What is it with Indymedia?

[In Bloom]

Indymedia is not run on on the basis of equal participation. At its best it is as one of its Irish editors describes it "a dictatorship of the doers". More often its a kind of oligarchy. As far as I'm aware, in the UK IMC for instance there is an editorial collective which makes the decisions which are then imposed on the wider group of users. That's both a hierarchy and a use of authority, which by the way is just fine by me because unlike many anarchists I don't use those terms as swear words.

My understanding is that the decisions about IMC policies are made by local groups. I know that anybody can go to the Liverpool IMC's meetings, anyway, dunno what it's like elsewhere.

 

[laptop]

Indymedia is not run on on the basis of equal participation. At its best it is as one of its Irish editors describes it "a dictatorship of the doers".

But the quote is a cynical (and accurate) meditation on the meaning of participation.

Even if your definition of "democracy" is as little as voting for an MP/General Secretary/Central Committee slate every now and then, that's "a dictatorship of the doers" in the sense that there is no "equal participation" for those who can't be arsed to vote.

 

[editor]

Would I be reasonable to expect the SWP to put an article by me slagging off an anti-war demo on their site?

Well, we've let people post up endless criticisms of urban75, the mod team, the admin style, the posting rules, the colour scheme, the layout and, quite probably, the colour of my socks.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Even if your definition of "democracy" is as little as voting for an MP/General Secretary/Central Committee slate every now and then, that's "a dictatorship of the doers" in the sense that there is no "equal participation" for those who can't be arsed to vote.

I've no problem accepting that. And while I'm sceptical of In Bloom's description of the UK IMC's workings, even taking both points at face value makes no difference to my argument.

Indymedia UK has a hierarchy - active editors, list participants, ordinary users, to give just three of the more obvious concentric circles. It also involves the use of authority, where with whatever level of mandate, some people decide on rules and then enforce them over users. As I said I've no problem with any of that, although I think Indymedia UK's editorial teams use of its authority is pretty fucking daft. The only problem here is a conceptual one for (some) anarchists, who regard hierarchy and authority as inherently bad things.

It is in my experience quite a common trait amongst anarchists. Start by defining certain things as bad (authority, leadership, state, hierarchy). Then in a more or less skillful manner move the definition so that authority anarchists approve of becomes not-authority, hierarchy anarchists approve of becomes not-hierarchy. And words become meaningless except as swear words or political insults.

 

[smokedout]

ive had couple of posts hidden, if you contact them on the list (link/e-mail somewhere on the website) you can talk to them about it and ask why

in my case they relented both times

 

[In Bloom]

Well, we've let people post up endless criticisms of urban75, the mod team, the admin style, the posting rules, the colour scheme, the layout and, quite probably, the colour of my socks.

There's a wee bit of a difference between a discussion board and a website that's specifically for political organisation, though.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

A lot of it's about whether or not they happen to agree with what that group are doing and the way it's organised, not saying that there isn't an element of sectarianism there, but compared to the sectarianism of the SWP (who, for all their protestations do control the STWC) it's nothing.

I don't think this is true - not in terms of practice and certainly not in terms of tone. I don't think most "anti-authoritarians" appreciate for a moment how intolerant they are in responding to the organised left, how much what they do is basically screaming at them. I've spent a lot of time around political activists and believe me, one of the things that really startled me about coming on to this site, for instance, was the grotesquely hostile tone of people calling themselves anti-authoritarians towards STW. They also shared with the worst of sectarians the complete inability to see anything good or constructive in anything organised by people they considered their political opponents. Genuinely horrible. Fortunately many of the people most responsible are no longer here, but it's some of the most intolerant stuff I've ever come across. The idea of the people involved ever having any power or influence genuinely horrifies me.

What you say about the activist ghetto is of course true. And the ghetto's where they've put themselves. If it's not like them, they can't understand it or work with it. That's true regardless of the faults of anybody else.

Not advertising STW events is the sort of bizarre sectarian stupidity I associate with people like the old WRP.

