6 ms·

Exactly. Henson is quoted as saying: > “At this point in my life,” he said, “the highest compliment someone can say about me is that I’m a ‘good man.’ That’s a

Exactly. Henson is quoted as saying: > “At this point in my life,” he said, “the highest compliment someone can say about me is that I’m a ‘good man.’ That’s all that matters to me.” ...and: > Before he started work on their car, Henson sat the Ellises down in their kitchen and made it clear what he was all about. He was a communist, he said, and his repair work was in service of that. The shop is probably a "business" on paper, because it has to be in America: capitalism has fucked things up so bad that it's impossible to create legal organizations that help people without the assumption of a profit motive.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
It’s not impossible but it’s damn hard. I’m doing this with a cooperative and I can tell you there aren’t any templates or legal docs or examples. Compared to the profit adjacent (c-corp, non-profit) which have effectively the same structure of ownership just different tax structures, there’s basically nothing off the shelf for mutual aid organizations
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but even cooperatives are basically assumed to be profit-seeking entities, no?
  - ultrarunner 4y ago
    Assumed by whom? There are plenty of money-losing entities.
  - nilaykumar 4y ago
    Minor pedantic point: there is sometimes a distinction made between profit and surplus, where the former is a surplus that is allocated wholly at the whims of the employer/capitalist. In this sense of the word, cooperatives are not necessarily profit-seeking, as the decision of what to do with the surplus is democratically (rather than dictatorially) controlled.
    - jehb 4y ago
      Even more pedantic, but surplus allocation is typically determined by the board of the co-op. While it's probably generally true that this functions a bit like a representative democracy, I have definitely been a member of (and worked for) cooperatives where the board is not exactly aligned with the membership about how to allocate surplus funds. Typically this comes when the co-op's board wants to make a capital investment for long-term growth when the membership may want their discount/dividends/whatever-the-organizations-payout-structure-is more than they care about expanding the scope or mission.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    By the way, if you're interested in cooperatives have a look at the Mondragon Corporation, it's a fascinating success story.
  - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
    You're correct
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Depends on the co-op (if it is something like Mondragón, it wants to "seek profit" so that it can survive; credit unions "seek profit" to pay their expenses, etc) - they will all have a goal but that goal may not be cash money in the pocket; a co-op could have the goal of making a grocery store available to the community; the co-op "profits" on the difference between buying and selling, but the "profits" go to pay for labor, land, etc, and anything in excess of that (+ rainy day fund) gets rebated back. And some co-ops are just a standard shareholder business where the shareholders are the members (credit unions are usually setup this way) so if they DO extract profit somehow or by accident, they just return it to the members. This has happened with credit unions when they unexpectedly get a windfall for some reason.
- 34679 4y ago
  Mutual Benefit Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual-benefit_nonprofit_corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual-benefit_nonprofit_cor...
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  I'm surprised to hear this. Some years back, I looked into starting some kind of co-op, maybe a school co-op, and I remember printing off detailed instructions from the internet.
frosted-flakes 4y ago
No, even charities and non-profits need to make money—they need to make a profit, or break even exactly— otherwise they will cease to exist. Even if the revenue is all donations, that's the business model. This also applies to other corporations like cities[1]. [1]https://youtu.be/iWQRgKqWrMU?t=360 https://youtu.be/iWQRgKqWrMU?t=360
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  I'm confused why your comment starts with "no" as if you're disagreeing with me, and then you go on to give an example of my point that capitalism has fucked things up so badly that it's impossible to create legal organizations that help people without the assumption of a profit motive.
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    It has nothing to do with legal organizations or capitalism, it's basic logic.
    - kerkeslager 4y ago
      Given humans were organizing before the existence of money, I think it's pretty clear that money isn't a necessary component of organization. So no, it's not basic logic.
      - rizky05 4y ago
        [dead]
      - frosted-flakes 4y ago
        Not money, per se, but income. Without income, you can't produce anything. Income could be volunteer labour, or donations of physical goods, or proceeds from the sale of goods or services, but without a solid (business) plan that lays out how you're going to maintain a consistent level of income to support your activities, you probably won't be able to survive as an organization. The basic logic is that if you don't eat, you will eventually starve to death. You might get by for a while on stored fat (savings), but eventually your body will begin to consume itself (debt) and eventually die (bankruptcy).
SoftTalker 4y ago
The quote about being a good man is very cool. I wish more people were like that. I part ways with him pretty quickly on the communist activism, and don't think that capitalism is incompatible with being a good person.
- Zircom 4y ago
  Two things: First, did you bother reading the article? He is the opposite of an activist these days. He goes out of his way not to preach to anybody to the point where there are longtime conservative volunteers there that have no idea about his personal politics. He is just living his life according to his personal ideals. Secondly, what is your issue with communist activism? If someone genuinely thinks that's the best way forward and wants to try and spread the word, power to them.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    While certainly not specific to Communism, the desire to find the best way forward has often been used throughout history to justify genocide and lots of other horrible actions. Merely having a utopian vision doesn't make a person good or preclude them from using evil means to achieve their vision.
    - nilaykumar 4y ago
      > the desire to find the best way forward has often been used throughout history to justify genocide and lots of other horrible actions Does that mean we should never again root for radical change? Because Stalin effectively murdered millions of people? If that's what you're implying, then I would have to disagree completely. The activism of socialists and communists that you're labelling as "utopian" involves working on community problems, fighting for local progressive legislation, practicing mutual aid, showing up in solidarity with unions, and so on. And that's how it's been for a very long time. Where is the utopianism in that? And how on earth do you look to that and see a specter of genocide?
    - kerkeslager 4y ago
nonethewiser 4y ago
> it's impossible to create legal organizations that help people without the assumption of a profit motive Why do you need to register as some sort of legal org? Can’t you just be a business that doesn’t make money? Or even better, some sort of non profit?
- aww_dang 4y ago
  You don't need to register as a non-profit, but doing so may afford additional tax benefits to your donors. Charitable organizations exist in The United States. The unsupported claim that it is impossible and that 'capitalism' is preventing charity, is probably what made this thread so inflammatory. The statement laments the state's regulations (which don't prevent charity in any case) while blaming markets. From my side this reads as a non-sequitur. History tells a different story in regards to mutual aid societies. It wasn't markets which prohibited mutual aid, but the state itself. >Mutual aid, also known as fraternalism, refers to social organizations that gathered dues and paid benefits to members facing hardship. >For instance, in New York City in 1909 40 percent of families earning less than $1,000 a year, little more than the "living wage," had members who were in mutual-aid societies. >The first major blow against fraternalism occurred when the American Medical Association gained control of the licensing of medical schools. In 1912, a number of state medical boards formed the Federation of State Medical Boards, which accepted the AMA's ratings of medical schools as authoritative. The AMA quickly rated many schools as "unacceptable." Consequentially, the number of medical schools in America dropped from 166 in 1904 to 81 in 1918, a 51 percent drop.18 The increased price of medical services made it impractical for many lodges to retain the services of a doctor. Medical boards also threatened many doctors with being stripped of their licenses if they practiced lodge medicine. >The next most damaging piece of legislation was the Mobile Law. The Mobile Law required that mutual aid societies show a gradual improvement in reserves. Until this time, societies had tended to keep low reserves in order to pay the maximum benefits possible to members. High reserve requirements made it difficult for societies to undercut traditional insurance companies. The Mobile Law also required a doctor's examination for all lodge members and forbade all "speculative" enterprises such as the extension of credit to members. By 1919, the Mobile Law had been enacted in 40 states. Further examples of regulatory capture follow. https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Social profit is a motive and money is simply a store of value. You can run a business for whatever goal you want. Nothing legally stops you from opening a business that won't make net income, if you are willing to backfill the shortfall. Capitalism hasn't put up any type of barriers against doing so, and there are still plenty of options. The barriers are primarily individually pessimism with a light sprinkling of government regulation.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago

It’s not impossible but it’s damn hard. I’m doing this with a cooperative and I can tell you there aren’t any templates or legal docs or examples. Compared to the profit adjacent (c-corp, non-profit) which have effectively the same structure of ownership just different tax structures, there’s basically nothing off the shelf for mutual aid organizations

kerkeslager 4y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even cooperatives are basically assumed to be profit-seeking entities, no?
- ultrarunner 4y ago
  Assumed by whom? There are plenty of money-losing entities.
- nilaykumar 4y ago
  Minor pedantic point: there is sometimes a distinction made between profit and surplus, where the former is a surplus that is allocated wholly at the whims of the employer/capitalist. In this sense of the word, cooperatives are not necessarily profit-seeking, as the decision of what to do with the surplus is democratically (rather than dictatorially) controlled.
  - jehb 4y ago
    Even more pedantic, but surplus allocation is typically determined by the board of the co-op. While it's probably generally true that this functions a bit like a representative democracy, I have definitely been a member of (and worked for) cooperatives where the board is not exactly aligned with the membership about how to allocate surplus funds. Typically this comes when the co-op's board wants to make a capital investment for long-term growth when the membership may want their discount/dividends/whatever-the-organizations-payout-structure-is more than they care about expanding the scope or mission.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  By the way, if you're interested in cooperatives have a look at the Mondragon Corporation, it's a fascinating success story.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  You're correct
- bombcar 4y ago
  Depends on the co-op (if it is something like Mondragón, it wants to "seek profit" so that it can survive; credit unions "seek profit" to pay their expenses, etc) - they will all have a goal but that goal may not be cash money in the pocket; a co-op could have the goal of making a grocery store available to the community; the co-op "profits" on the difference between buying and selling, but the "profits" go to pay for labor, land, etc, and anything in excess of that (+ rainy day fund) gets rebated back. And some co-ops are just a standard shareholder business where the shareholders are the members (credit unions are usually setup this way) so if they DO extract profit somehow or by accident, they just return it to the members. This has happened with credit unions when they unexpectedly get a windfall for some reason.
34679 4y ago
Mutual Benefit Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual-benefit_nonprofit_corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual-benefit_nonprofit_cor...
DoreenMichele 4y ago
I'm surprised to hear this. Some years back, I looked into starting some kind of co-op, maybe a school co-op, and I remember printing off detailed instructions from the internet.

