[Imc-lwg-work] tension within indymedia

[jmp]

hi everyone,

i am just a fly on the wall, --i like to follow the process and organisation
of indymedia, i use it to get news about actions; and i monitor it to make
sense of the strengths, weaknesses, challenges and revolutionary aspects in
terms of social organisation.

Although i helped build the IMC in Genoa earlier this year, i have very
little practical experience with indymedia; and therefore i have not had
anything to contribute to this debate before. BUT, as the tensions seem to
be growing, in forward correlation with the number of people involved and
the progression of time, i thought i might say something.

so here goes...........

value conflict are positive and it is from such conflict that advance is
delivered. However, we all know that the theory is more workable in a
corporate setting where you get paid and where the framework is handed down
to you: you do not have to think much. Indymedia is different. But value
conflicts emerge, as they would in any other system or social organsiation
or community. So, what can indymedia do?

I think that real world meetings is a good idea (but it still leaves a
problem of geography, of course) - but whereas the corporate developers and
problem solvers are praised for their work, activists, whether media- or
street- activists, on the other hand are always under pressure. This is a
fact that makes the work much more tense, stressful and demanding.

Such problems are by no means new. The culture of the 60s with big
communities and the self-help groups movement of the 70s and various new age
idea communities that have evolved around the world have realised the
problems of tensions and the limitation on progress and advance for a
community, such as indymedia. One of the lessons learned over the last
century and particularly the last decades is that processes are helped by
facilitation (just like with acid). Meetings within indymedia, such as in
London, could perhaps benefit with someone who is an outsider, who can
facilitate the process to help the community (the meeting) across the
obstacles that value conflicts represent. (why should there not be a nice
volunteer from some London comunity facilitation agency ready to do this??)

This is of course just a suggestion to one part of the problems that
indymedia is facing. It is connected to another problem, that i think i have
noticed occassionally, namely a very dogmatic activist mindset. The new
motto: don't hate the media - be the media is a step forward, but the
resentment towards academics, for example, is very narrowminded. People are
people, and they should not be judged by the institution to which they
'belong' (Not even policemen!).

There is going to be a lot of academic focus on indymedia in the future, it
has only just started. Young and open-minded university students and
researchers will want to look at indymedia and social movements in
general, - and take that as a manifestation of the success of contemporary
global anti-capitalism.

Ambivalence is great - dogmatic negativity is not very conducive to a
productive environment. To dogmatically be against anything that is not
completely anarchic and outside of the system is not very helpful. To be
wary and critical in a constructive manner, to admit ambivalence is much
better, i think. To allow the value conflict to play out within oneself. To
respect both sides - else it is just like the system we oppose: one-tracked
and narrow-minded.

.....just a point of view.........


all the best,

martin - (an academic anarchist and indymedia user and admirer)





----- Original Message -----
From: "Planet Mail" <planet-mail@pop3.poptel.org.uk>
To: <tony@irational.org>; <imc-uk-features@lists.indymedia.org>
Cc: <imc-london-wg-work@lists.indymedia.org>;
<imc-uk-process@lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Imc-uk-features] URGENT word page proposal/finished article


>
> I'm sorry I think this is VERY SILLY and DESTRUCTIVE.
>
> You toni are saying that you and richard, and anyone who joins this
'imc-london-wg' has full autonomy to do whatever they like without reference
to the existing features list and how it has been working for months and
months on consensus.
>
> We have to work out how to work together without these battle lines being
drawn. You are on the attack challenging the existing people, it would be
more constructive to talk - like we did the other night which was really
good and thought provoking.
>
> But surely the approach here is going to take so much energy at a time
when repression is increasing everywhere, I am truly really very worried
about this.
>
> I have no objections whatsoever of reviewing things like 24hr rule and
making discussions and so on, but this approach you take, to say the group
of features lists people who have been running the whole site this year have
no say in what happens with the features, because you and richard do not
recognise our consensus decisions is just ludicrous. I mean it really is.
>
> The discussions and ideas of representation and for how things could be
better done are very important to have and I think you have loads of good
points and suggestions. I just think this approach you take is not
constructive and is actually disrespectful.
>
> More discussion, less confrontation.
>
> dave.
>
>
> At 16:18 18/12/2001 +0000, toni -- wrote:
>
> >i just did this.
> >
> >ana, 24hours is something that collective you are part of agreed on.
> >i do respect that. however, imc-london-wg that i'm part of works
> >different. not that i personaly think that 24hr rule is bad,
> >i think that it is highly impractical, which yes - i admit -
> >does not make it very good. maybe, if there was a larger team
> >working on features and they all head access to add content
> >themselves 24hr would make much more sense.
> >
> >in london-wg we believe in rough consensus and running code.
> >
> >this is now done, which equalls running code and i decided
> >to do it which is, since you complained, very rough consensus.
> >
> >back to text, hiro, in my opinion you missed a crucial point in your
intro
> >text which is that Chavez's government made a decision not to renew
> >50 year old contract with US to sell oil to them.
> >I was told this will happen by bloke i met on the party a year ago.
> >He is from Venezuela and praised Chavez policies highly.
> >If you want to add this to your text, or change anything else,
> >post it here and i will hopefuly put it up tomorrow.
> >
> >regards,
> >
> >toni
> >[imc-london-wg]
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Hiro Protagonist wrote:
> >
> >> can sombody put this into the world page (why wait24hours when the last
> >> article went in 26 nov) its not much but its somthing and its ready to
cut
> >> and paste stright in
> >> PLEASE CAN SOMEBODY PUT IT IN cause i cant do that stuff yet
> >> Andrew
> >>
>
>
> ============================
> Bypass the Corporate Media Machine
> www.indymedia.org.uk
> Don't Hate the Media - Be the Media!
> ============================
>
>
>