This is simply brain dead. Donna knows perfectly well that anti-authoritarian does not mean 'no rules' and enforcing particular editorial guidelines is absolutely nothing to do with authoritarianism one way or the other. Donna, you've been debating anarchists for years on this site (or more accurately occasionally sneering in their direction) yet you seem to have failed to understand the most basic concepts that they hold and repeatedly come out with similar childish sneers which only serve to illustrate your inability to compare your ridiculous prejudices with reality.

This paragraph appears to consist largely of irrlevance and abuse and I can't actually work out what it's trying to say. I shall therefore neglect it.

Anti-authoritarian refers to an approach to organising where all members have an equal say. Thus, for example, all members of indymedia uk have an equal say in policy decisions and, furthermore, anybody who agrees with their principles can join. That's what makes it anti-authoritarian, not the fact that they have rules which preclude them publishing material from groups which are inimical to their goals (fascists, trots, tories, etc).

Actually, I reckon most people would think there was a bit more to "anti-authoritarian" than that. Like being a bit lighter on the old intolerance, you know.

 

[Zaskar]

There's a wee bit of a difference between a discussion board and a website that's specifically for political organisation, though.

Yes, but they are not clear about this. They tout themselves as a news resource and claim to be uncensored and 'open'. Clearly this is not the case and a tad naughty.

 

[In Bloom]

I've no problem accepting that. And while I'm sceptical of In Bloom's description of the UK IMC's workings, even taking both points at face value makes no difference to my argument.

Indymedia UK has a hierarchy - active editors, list participants, ordinary users, to give just three of the more obvious concentric circles. It also involves the use of authority, where with whatever level of mandate, some people decide on rules and then enforce them over users. As I said I've no problem with any of that, although I think Indymedia UK's editorial teams use of its authority is pretty fucking daft. The only problem here is a conceptual one for (some) anarchists, who regard hierarchy and authority as inherently bad things.

It is in my experience quite a common trait amongst anarchists. Start by defining certain things as bad (authority, leadership, state, hierarchy). Then in a more or less skillful manner move the definition so that authority anarchists approve of becomes not-authority, hierarchy anarchists approve of becomes not-hierarchy. And words become meaningless except as swear words or political insults.

There's no differential power relationship, which is the defining characteristic of a hierarchy, people can choose to participate in their local IMC as much or as little as they like.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

people can choose to participate in their local IMC as much or as little as they like.

And people can choose to participate in the SWP as much or as little as they like.

As for their being no "differential power relationship", you are I presume aware that some people are editors with access to editorial powers? And some people don't have those powers but do have the time, knowledge and interest to be on the various lists so they have some idea of how things work? And that some people don't have any of that?

Yes moving between the groups is to some extent voluntary, but only to some extent. And even if it was entirely voluntary and everyone had equal opportunity to move between groups (which is never the case) then there would still be a hierarchy at any given time! The most your argument amounts to, even taking it at its height and conceding to you every factual claim which I in fact doubt, the most than can be said is that there is a fluid hierarchy. And none of what you are arguing has any relevance at all to the question of the use of authority!

You end up tying yourself in knots in order to argue that a hierarchy is not a hierarchy because its a hierarchy you approve of. And for many anarchists the evil of "hierarchy" is an article of faith rather than a matter of logic.

 

[editor]

There's a wee bit of a difference between a discussion board and a website that's specifically for political organisation, though.

Principles are fundamentally the same, IMO.

Much as I like Indymedia, this 'no censorship' line is transparently bollocks.

'Moving' a post off the front page is a form of censorship, no matter what they like to call it.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

There's an additional point to ponder: I wonder if anti-authoritarians/anarchists aren't used to taking the decisions themselves, whether individually or, collectively, in the small groups in which they operate. However, when movements are large, or not of their making, they are no longer in that position: they find it difficult to be in a position where they are not in control.

 

[In Bloom]

And people can choose to participate in the SWP as much or as little as they like.

As for their being no "differential power relationship", you are I presume aware that some people are editors with access to editorial powers? And some people don't have those powers but do have the time, knowledge and interest to be on the various lists so they have some idea of how things work? And that some people don't have any of that?

Yes moving between the groups is to some extent voluntary, but only to some extent. And even if it was entirely voluntary and everyone had equal opportunity to move between groups (which is never the case) then there would still be a hierarchy at any given time! The most your argument amounts to, even taking it at its height and conceding to you every factual claim which I in fact doubt, the most than can be said is that there is a fluid hierarchy. And none of what you are arguing has any relevance at all to the question of the use of authority!

