As we were organizing this blog, someone asked me about "forming a non-profit", and I responded with my usual "that's an excellent way to take money away from the government tax base and use that money in a way that is not accountable to voters... it's an excellent idea for dedicated fascists." I have also been known to rail against Apple for not destroying the Windows market with a cheap MacMini or hand held device. These two ideas combined with fifth generation warfare concepts and the recent discussion of "how IS money made from FOSS anyhow?" have me rethinking my position on Non-profit Organizations (NPOs.)
First, an NPO is not required to survive off of tax-deductible donations. (NPO's aren't even required to accept any such donations.) The "for-profit distinction" section on Wikipedia sums it up nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization#For-profit_distinction An NPO can hold massive assets, pay exuberant salaries, and make hefty profit margins on products and services. (What they can't do is redistribute those profits to "owners," they instead have to use profits to further the causes that the NPO is supposedly serving... which can include things like marketing and salaries.)
Second, why didn't Apple storm the gates of Microsoft and leave Redmond a pillaged pile of smoldering ashes? Because as a for-profit corporation, they probably determined they could make a higher over all profit margin by not lowering their prices... and they are legally obligated to make as much money as possible and increase their value for their stock holders (owners.) In this way, a for profit Corporation has more limitations than an NPO - an attempt at "total market dominance" is only justified by a for-profit corporation if it makes more money than less-than-total market dominance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_dominance For an NPO on the other hand, the most important metric is "number of persons served." NPO's are inherently focused on market dominance instead of over all profit margin.
Third, reading Scott Ritter's "Waging Peace" has me thinking in OODA loops now. Regardless of weather he realizes it or not, Ritter ends up recommending a very orthodox NPO strategy with very orthodox NPO strategic planning. This is because the progressives' "tyranny of the structurelessness" ( http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html ) is being out maneuvered by standard corporate/military organizational strategy inherently embraced by conservatives. It almost goes without saying that the corporate powerhouses in the software industry are similarly outmaneuvering the small grassroots software development movement. The exceptions to this is where the grass-roots software development movements are better organized:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_Foundation
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakai_Project#Sakai_Community_and_Foundation
My focus is on digital divide (and personal development through (usually electronic) simulation.) In order to achieve progress in digital divide, market dominance and market expansion is much more important than over all profits, though progress is seriously limited without paychecks. In order to have the agility of a corporation (pay checks & faster OODA loops) and the focus on market dominance (maximum number of customers), it seems that an NPO would be an appropriate structure after all.
5 comments:
It is an expensive and popular past time in Seattle to set up structure-heavy NPO's before such structure is justified by an appropriate amount of funding. Funding results primarily from the persons-served/market-dominance metric, which sells your NPO as a worthy cause to donors and foundations, and/or establishes your customer base.
NPower and Free Geek are two local examples of software-involved NPO's. Neither has a cloud-computing focus, and NPower frequently promotes Microsoft, from whom NPower receives lots of support (though NPower has been know to promote FOSS as well.)
With the Dominance and War aspects of competing technological paradigms, lets think of Robin Hood versus Mafia Boss. NPO is Robin Hood, For-Profit is
Mafia Boss. They are both ruthless, smart and can use some sort of weapon efficiently. The only difference is
Robin Hood gives a lot of the loot to the poor, and Mafia Boss gives to himself and a few key allies.
The complexity of NPO tech's effect is greater than the Robin Hood motif. When the Apache org made a webserver, it did not take from the rich and give to the poor. It created what L Lessig talks refers to
in public/private space. He emphasizes that we can't get rich unless there are plenty of free resources intertwined in the cost resources. ( Free roads, sidewalks, web server software ).
Yeah, Benjamin, I'm with you on this. NPO's capable of building some badass thing are poised to be Mafioso killers.
Yeah, forging something new is ideal for market dominance generally.
Also, an NPO can be a democracy which-tolerates-defined-team-roles by way of having the "board of directors" being formed primarily of long-term employees of the NPO. (This trick was done in various ways by the UCIMC and Independent Fabrications.)
This is an idea I have been tossing around in my head. At first it wasn't serious, but the more I think about it, the better it gets.
The idea is to make a company that is like many other companies out there, except it is a NPO. This company would provide a product, or service for much cheaper than anyone else. It would of course have to be funded by charitable contributions. I would make a majority of the contributions myself (yes, this means I would have to be rich). The idea is to have such excellent prices that I can push other non-NPO organizations out of business. I don't know what product/service I would choose, but it would have to be something that is in high demand.
I don't know if I will ever be able to do this, but I think it would be great fun.
Post a Comment