Mailtda's non-commercial use clause, was: Re: [matilda] crisisof consensus

[Joe Morris]

Steve>The thing with principles is that for them to mean anything they have
Steve>to be applied consistently to all cases. If they're not then they are
Steve>worthless.

I agree.

Steve>If Matilda were to agree to the above principle then we have to apply
Steve>it consistently. That means anything sold in Matilda where some of the
Steve>profits were used for private financial gain should also not be
Steve>allowed.

You have used the word "were" not "are". No one is objecting to Steve
making money buy selling his paintings.

Steve>The most obvious activity that should cease as a result of the above
Steve>principle has to be the selling of alcohol. Private profits go to: the
Steve>shop it was bought from, the distributer, and the manufacturer. In
Steve>fact a whole bunch of people from shop assistants to lorry drivers and
Steve>corporate directors profit (privately gain) from our selling of
Steve>alcohol.

No one has objected to Steve making a profit outside of Matilda. I would
argue that he doesn't have to, but that's not my place to say.

Buying alcohol does indeed make profits for the brewery etc (like buying
fuel for your car, or clothes to wear - it's capitalism), but the alcohol
bought is outside of Matilda and sold inside for the benefit of Matilda
or for some group etc.

This argument implies that I do not understand or accept that some
people need to sell their labour to survive. I do accept that, I understand
that Steve may need, or may want to sell his paintings, as much as I
disagree with that and in fact I disagree so much I work to end it. But that
argument cannot be asserted universally in daily life. It doesn't work, and
in the context of daily life I wouldn't ever preach to Steve about how he
can and cannot make money.

Like the brewery making a profit, I object to equally and at the same
time I am hopefully, by my political activity, trying to create a way to
destroy that relationship. Outside of Matilda the brewery makes a
profit, so does the worker, so does ME in my job and so does Steve
with his paintings.

But if a brewery came to Matilda and said "can we sell beer in your space"
then the answer would be no, the same if I came to Matilda and said,
can I have a wage for chopping veg. The same should apply to anyone
or anything, which desires to use Matilda as a space to create
profit.

Steve>Unlike the artists who might sell their work, some of those in the
Steve>alcohol chain are properly exploited in the Marxian sense. Surplus
Steve>value goes the owners of the means of production. So we could say that
Steve>the selling of alcohol is actually far worse than the selling of
Steve>locally produced art. Alcohol entails exploitation, art direct from
Steve>artists does not.

If Steve wants to sell his art and donate the money to Matilda or use
some of it to recoup his material costs and donate the rest to Matilda
then fine. That is how the parties work, how the Cafe is aiming
to work and how the gig space works. That is how the selling of booze
works.

Outside of Matilda the brewery makes profit, as would Steve if he sold
his paintings. Inside Matilda, the collectivity and desire for alternatives
means that we subvert those goods and those relationships and use
them to generate needed cash for the running of the space and
alternatives to those power relationships.

We can't control what goes on outside at the moment, but we can
control what happens within Matilda.

Steve>Therefore if the Art shop is stopped on the above principle we must
Steve>also stop the selling of alcohol too. The only source of alcohol
Steve>permissible would be that brewed by people who make no private
Steve>financial gain at all - though I admit finding such a source might be
Steve>tricky.

Within that logic Steve couldn't use paint and the Cafe couldn't buy food.
We live in a capitalist society. There is nothing we can do about that right 
now.
We just have to grin and bare it, or we can moderate our daily lives so that
participation within it is at a minimum.

But at the same time, we can subvert those goods we have to buy to create
something valuable and something different.

Let's sell Steve's art. Let's make a shop where artists could sell their 
art,
but let's sell it so that artists can recoup material costs and so that
Matilda can make some money. Let's fight the fact capitalism makes
us sell our labour and forces' us all to have these arguments by making
an alternative

Steve>Ideally we could make our own. But we don't live in an ideal world. I
Steve>like Tequila. I'd need an ethical source of cacti to start with. Maybe
Steve>the Zapatistas can send us some.

I would be up for making that a project if others wanted?

Joe

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/