[matilda] Re: Defining Matilda

[cuthbert at riseup.net]

  I dont want to sound too hedonistic about all this 'deciding our future'
stuff but from what i gather this whole 'defining matilda' debate came
about because of opposition to parties and what types of events we
should have.  From what i gather this opinion is based on the idea that
if we have too many parties then that will suck energy out of all the
other stuff that is happening in the building.  My personal opinion is
that parties are good because the money raised can pay for electricity
bills, broadband and the infrastructure of the builing.  The only other
thing in the building that has come close to raising that kind of money
is the cafe and that isnt exactly a 100% political activity.
  I dont see what the problem with having lots of gigs or parties is,
providing it is cleaned up afterwards and there is a sensible maxmimum
(e.g. 2 per month).  Not everyone has to be involved or even go to a
party at matilda and if there is trouble from the authorities,
neighbours or the party collective isnt fulfilling its responsibilities
then we stop having them.  It is a case of learning self control.

  What i don't like about this debate is the way defining matilda has been
used to restrict, exclude or devalue other people's activities, someone
said to me that "i dont mind parties as long as they are for a political
cause".  Does this extend itself to other activities in matilda e.g. the
art space.  Currently a banner is being made for pitsmoor against the
war but it is inevitable that non-political banners and backdrops will
be made.  I would love there to be a hedonistic fundraiser for the art
space, maybe then we can fix the windows and lighting.

  Not everything, or everyone fits into nice boxes marked "anarchist" or
"anti-capitalist".  The first alot of people will have heard about the
PGA hallmarks will have been in a matilda meeting, I would argue that
most people at matilda do not belong to a political group that is part
of the PGA so in this case i do not believe that the PGA halmarks
adequetly represents the vast melee of social groupings we come from,
ideas we have or our visions of the future.

  I dont think that a stark choice has to be made about the definitive
future of the building.  In my opinion our unique and numerous visions
of what goes into matilda can co-exsist.  I fear that one of the main
reasons why some people might want to ratify the PGA halmarks at this
stage is so that they can fly the black flag from the top of the
building.  If that is the case then why not add to the vast melee of
banners and flags already hanging from the building, however if this is
a debate about the content and use of matilda why dont we talk
specificly about what types of stuff we want to see more of and make it
happen.

from
cuthbert