[Imc-finance] IMC West-Vlaanderen on Imc-Finance and TMF - english.

[. .:.:cburn:.:. .]

Greetings,

Since there isn't an officially designated Los Angeles liason at this
time, I will write as an individual from this local IMC.

I just want to echo what evan has written here. I have kept quiet
in regards to this issue and intend to write something more substantial.
But for now, I think what evan has articulated points to a real
difficulty in addressing these issues. Nothing about indymedia in
general is often black and white. There are contradictions that we are
constantly challenged by, and money is probably one of the biggest.

My understanding of 'no strings attached' means that money is to be
spent on our terms. period. Requesting that a donor choose an area of
the network to fund is still on our terms. I think that the spirit
of 'no strings' means that a donor cannot hold out a carrot in front
of indymedia demanding that we (for example):

1. adopt centralized decision making structures,
2. use the money for project X only, and not project Y,
3. become a 501c3 organization, etc.

And quickly, i just want to reject the notion that has been suggested on
this list, and elsewhere, of a distinction between "capitalist
funding sources" and "non-capitalist funding sources." I find that
distinction incredibly misleading and not based in political and
economic reality. The monies we are talking about taking are issued
from state governments and the accumulation of wealth that a donor
has to offer indymedia is based on a system of labor, profit,
markets, selling, buying, etc. (i.e. capitalist...i.e. exploitative).

To suggest that there is a distinction
between benign sources of money and malevolant sources is ludicrous.
Money itself is based upon a system of exploitation and to sugarcoat
its sources because we like a donor, or to attack one because
we don't, is not only dishonest, but a distraction to the real
issue; namely, that all forms of money are based upon a system of
exploitation. To suggest that money from Chumbawamba is somehow
different than Ford for example, is, in my opinion, wrong. Money
is a social relationship, and all money issued under the name of
a given state is an agreement to exploit the labor of workers.

If we are talking about taking currency issued from community
based labor markets (like Berkeley's BREAD), then we should be
distinguishing between exploitative based money systems and non-
exploitative based money systems. Since we are NOT talking about
this, I would like to suggest that we focus on the criteria for
donors to accept when giving money to indymedia.

In solidarity,
Chris
LA IMC







_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail