit and
> ego stroking and have lost sight of actually helping the
> poor and
> oppressed. You get locked into the "activist ghetto" and
> forget about the very real ghettos out there. For instance,
> here in the
> bay area, some friends just put a lot of money into
> making a leftist newspaper. To me, this is insanity, there
> are about
> 23728974897398743 leftist newspapers here, last night
> at the local video store I grabbed a copy of *5* different
> ones. How much
> better could that money have been used to go into local
> highschools and run an afterschool program to teach
> journalism to kids
> in the poorer neighborhoods whose schools have little to
> no funding for such things? Or to outfit a mobile
> computer lab for the
> same thing to teach kids html and other computer skills?
>
> So I think there are many issues here, but the most
> important is "will this help the larger community need"?
> This FSTV thing
> could be a disaster, I really haven't studied enough about
> it, but it could also start an important dialogue on helping
> the
> community and building new relationships for activism.
> Has anyone brought up these concerns with the FSTV
> people and proposed
> solid alternatives yet?
>
> -hep
> sfimc
>
> deva <drdartist at riseup.net> said:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> This is a good question, and will hopefully lead to
> important
>> discussions of sustainability and use of resources.
>>
>> Why does that volunteer "need" more money than they
> currently have?
>> Most people in the world would consider that cold water
> apartment to be
>> a luxury.
>>
>> Let's examine our ideas of what we need. We need a
> place to sleep,
>> food, clothing, fulfilling work, and friends/
> companionship/community.
>>
>> We can live fulfilling lives living in mud huts without
> running water
>> at all. It is important to challenge the sense of
> entitlement of the
>> western industrial mindset. It is not a suffering to live
> without hot
>> running water. That person may be tired of a cold water
> apartment
>> because society looks down on you for it. Maybe you
> feel
>> 'unsuccessful'. Maybe you feel poor and thus unworthy.
> It is important
>> to challenge the social pressures that lead us to
> 'needing' more,
>> consuming more
>>
>> Do you think the world can sustain 6 billion people
> having apartments
>> with hot water, a car, a tv, and so on? Here in this
> country in
>> particular, we need to develop the ethic of voluntary
> simplicity.
>> Apartments can be shared, rooms can be shared, food
> can be grown,
>> purchased in bulk, clothes can all be obtained from
> Goodwill stores and
>> the like. I have lived the past 3 years on an approximate
> total of
>> $12,000. I feel like I have lived very well. Now rent here
> in Portland
>> is cheaper than in NYC, but so are wages. Still it is
> easier here, but
>> nevertheless, the concepts remain the same.
>>
>> To live simply, is a beautiful life, not some sort of
> suffering.
>>
>> Our society is at a critical point. We are damaging our
> environment at
>> an alarming rate. It is making us sick. We have polluted
> our minds and
>> our bodies. Our social fabric is crumbling and we are
> overwhelmingly
>> dependent upon a resource (oil) which is running out.
> We are in
>> trouble.
>>
>> We are at a point where it is essential that we sacrifice
> things we
>> want in order to be able to devote ourselves to saving
> our collective
>> asses. We have made our bed, and now it is a time of
> hard choices. The
>> beauty of life though, is that in self sacrifice, we
> discover who we
>> are and what we really need, and learn that the things
> we have been
>> taught to desire often do not really feed us.
>>
>> In a day to day practical sense, I would say to that
> person, come on
>> over and have a hot shower sometimes. I would say hey,
> I got a flat
>> roof, lets plant some food and we can save money and
> develop the idea
>> of urban sustainability at the same time. We can take
> some photos, and
>> turn it into a kickass indymedia story. We turn our
> 'poorness',
>> something the society condemns, into something to be
> proud of by living
>> it well. In doing so, we also, through our action, reveal
> that money
>> and healthy, creative, aesthetic living are not
> synonymous.
>>
>> regards,
>> deva
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:
>>
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > There's been a lot of general discussion about
>> > indymedia, non-profits, and "paying" people for
>> > indymedia work. I think a lot of this discussion is
>> > different (in some ways) from the questions about the
>> > specific newsreal grant, and i hope we continue to
>> > address questions about that grant on this list, like
>> > i wrote earlier. But that said ...
