http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-September/004310.htmlFinally, our decision-making process works fairly well through a passive consensus model. Ideas needing a decision are posted to the list with clear instructions to list participants to respond by a decision-deadline date. Assuming there are no outstanding issues at the time of the deadline, the proposal passes. We've tended to have at least a few days, and often a week or two for discussions.
any form of border control against people based on their "nationality" is simply racism
Most of the concerns are concerns about racism and nationalism. While people in the network trust individuals participating in the project, the problem is one of structure - if well-meaning individuals form a structure based on racism, it's difficult for them, as a group, to avoid unintended racist assumptions.
borders of "States" (in the sense of international law, the United Nations), are usually based on past and present violence, and especially among the rich countries, function to keep out people from poor countries.
the names of States function as symbols which are used by dependent media as powerful propaganda tools to distract people from thinking about social reality
Can national IMCs be temporarily compatible with rejection of racism?
many IMCs have started out as "national" sites, this is usually meant to be a temporary starting point until enough people are active for local collectives to become sustainable and autonomous.
this does not apply to the US, which chooses to group together already functioning IMCs according to a racist reality
obvious alternatives to national IMCs
city and regional IMCs on smaller and bigger scales than States, and deliberately crossing people-filtering national borders
the US, as it presently functions, is the biggest terrorist threat to world security, and any legitimation of its present way of functioning is collaboration with a criminal system
In particular, the controlled media in the USA (also in other States) constantly present information as if "Americans" (US nationals) have much higher moral value than other people. By syndicating reports from the US, the racist idea that people in Maine and California should care more for each other than for people 100km away in Eastern Canada or Mexico (respectively) is reinforced.
counterargument However, none of these seem really to require regionalisation according to the boundaries of the preexisting racist, violent structure known as the USA.
in order to oppose the present USA structures headon, a structure following the same geographic boundaries is most appropriate
counterargument - if you adopt the habits of an adversary, you're just going to end up the same, you're not providing an alternative
passive consensus - it's easy to follow old habits, while to make regional IMCs like NENA and a continental (North + Latin America) IMC would require a lot of communication work
Question - would the IMC US distract from cross-border regional IMCs or an America-wide continental IMC? Probably, "distract", yes, but "prevent", no.
this is not a complete list - anyone feel free to add more links
Some discussion threads (first email in thread):
these message numbers should be updated - look in http etc 2003-August/ -- BouD - 20 Oct 2004