frosted-flakes 4y ago

No, even charities and non-profits need to make money—they need to make a profit, or break even exactly— otherwise they will cease to exist. Even if the revenue is all donations, that's the business model. This also applies to other corporations like cities[1]. [1]https://youtu.be/iWQRgKqWrMU?t=360 https://youtu.be/iWQRgKqWrMU?t=360

kerkeslager 4y ago
I'm confused why your comment starts with "no" as if you're disagreeing with me, and then you go on to give an example of my point that capitalism has fucked things up so badly that it's impossible to create legal organizations that help people without the assumption of a profit motive.
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  It has nothing to do with legal organizations or capitalism, it's basic logic.
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    Given humans were organizing before the existence of money, I think it's pretty clear that money isn't a necessary component of organization. So no, it's not basic logic.
    - rizky05 4y ago
      [dead]
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      Not money, per se, but income. Without income, you can't produce anything. Income could be volunteer labour, or donations of physical goods, or proceeds from the sale of goods or services, but without a solid (business) plan that lays out how you're going to maintain a consistent level of income to support your activities, you probably won't be able to survive as an organization. The basic logic is that if you don't eat, you will eventually starve to death. You might get by for a while on stored fat (savings), but eventually your body will begin to consume itself (debt) and eventually die (bankruptcy).

SoftTalker 4y ago

The quote about being a good man is very cool. I wish more people were like that. I part ways with him pretty quickly on the communist activism, and don't think that capitalism is incompatible with being a good person.

Zircom 4y ago
Two things: First, did you bother reading the article? He is the opposite of an activist these days. He goes out of his way not to preach to anybody to the point where there are longtime conservative volunteers there that have no idea about his personal politics. He is just living his life according to his personal ideals. Secondly, what is your issue with communist activism? If someone genuinely thinks that's the best way forward and wants to try and spread the word, power to them.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  While certainly not specific to Communism, the desire to find the best way forward has often been used throughout history to justify genocide and lots of other horrible actions. Merely having a utopian vision doesn't make a person good or preclude them from using evil means to achieve their vision.
  - nilaykumar 4y ago
    > the desire to find the best way forward has often been used throughout history to justify genocide and lots of other horrible actions Does that mean we should never again root for radical change? Because Stalin effectively murdered millions of people? If that's what you're implying, then I would have to disagree completely. The activism of socialists and communists that you're labelling as "utopian" involves working on community problems, fighting for local progressive legislation, practicing mutual aid, showing up in solidarity with unions, and so on. And that's how it's been for a very long time. Where is the utopianism in that? And how on earth do you look to that and see a specter of genocide?
  - kerkeslager 4y ago

nonethewiser 4y ago

> it's impossible to create legal organizations that help people without the assumption of a profit motive Why do you need to register as some sort of legal org? Can’t you just be a business that doesn’t make money? Or even better, some sort of non profit?

aww_dang 4y ago
You don't need to register as a non-profit, but doing so may afford additional tax benefits to your donors. Charitable organizations exist in The United States. The unsupported claim that it is impossible and that 'capitalism' is preventing charity, is probably what made this thread so inflammatory. The statement laments the state's regulations (which don't prevent charity in any case) while blaming markets. From my side this reads as a non-sequitur. History tells a different story in regards to mutual aid societies. It wasn't markets which prohibited mutual aid, but the state itself. >Mutual aid, also known as fraternalism, refers to social organizations that gathered dues and paid benefits to members facing hardship. >For instance, in New York City in 1909 40 percent of families earning less than $1,000 a year, little more than the "living wage," had members who were in mutual-aid societies. >The first major blow against fraternalism occurred when the American Medical Association gained control of the licensing of medical schools. In 1912, a number of state medical boards formed the Federation of State Medical Boards, which accepted the AMA's ratings of medical schools as authoritative. The AMA quickly rated many schools as "unacceptable." Consequentially, the number of medical schools in America dropped from 166 in 1904 to 81 in 1918, a 51 percent drop.18 The increased price of medical services made it impractical for many lodges to retain the services of a doctor. Medical boards also threatened many doctors with being stripped of their licenses if they practiced lodge medicine. >The next most damaging piece of legislation was the Mobile Law. The Mobile Law required that mutual aid societies show a gradual improvement in reserves. Until this time, societies had tended to keep low reserves in order to pay the maximum benefits possible to members. High reserve requirements made it difficult for societies to undercut traditional insurance companies. The Mobile Law also required a doctor's examination for all lodge members and forbade all "speculative" enterprises such as the extension of credit to members. By 1919, the Mobile Law had been enacted in 40 states. Further examples of regulatory capture follow. https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Social profit is a motive and money is simply a store of value. You can run a business for whatever goal you want. Nothing legally stops you from opening a business that won't make net income, if you are willing to backfill the shortfall. Capitalism hasn't put up any type of barriers against doing so, and there are still plenty of options. The barriers are primarily individually pessimism with a light sprinkling of government regulation.