You end up tying yourself in knots in order to argue that a hierarchy is not a hierarchy because its a hierarchy you approve of. And for many anarchists the evil of "hierarchy" is an article of faith rather than a matter of logic.

A hierarchy is a differential power relationship, if anybody can be an editor then nobody holds power over anybody else, where's the hierarchy?

 

[lostexpectation]

complaint system

ya reckon mutley having be so concerned about it to post a thread here would have checked the mailing list and reason listed for removal first before posting here,

there is a prob with things that get complained about versus what some editor happens to come across and with the worldwide spam and rubbish that gets put up there (twilight etc) its seems unfair that swp stuff gets removed but it get noticed more specificaly because its the swp

 

[In Bloom]

Principles are fundamentally the same, IMO.

Much as I like Indymedia, this 'no censorship' line is transparently bollocks.

'Moving' a post off the front page is a form of censorship, no matter what they like to call it.

I've never seen UK IMC claim that they have a policy of absolute freedom of speech.

On their front page:

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

The SWP is not a grassroots organisation, nor is the STWC, they are organised by paid full timers and run from the top down.

 

[In Bloom]

Come to that, there's nothing about censorship in their mission statement either.

 

[gurrier]

And people can choose to participate in the SWP as much or as little as they like.

This week I'll be national organiser - oh you have a problem with that mr Calinicos?

As for their being no "differential power relationship", you are I presume aware that some people are editors with access to editorial powers? And some people don't have those powers but do have the time, knowledge and interest to be on the various lists so they have some idea of how things work? And that some people don't have any of that?

Yes - more power to the people with no interest or time in the project - that'll be helpful and is nothing at all like a straw man.

You end up tying yourself in knots in order to argue that a hierarchy is not a hierarchy because its a hierarchy you approve of. And for many anarchists the evil of "hierarchy" is an article of faith rather than a matter of logic.

Anarchists attempt to organise in ways that emphasise direct democracy and are based on an equal say in decisions by the voluntary members of the group. That's what is meant by non-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian organising. By contrast most forms of organisation depend upon having a formal leadership which has a large amount of executive power with respect to the organisation. The key difference being that in a direct democratic (non-hierarchical / anti-authoritarian) organisation the membership directly decide what the organisation's policy will be and how it will be carried out, while in hierarchical organisations the membership effectively abrogates the responsibility of decision making to a small group of leaders who have the right to make decisions about things which the membership has not dictated to them.

The fact that some people will be listened to more since they make more sense or that they have put in more time is neither here nor there. Even on the wilder fringes of anarchism it's probably impossible to find anybody who argues that people who talk rubbish should be listened to as much as people who talk sense or that commitment should be punished. Claims that these things are what is meant by 'anti-authoritarian' are just willfully ignorant.

 

[Zaskar]

Come to that, there's nothing about censorship in their mission statement either.

Yep, got me there. They do however say they are an open news source. This is a lie as they shamelessly delete and promote on the basis of agreement to the current leftist dogmas. This is done wothut clarity or honesty on the part of those who are in control.

 

[In Bloom]

This week I'll be national organiser - oh you have a problem with that mr Calinicos?

 

[In Bloom]

Yep, got me there. They do however say they are an open news source. This is a lie as they shamelessly delete and promote on the basis of agreement to the current leftist dogmas. This is done wothut clarity or honesty on the part of those who are in control.

I think it's made pretty explicit that they are there to promote a particular point of view. Personally, I think there are a lot of problems with the Indymedia project, but the criticisms made on this thread simply aren't accurate.

 

[Zaskar]

'read it, write it, your site, your news'

Is the mantra of one local im. This is clearly dishonest I think. It appears to promote the site as something it clearly isnt.

 

[In Bloom]

'read it, write it, your site, your news'

Is the mantra of one local im. This is clearly dishonest I think. It appears to promote the site as something it clearly isnt.

This is all about your pathetic little spat with Bristol Indymedia, isn't it?

