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

[Joe Morris]

a) I'm not aware of anyone recieveing wages
b) i have nothing against recouping costs
c) read my emails next time. You seem to miss out
the fundamental part of argument.

Yes, Steve has five kids. So lets find another way to support him
than saying "sell your labour."



=====================

"Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination"
- Oscar Wilde




----Original Message Follows----
From: dan at aktivix.org
To: matilda at lists.aktivix.org
Subject: [matilda] RE: Re[2]: Matilda's non-commercial use clause
Date: Wed,  9 Nov 2005 13:27:50 +0000

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
_______________________________________________
matilda mailing list
matilda at lists.aktivix.org
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here. 
http://messenger.msn.co.uk