Review Indymedia Conference February 2008 Sumac Centre Nottingham

The word “Revolution” evokes strong feelings and mighty concepts, a heady mix of nostalgia and heartfelt ideals, often stirringly depicted in songs, books and films. These in their turn dramatise the peculiar triumphs and tragedies we associate with Revolution’s cabal. Taken at its root the term “Revolution” means change, itself a heady concept in the right hands (or often excruciatingly banal when wielded by bureaucrats), and is a necessary function of any living organism, be that singular or collective. So when we chime for revolution, we chime for change.

But change is no free radical; it doesn’t just happen. It is a reaction to a cause, and is limited by the circumstances and forces which necessitate its occurrence. A pebble doesn’t roll without the intervention of some extraneous factor, be it wind, water, subsidence, diminishment, explosion, erosion, displacement, you name it, but it doesn’t just roll. There will always be some governing factor, whether you can explain it or otherwise. So we accept that the pebble does not just roll.

Instead it is susceptible to these otherwise influences, intentional or not, mitigated or facilitated, rational or actual, which cause the pebble to roll, the paradigm to shift, the change to occur, and the revolution to manifest. Bravely we might assert that these influences fall within the remit of “Process.”

When my friends and I attended the recent Indymedia conference in Nottingham, we came as novices, with open minds, a blank canvas, aware of the potential for our interface, but ignorant of the detail. We knew what we knew, a composite of our experience of direct action politics (and prejudices) plus received knowledge of the same, but we brought no agenda as such. We had come to learn, to possibly be inspired, to certainly expose our project to the sheer drive which characterises, as we assumed, the circles into which we were moving, the dynamic which is direct action. But nothing could have prepared us for the intensity and sheer splendour of what we witnessed, a “Process” so keenly adaptable and open as to be able to transcend seemingly un-navigable seas.

Perhaps I might mention that we attended in our capacity as a theatre company which works with issues relating to homelessness, ‘that we are motivated by a belief which unifies the limitless boundaries of artistic expression with the crushing parameters which dignify the chaos of our “subject” matter. So that our presence at the conference we felt was justified by our own quest for social justice, albeit at a smaller and more “local” level than some of the topics generally up for discussion. Although even this appraisal of our own preconception was perhaps slightly askew, as clearly the prevalence of positive (rather than reactive) local and community activism had shifted upwards of the agenda, even forming part of the now general principals which appeared to frame the debate.

So, there we were, and things got under way, dealing with the technical minutia (we were treated to a crash course in the jargon and history of Indymedia!) requisite to a web based news forum. I hesitate to attach even this definition, as definition of Indymedia is itself a rightly contentious issue, and is itself subject to a continual “Process” of internal change and “Revolution,” painstakingly arrived at through much critical reflection and ultimately via consensus. This “Process" enables a working model which all participants in the “Process” are content or as near to content with as to enable this “thing” or “entity” to function.

At a wholly subjective level, we were observing at least three separate languages simultaneously in play – the technical jargon; the dialogue of “Process,” itself symbolised by multiple hand signals, one of which referring specifically to “point of process;” and the political group dialectic, espousing as it does a philosophy of horizontal (consensus) decision making and ethical disdain for materialistic dogma. The combination of these refined languages, with the average 100% success rate in resolving issues was, frankly, mesmerising and mind blowing in equal measure. It was equivalent, in our theatrical terms, to the best spoken and interpreted Shakespearean dialogue you might choose to mention, breaking as it did like waves of inspiration, and once understood was almost irresistible. Thus in merely comprehending the “Process” at work, one could be forgiven one’s new found vigour in the dream of righting all wrongs, a dream which, in truth, was appropriate to these discussions.

But even thus equipped, informed, and exhilarated, one subject, one issue, seemed to risk fracture and discord which out-scaled all the other issues combined. Perhaps the most contentious subject, at least in the recent history of humankind, responsible as it is for multiple wars and atrocities against civilian targets, and which has come to dominate international discussion and policy, there is seemingly no escape from the toxic and implacable struggles which characterise the conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. To then juxtapose into this unholy brew arguably the worst evil ever perpetrated by human against human that was the NAZI Holocaust, and one can hopefully be forgiven the gut wrenching, terrifying sensations of utter despair which scattered and fragmented the assembly, not to mention the writer of this piece.

But this was the issue as crystallised by one piece of second hand News Wire (the medium whereby alternative news can be openly published by anyone, anywhere, provided that they abide by the Editorial Guidelines of IMC UK), a “re-post" (apparently), which sought to make just such a linkage. As though modern day antipathy towards certain aggressions by the Israeli State could somehow be used to justify the atrocities perpetrated by the NAZI abomination against European Jews; and this issue, new to us (in this context), had opened Pandora’s Box…

For myself, who, like many, feel morally bound to resurrect the horror of the thirties and forties of the Twentieth Century “lest we forget,” and so thus not to repeat, it is difficult to pass over this subject without “taking that stand.” This in part reflected the problem facing the Collective, as it did the solution. For there were those, chiefly the key participants to what had become, in part, an acrimonious argument (although the argument itself had never really happened) who needed to address the raw and emotive substance of the article in question and in relation to their own justifying principles of activism. And there were those whose commitment was to the “Process” whereby Indymedia functions as a “platform” to these kinds of discussions but which must not itself suffer as a result of those discussions.

The divisiveness of the issues and the contexts into which they had been painted by this one article (plus the ensuing tumult) had posed a seemingly impossible but all too familiar paradox – the right of one individual to freedom of speech, albeit potentially noxious, versus the right of the Collective to protect itself from destructive and disruptive “propaganda.” However, and this is where the “Process” shone forth, because of the very willingness of the Conference, despite the considerable upset which the argument had already accrued, to confront and resolve the issues, it soon became clear that far from suffering, Indymedia UK was in fact growing in stature and in humanity, and not a little genius. Now we saw “Process” juxtaposed as a formula to resolving these issues, and numerous spin off meetings and discussions, plus review of the “offending” article, helped to cement that process.

Whether or not the specifics relating to the offending article, along with the collateral damage typical of such ensuing exchanges, were actually resolved or healed prior to the Conference’s conclusion, I couldn’t say, although it seemed as though another “Process” had indeed been instituted. In truth the majority of attendees had little palate for such caustic issues, preferring, perhaps, the safer ground of GM crops and Free Burma. Certainly there was discussion where there had been none, and perhaps this might have the salving effect required. And equally the Collective would continue, having steered these treacherous waters with courage and self discipline.

And we came away charged up and clapping silently, eager to use the energy which fire generates in fire, to address through our own “Processes” the injustices perpetuated in the name of property and ownership, and the seeming perpetuation of a constant underclass. And for myself, the paradox – how do you resolve free speech against apparent evil?

One inspired individual, one of the more local minded attendees, put an answer to me, during one of those informal breaks, in words which boiled down to, “I tolerate that which tolerates me.”