You sad cunt

 

[laptop]

This is all about your pathetic little spat with Bristol Indymedia, isn't it?

Bingo.

* Shops zaskar to British Transport Police *

 

[editor]

Come to that, there's nothing about censorship in their mission statement either.

I was on a Resonance radio show with a Indymedia spokesperson who clearly said that they had a no censorship policy.

I asked him about it after and was a little less than impressed when he explained their policy of moving things off the front page.

Dunno if they've still got the tapes or if anyone is interested enough to look, but it must have been a good five years ago, and we were both in the Tin Pan Alley studios. So the claimwas defintiely made!

If they've changed their policy now, that's fair enough. I wouldn't blame them if they did (I certainly did not long after v1 of these boards).

 

[editor]

Here's a weird thing... click the 'to be continued' link at the bottom of the Indymedia 'about us' page - http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/about_us.html - and you go The World Association for Christian Communication Mission site!

 

[laptop]

If they've changed their policy now, that's fair enough.

There have certainly been changes in operational policy.

Five years ago indymedias were having huge debates worldwide - with, as I remember it, the US contingent taking a more absolutist position. So of course the response would have been unsatisfying - the debates were so complkicated and intense that people found it hard to describe them to those not involved.

As for the principle, I come back to my first ever contribution to online discussion. 20 years ago this week. I found a journalists' discussion board on Compuserve. And asked: "Why is stupid and lying speech protected [under the First Amendment]?"

I still think it's a valid question.

 

[In Bloom]

Here's a weird thing... click the 'to be continued' link at the bottom of the Indymedia 'about us' page - http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/about_us.html - and you go The World Association for Christian Communication Mission site!

Now that is extremely odd

On the free speach thing on Indymedia, I know a few Indymedia sites attempted a total free speach thing and it's a fucking disaster (it's anarchy, I tells ya ), afaik, very few IMCs operate on an absolute "no censorship" policy anymore.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

A hierarchy is a differential power relationship, if anybody can be an editor then nobody holds power over anybody else, where's the hierarchy?

The first answer is of course that in fact not anybody can be an editor. But even glossing over that, even giving you the benefit of every conceivable factual doubt, at any one time some people are the editors and some people are not editors. One person has the additional powers and the other person does not - hence a hierarchy factually exists. This is pretty straightforward stuff surely?

Yes - more power to the people with no interest or time in the project - that'll be helpful and is nothing at all like a straw man.

You have completely missed the point I was making here, gurrier. I am most certainly not arguing that all indymedia users should be equal, those with a real interest in the project, those who are actively hostile and everyone in between. Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that all users are not in fact equal and that this is in practice a good thing. There is a hierarchy involved in Indymedia, it works and ending it certainly wouldn't be "helpful".

The difference between me and In Bloom, is that I acknowledge that there is inequality and hierarchy and authority in the Indymedia set up and have no problem with it, while In Bloom refuses to acknowledge the hierarchy that's as plain as the nose on his face because of a rather ill-thought out anarchist prejudice. He approves of the way Indymedia is run, therefore it cannot be a hierarchical system. As for your later digression on what anarchists mean by non-hierarchical, if you are saying that in fact "non-hierarchical" mean hierarchical but in a different more fluid way, then you simply illustrate my point about anarchist misuse of language.

 

[In Bloom]

The first answer is of course that in fact not anybody can be an editor. But even glossing over that, even giving you the benefit of every conceivable factual doubt, at any one time some people are the editors and some people are not editors. One person has the additional powers and the other person does not - hence a hierarchy factually exists. This is pretty straightforward stuff surely?

AFAIK, anybody who goes to the meetings and doesn't abuse it can be an editor, where is the power differential there? I'm not saying there aren't problems with the way Indymedia works (particularly in terms of accountability), but it's not the way you make out at all.

 

[William of Walworth]

Personally, I think there are a lot of problems with the Indymedia project, but the criticisms made on this thread simply aren't accurate.

The most accurate criticism was one made, as far as I could see from this thread, only in passing by one poster (Nigel Irritable).

That is Indymedia's tendancy to indulge conspiracy theories and confuse those with being anti-establishment.

I speak as only an occasional visitor to indymedia, but the CT-ist bollocks was very noticeable when I was last there