Talk:PGA hallmarks

Please add your pros and cons regarding the adoption of the PGA hallmarks on this page.

 
 * 1) Edit the page to add bullet points to the pros and cons, or comment anything else
 * 2) Use the + link above to add comments at the bottom of the page
 * 3) Leave your nickname by typing ~ so people know who wrote what.

Advantages of adopting the PGA hallmarks

 * 1) Clearly identifies the Matilda collective as part of the global anti-capitalist movement.
 * 2) It's hard to imagine a government / arts body giving a grant to a organisation that has adopted the PGA hallmarks -- it's like a no sell out clause.

--Chris 22:50, 29 Sep 2005 (BST)

Dan wibbles

 * 1) Various people in MATILDA disagree with part or all of them, or don't feel that they want to sign up to this statement. Aside from going, "Aaah go on go on go on go on...", I don't know how that's surpassable without changing them...
 * 2) The hallmarks were written by an international movement to oppose destructive globalisation.  I agree with opposing destructive globalisation, of course!  But that doesn't mean the hallmarks can be applied directly to local action:
 * 3) A 'confrontational attitude' just isn't always going to work locally! And, of course, we wouldn't do it - that needs defining more. E.g. "We will confront exploitation and greed wherever we find it." In fact, that would mean we could change the second point to:
 * 4) "We confront all forms and systems of domination and discrimination; and we call others to direct action to oppose them / we advocate forms of resistance which maximise respect for life and oppressed people's rights, as well as the construction of local alternatives to global capitalism."
 * 5) "We confront" instead of "we reject..." defines exactly what we propose to confront, rather than this vague 'confrontational attitude' - and it fits in with a point that came from the first Wednesday's meeting - that we should be positive. This is better than 'we reject...' because it binds us to actually doing something about it.
 * 6) It also helps to show that we can have a confrontational attitude to systems of oppression, without having an 'attitude' toward those people we might perceive as carrying out the imperatives of that system. I think this is vital because every one of us (as we talked about last night!) in some way carries on the system - anyone using a computer or a laptop is helping to perpetuate war and exploitation in the Congo for example. Should we 'confront' you? Or should we confront the systems, history, indifference and racism ("it's just Africans at war again: see? They can't manage their own affairs...") that make that situation possible?
 * 7) I personally have no desire to go and confront everybody in the council. Confronting them is sometimes the way forward - e.g. with the incinerator - and sometimes not.  I'd like to work with Jillian Creasy, and the various people I hope to work with in Burngreave.  I'm not going to confront someone just because they're wearing a suit.  A confrontational attitude merely reproduces an 'us and them' vision of what local action can be - because in the end, 'local government' should mean local self-control, and it's up to us to fight for that.  So adopting wholesale a 'confrontational attitude'...?
 * 8) For an interesting perspective on local government - and why networks make them work / why confrontation would make them cease to work - see this little piece on Italian local government.

I know this is semantics - but semantics and language are vital. In fact, its pretty much all such statements are.

Lastly:

I've heard people say things like, "well, they were drawn up at a great big meeting with lots of really experienced Southern and Northern activists."

The implication is: "these people were much sharper than any of us here, and they know best. It's not our place to question the result."

That's appeal to authority - I'd hate to think that the global justice movement was ossifying so much that certain ways of doing things became the Authority.

That is also totally against the spirit of point 5: decentralisation and autonomy. As with the social forum movement (which has a charter), differing social forums have always adapted their way of doing things based on local circumstance - using the charter as a point of reference, yes, but never appealing to its authority. Well... some people do! But an appeal to authority in not an argument for.

So why can we not adapt?

DanOlner 08:17, 30 Sep 2005 (BST)

Ways forward
DanOlner 09:22, 30 Sep 2005 (BST)
 * 1) We adopt the Hallmarks for MATILDA as a whole
 * 2) We adapt them, based on meeting to talk them over
 * 3) We agree that a group or everyone within MATILDA can adopt them as MATILDA's international trade position - which is what they are for.
 * 4) A smaller group becomes the MATILDA PGA collective!
 * 5) They just stay on the wall.

An old reference to this debate
Back in July 2004 and email about [http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-sheffield/2004-July/0722-is.html The Dissent! Network, the PGA and Conflict and The Social Centre as Direct Action] sparked a thread about this stuff...

Chris 23:29, 3 Oct 2005 (BST)