Commercial activity, exchange and capitalism, was: Re: [matilda] gigspace collective related-proposal

[dan at aktivix.org]

Hey up,

Going to visit the Hub in London this weekend.  They charge money for use - but
as they say, it's "£10 if you don't use it much, more if you want to be here a
lot more..."

http://www.the-hub.net/

and

http://www.the-hub.net/how_much/

The issue for me is that nothing is free.  Free as in freedom still costs -
whether that's money, or calories, or exchange or whatever.

But what something like the Hub recognises is that the capitalist / landlord /
serf mode of doing things ain't the future...

Took them two years to get that going.  Yikes.

Dan
---

All open plan, open source, open shmopen

Quoting gavin at cyber-rights.net:

> It's really cool to see such positive engagement with the issue.
> 
> I like the free software stuff, but I think maybe with the 
> diversity of practices at matilda (gigs, artworks, speakers...) 
> finding ways to make them practical (ie-financially viable) whilst 
> still offering alternatives to capitalist social relations might 
> require more than a one-size fits all solution. Though Chris' 
> suggestions are well worth investigating to give us ideas, I don't 
> think we should try and find one systematic solution for all our 
> practices.
> 
> This means letting collectives find a diversity of solutions. I 
> feel basically there needs to be a bit more trust. Not everything 
> should need to be ratified at a Monday meeting. Like, we'd trust 
> the gig collective to put on an event in a DIY way, and not veto it 
> out of fear it might not be. If we went along to the gig, and there 
> was something we weren't sure about afterwards, it'd be good to 
> approach them (and perhaps not on the internet) with a positive 
> proposal and maybe develop new ways of doing things. This doesn't 
> mean we can't offer critique, but that it should be a bit more 
> constructive, and less interfering (from a distance and without 
> getting , than it has been.
> 
> This is basically what Helen said with respect to the Art05 event. 
> Let's just try and it and learn from it. Matilda is an experimental 
> space for finding alternative tactics to fight capital and ways of 
> living in, but against, it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 05:14:57 -0700 Chris <chris at aktivix.org> wrote:
> >Hi
> >
> >On Tue 11-Oct-2005 at 11:28:11AM +0100, Helen and Nick
> >wrote:
> >> 
> >> All the same arguments apply to selling artwork made at
> >> matilda. But again why not trust people and lets see
> >> what happens rather than closing down this opportunity
> >> for artists before they start. I am not overly stressed
> >> by people getting a few quid in their pocket to pay
> >> bills, avoid work, have a good night out when there is
> >> so much more to be angry about. It's a grey area, but
> >> lets at least burn brightly in a hive or creative
> >> activity that may be imperfect before we burn out with
> >> nothing achieved but a management quagmire.
> >
> >I totally agree with Helen.
> >
> >But you might want to stop reading this email at this
> >point... ;-)
> >
> >I think everything should be free (free as in gratis and
> >free as in freedom) and available in abundance, however
> >capitalism isn't going to go away tomorrow... (which is a
> >shame).
> >
> >In principal I'm not opposed to things like, the Cafe
> >charging for cups of coffee, gigs that you pay to get
> >into, art work for sale, books for sale, a t-shirt
> >collective printing t-shirts and charging for them etc...
> >
> >These things are not really capitalism (where is the
> >capital?) but I do think they are commercial activity.
> >
> >I guess the following example won't make much sense to
> >many people but these are examples that I know best...
> >
> >With Free software is is OK to charge (as much as
> >possible) for it:
> >
> >  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
> >
> >And in addition I don't really have a problem with large
> >amounts of Capital being invested in Free software (it
> >absorbs it with few problematic side effects) because it
> >doesn't effect the freedom of others.
> >
> >I don't like the Non-Commercial use clause that the
> >Creative Commons licenses have as an option:
> >
> >  Noncommercial. You let others copy,
> >  distribute, display, and perform your work — and
> >  derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial
> >  purposes only
> >
> >  Examples: Gus publishes his photograph on his website
> >  with a Noncommercial license. Camille prints Gus'
> >  photograph. Camille is not allowed to sell the print
> >  photograph without Gus's permission.
> >
> >  http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/
> >
> >Because, for example it could prevent all the above
> >mentioned activities that could happen at Matilda that
> >would involve commercial exchange.
> >
> >The SSF wiki we have been using has all content under the
> >Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license:
> >
> >  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
> >
> >Applying terms like this to electronic things is
> >relatively easy, making actual physical stuff Free (free
> >as in freedom initally, free as in free beer also if
> >possible...) is a bit more complicated... but I think this
> >is essentially what is needed here...
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >PS More on this stuff here:
> >
> >   - Philosophy of the GNU Project
> >     http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
> >      
> >   - Free Software & GPL Society
> >     http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/mertentext.html
> >   
> >   - Free Software and Market Relations
> >     http://www.oekonux.org/texts/marketrelations.html
> >      
> >-- 
> >Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World
> >_______________________________________________
> >matilda mailing list
> >matilda at lists.aktivix.org
> >http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda
> 
> 
> 
> Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> matilda mailing list
> matilda at lists.aktivix.org
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda
>