>> >
>> > I have a hypothetical situation for folks, especially
>> > those who have expressed distaste or disgust at the
>> > idea of paying anyone anything for indymedia work.
>> > This isn't meant to be a slam on people who have that
>> > opinion, but i'd like to move from general points to a
>> > concrete (though hypothetical) "reality."
>> >
>> > Hypothetical: An Indymedia volunteer,
>> > socio-economically a member of the "working poor"
> has
>> > been working with an indymedia project for a few
>> > years. That volunteer has helped the project become
>> > really successful and is one of the key members of
> the
>> > collective. that volunteer does at least "full-time"
>> > work for indymedia, if not more.
>> >
>> > One day, that volunteer hears that s/he will be able
>> > to get a full time job which will raise his / her
>> > income level signifigantly. The volunteer is tired of
>> > living in a cold-water apartment, and might want to
>> > settle down. At the same time, that volunteer knows
>> > that taking the job would mean leaving indymedia.
> she
>> > / he cant imagine doing that, but really needs at
>> > least a little more $$ than he / she is making now.
>> >
>> > the volunteer, who is helping also indymedia raise a
>> > little money, tells the imc that if she / he can get a
>> > small living stipend from the imc, he / she can stay
>> > with indymedia and not take the other job. the
>> > volunteer devoted an immense ammount of labor to
>> > indymedia, and leaving the project would probably
> set
>> > the project back months, if not years.
>> >
>> > OK, so this is YOUR indymedia project. What would
> you
>> > do? Please take this query in the spirit its meant,
>> > ie, one of genuine curiosity and respect; its not one
>> > sent out to piss people off.
>> >
>> > all the best,
>> > chris
>> > nyc-imc
>> >
>> > --- Lisa <imc_dc at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> hi everyone,
>> >>
>> >> i'm not sure where this discussion is going.... but
>> >> as
>> >> i understand it, i don't think the indymedia charter
>> >> outlines that indymedia should be a "nonprofit" as
>> >> in
>> >> the legal definition, i believe the charter was
>> >> meant
>> >> to say that no one should profit off of indymedia.
>> >> those are two very different things.
>> >>
>> >> i would also like to point out.. . that official
>> >> nonprofits are not supposed to have their members
> or
>> >> staff profit off the work of the org, however in
>> >> reality there are many nonprofit orgs that have ED's
>> >> etc that have exorbitant salaries and a hierarchical
>> >> structure of pay that may or may not be just. also,
>> >> at
>> >> least in california, the way nonprofits have to be
>> >> set
>> >> up, means that the workers (the staff) do not have
>> >> control over the org, the board has the final
>> >> control
>> >> and final say over all issues, including hiring,
>> >> firing, and pay rates. there are reasons why this is
>> >> the case, the point being so that the workers aren't
>> >> able to profit off the nonprofit... however, many
>> >> times the board will exist as an entity that has no
>> >> real connection to the work of the organization and
>> >> yet can wield a lot of power. my personal opinion,
>> >> is
>> >> that it is close to impossible to set up a really
>> >> equitable, democratic, worker-controlled nonprofit
>> >> in
>> >> the legal sense.
>> >>
>> >> lisa
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --- Ana Nogueira <ana at democracynow.org>
> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> In brief, nonprofit or not-for-profit means that
>> >> any
>> >>> income that is
>> >>> generated goes to operating costs, which includes
>> >>> everything from rent to
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> __________________________________
>> >> Do you Yahoo!?
>> >> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB
> messages!
>> >> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> imc-us-process mailing list
>> >> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
>> >>
>> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-
> process
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________
>> > Do you Yahoo!?
>> > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
>> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > imc-us-process mailing list
>> > imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
>> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-
> process
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> imc-us-process mailing list
>> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-
> process
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> imc-us-process mailing list
> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-
> process
>
>
> ---- End Included Message ----
>
>
> Good People. Great Causes. Get Connected on Care2 Connect:
> http://www.care2.com/go/z/C2Connect
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>

-- 
"The Day After Tomorrow" is rated Pg-13. Millions of people die, but
nobody swears, copulates, undresses or takes drugs.