[matilda] RE: Re[2]: Matilda's non-commercial use clause

[dan at aktivix.org]

Allo Joe

> There are many people within Matilda who have chosen not to work,
> including Steve. This is a conscious decision and one I share. But I put 
> time
> into Matilda working in the Cafe because I choose to do that, and I do not
> ask for a wage. I am equally as poor, but I would never ask the Cafe to
> supplement my benefit because I choose give time there.

Now, I did hear some time back that one key member of the cafe collective *was*
taking some wages for themselves from the profit.  Was that not true?

I also always took money back from the cafe for food I bought, so got my costs
covered.

> We can do that OUTSIDE Matilda. We're all "strapped for cash", but we
> should find other ways to ensure our subsistence. If we have the idea's
> and the will power, then we have no excuse.

Will power? Eh?

Plus: you don't have any kids to look after.  
 
> If we go down this road of allowing commercial gain to happen within
> the space, then what are we?

What - you're either with us or your with the neoliberals?  This is a bit black
and white, ain't it? I guess you could say that it *is* a black and white
issue... 

Personally, I don't think it's much of a line in the sand. Neoliberals set up
export processing zones, backed by the World Bank, and squeeze the poorest for
all they're worth.  Selling a few paintings (if the artist is lucky) is most
definitely not a slippery slope to worker abuse, I don't think.  It may,
perhaps, get one or two extra presents for Xmas for the kids, but that's about
it.

Cor - it's a classic liberal dilemma! What collective rules do we need to be
allowed to be autonomous?

And while we're on it, on what basis do you justify taking money from us
taxpayers to fund your moral purity? I don't remember agreeing to pay any of my
wages into a 'fund the anarchists' bursary scheme...?

Can we get consensus on whether us tax-payers should be paying for you, Joe?

My point is, you choose to raise your money that way (and I presume you don't
say the same things you have here at your jobseeker's interviews!) -  and I
understand why.  But it really, *really* ain't any position to be slinging mud
from.  

If someone else decides to raise a bit of cash from selling their work, good!
You've decided to raise it by lying to the state / indirectly taking money from
the rest of the UK.  Each to their own, live and let live.  Neither is going to
be getting rich.

And at least the people who part with their money for paintings do it
voluntarily! The people of Britain have to give it to you by force of law.

So it turns out, by taking state money, you're actually helping to underpin the
perpetuation of the state. Oh, the sweet irony...

love

Dan