[matilda] the PGA - my little bit

[R&A]

Perhaps the irony has not been caught by this reader, but for me, your 
paragraphs are a warning that for good reasons perhaps the PGA halmarks 
should not be adopted... they express fears that if they were adopted 
they might lead to unwanted results (yes?), so if i don't want to be led 
to a kind of stalinist dictatorship disguised as wooly-liberal, i should 
block their adoption indeed as a matter of principle;)


  2)There is a potential that they will be used to exclude/restrict/devalue
 > other peoples activities and these are activities that arent evil and
 > arent being carried out by state-infiltrators etc... but maybe arent as
 > political as people want them to be (e.g. art & music) or include trying
 > to persuade (lobby) certain NGOs or regeneration bodies etc...


 > 4)I dont think that the PGA halmarks are designed to be applied to
 > building and are better applied to direct action/affinity group.


Well, in your last paragraph (i mean number five 5) here down), you seem 
to state the opposite, i mean, i would have thought that NGOs or similar 
quango's would want us to adopt the PGA hallmarks for some reason... 
(even if they originally entail a "clear rejection of capitalism"...)[ o 
very tricky interpretations... ]

amp

> 
> My personal disagreements with the PGA halmarks are:
> 1)There is not a good enough reason to ratify them - the three reasons i
> have been given to adopt them so far are symbolism, symbolism and that
> they are a no sell-out clause (i realise that i have abbreviated and
> generalised on this but - sorry).
> 2)There is a potential that they will be used to exclude/restrict/devalue
> other peoples activities and these are activities that arent evil and
> arent being carried out by state-infiltrators etc... but maybe arent as
> political as people want them to be (e.g. art & music) or include trying
> to persuade (lobby) certain NGOs or regeneration bodies etc...
> 3)If the PGA halmarks are our statement to the world then i think the
> world (and therefore our attitude to it) is far too complex (mainly
> because we are such a diverse group of people) to be summed up in a matter
> of a few statements (maybe we could have the PGA as one of many
> guidelines/mission statements).
> 5)I think that this debate is a dishonest one because it appears to me
> that part of the 'no sell-out clause' is the idea that alot of people dont
> want the building to turn down the road of trying to apply for funding
> etc... they would prefer it to be held in a more confrontational manner
> (squatted etc...) and fear that unless they get the PGA halmarks ratified
> we will slip down the road of becoming like so many other wooly-liberal
> organisations.  If this is the case then we need to have a proper debate
> on the medium term use of the building which includes information from the
> legal and futures collective.







cuthbert at riseup.net wrote:

> hi everyone,
> 
>   Sorry for causing so much chaos and destruction but i got home from work
> about 3 am, was a little tipsy and thought 'what the hell!'.  However on a
> more serious note my last email reflects the fact that on wednesdays
> meeting we could have ratified the PGA halmarks!  In my opinion
> depending how we interpreted dan's contribution by email we would have
> been within our right to.  From what i gathered i was the least in favour
> and on a point a principle if the 7 other people decided that they really
> wanted them i would have stood aside.  People have put quite abit of time
> and effort into trying to sort out this PGA/ what the hell are we thing
> and when nobody from the 'i really really dont want the PGA halmarks' camp
> turned up it stole the opportunity from the people in favour of the PGA to
> present their case.
> 
> My personal disagreements with the PGA halmarks are:
> 1)There is not a good enough reason to ratify them - the three reasons i
> have been given to adopt them so far are symbolism, symbolism and that
> they are a no sell-out clause (i realise that i have abbreviated and
> generalised on this but - sorry).
> 2)There is a potential that they will be used to exclude/restrict/devalue
> other peoples activities and these are activities that arent evil and
> arent being carried out by state-infiltrators etc... but maybe arent as
> political as people want them to be (e.g. art & music) or include trying
> to persuade (lobby) certain NGOs or regeneration bodies etc...
> 3)If the PGA halmarks are our statement to the world then i think the
> world (and therefore our attitude to it) is far too complex (mainly
> because we are such a diverse group of people) to be summed up in a matter
> of a few statements (maybe we could have the PGA as one of many
> guidelines/mission statements).
> 4)I dont think that the PGA halmarks are designed to be applied to
> building and are better applied to direct action/affinity group.
> 5)I think that this debate is a dishonest one because it appears to me
> that part of the 'no sell-out clause' is the idea that alot of people dont
> want the building to turn down the road of trying to apply for funding
> etc... they would prefer it to be held in a more confrontational manner
> (squatted etc...) and fear that unless they get the PGA halmarks ratified
> we will slip down the road of becoming like so many other wooly-liberal
> organisations.  If this is the case then we need to have a proper debate
> on the medium term use of the building which includes information from the
> legal and futures collective.
> 
> I have watched and participated in this debate for a while and in my
> opinion my disagreements with the adopting the PGA halmarks are not based
> on anything that can't be solved so if someone can allay my fears then
> they can have my vote.  To be clear on this, i dont have a problem on the
> wording of the halmarks or what they stand for, my main issue is about
> whether they are suitible for the matilda collective and therefore whether
> or not it is right for us to adopt them.
> 
> Lastly, i would like to assure those that were worried about an anarchist
> dictatorship emerging(!) the people in the meeting were well aware of
> other peoples feelings on the PGA halmarks and one of the reasons we
> decided not to ratify was because we wanted to take into account how the
> people who werent present at the meeting felt.
> 
> That is enough from me for now (although it might not be the last!)
> cuthbert
> 
> P.S. I have just discovered a new reason to ratify the PGA halmarks - i
> think it might be the only way to stop joe from moaning about them(!)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> matilda mailing list
> matilda at lists.aktivix.org
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda
> 
>