[matilda] Re: non-profit

[gavin at cyber-rights.net]

>Actually I don't think it helps...
>
>For example, Sheffield Indymedia organises a party at
>Matilda and this makes a grand in profit -- how is this a
>non-profit?

Yes, it raises money, but that money isn't 'profit,' because 
indymedia is also a non-profit organisation. The money is used to 
cover indymedia's costs for running, not to pay people in indymedia 
a wage.

So, at this point we pull out a dictionary and search under 'P.'

If you want to call the money made over costs at the event 
'profit,' then that's okay conversationally, but we know that isn't 
the same as when capitalists use the term 'profit.' When 
capitalists use the term, they mean money they keep after costs. 
With the example of the indymedia party, as with other things, we 
don't keep any money after costs (or if we do, it's only saved for 
costs in the future). What you call 'profit' in a conversational 
sense here is passed on to cover other costs. There is no profit.

I still think it's clear. People generally know what a non-profit 
organisation is. Of course every term has vagaries which we can 
pick over endlessly, but I think it's fair to say that it is a more 
common and popular term than 'non-commerical activity.' It's also 
the one other organisations like ourselves have chosen to make 
themselves understood by people.



Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net