9 ms·

I have long mused that there needs to be a differently structured way to do what bandcamp does (soon, did). Who has experiences with those structures that can s

I have long mused that there needs to be a differently structured way to do what bandcamp does (soon, did). Who has experiences with those structures that can still deliver technically? Co-ops? Values-first companies like iFixit? Non-profits?

citizenkeen 3y ago
I believe you're looking for a B-Corp? Corporations that aren't bound by Dodge v Ford Motor Co would be real nice.
- nvy 3y ago
  I think Co-ops are the way to go, because if your employees and your customers are also your owners (shareholders) then doing what's right for the customer is by definition what's best for shareholders.
  - ekidd 3y ago
    Co-ops are a very flexible and successful business structure. For example, people in the northeastern US probably know of Cabot Cheddar. This is part of the Agri-Mark co-op, which does something like $1 billion in annual business and employs about 1,000 people. Agri-Mark is a "producer co-op," which means that it's owned by dairy farms. There are also very successful "consumer co-ops," as well as "worker co-ops." There are many nice things about co-ops: - They can be economically competitive. - They're democratically run. (Larger ones often elect a board and/or appoint management.) - They're strictly voluntary associations. There are also reasons why you don't see more co-operatives: - They don't have huge incentives to scale. There are plenty of amazing grocery co-ops, for example, that have one or two excellent stores but no desire to expand. - They raise capital through their members. Details vary, but they tend to scale more like bootstrapped businesses than startups. But a musicians' producer co-op could absolutely build something like Bandcamp. It would be a lot of work, and it would require some genuine organizational talent. A lot of the big open source foundations (the Linux Foundation, the Apache Foundation, etc) are essentially producer co-ops for open source software, even if that's not what the paperwork says. I think we should absolutely build more co-ops, for things that really matter.
- thenoblesunfish 3y ago
  Lazy question, but if I'm a B Corp and decide I don't want to be anymore, is it only PR standing in my way?
jacquesm 3y ago
Have a look at the Mondragon Corporation, it's fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
- grenoire 3y ago
  > At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. > These comparatively low wages can make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firms. Wow, actually brilliant idea to keep out the nasty investor-owned firms away!
- mega_dean 3y ago
  Ah, I couldn't figure out why it sounded vaguely familiar until I saw the "Works of Kim Stanley Robinson" section at the bottom of the page: > The Mondragon Corporation already appeared in Robinson's earlier Mars trilogy, as one of the Terran groups involved in the colonization and terraforming of Mars; the coop is also portrayed as the inspiration of both the bogdanovist movement [52] and the libertarian-leaning Praxis Corporation[53] two of the main forces leading the revolution for the independence of Mars. Red Mars was one of the best sci-fi books I've ever read, but Green Mars starts pretty slow so I didn't get very far into it. I think I'll start the trilogy over.
dionidium 3y ago
Of course anybody can start a co-op and nobody will object. It won't be controversial. It won't generate fierce online debates. Everyone will wish them well and that will be that. What's contentious about unionization is that the unionizers want to take over an existing organization that's already survived and become profitable. That's a lot easier to do than it is to build a company with that (or any other) structure. (And it's going to be contentious no matter how it's organized.)
- tehjoker 3y ago
  i mean that's what class warfare is right? owners exploit workers, workers fight back. profit comes from the extra value workers generate but are not paid for.
  - dionidium 3y ago
    Obviously I reject the framing. I have never felt exploited by my employers, nor do I feel entitled to a share of the profits beyond what I negotiated when I took the job.
    - tehjoker 3y ago
      You may not have felt it, but profit comes from the value you generate beyond what you are paid. That's exploitation, and it is an objective reality. You may not have abused, which is different and tends to get people more immediately angry. Edit: You may not feel entitled to earn what you make, but others might just call that loser talk and no capitalist would ever say that.
      - dionidium 3y ago
        You’re describing the labor theory of value, which you present as undeniable fact, but which of course is the subject of one of the most salient and contentious debates of the last century.
        3y ago
legitster 3y ago
There are lots of examples of employee-owned companies or B-Corps or the like. The problem is that these structures are often self-defeating. A B-Corp has no incentive to grow, so B-Corp often don't grow. Had Bandcamp restructured into something like a non-profit foundation, that might have been pretty cool. Maybe even being musician owned.
- thenoblesunfish 3y ago
  Certainly they have less incentive than traditional corporations, but that is the point - they can elect not to grow if it best serves their other goals, which is very difficult for investor-owned companies.

citizenkeen 3y ago

I believe you're looking for a B-Corp? Corporations that aren't bound by Dodge v Ford Motor Co would be real nice.

nvy 3y ago
I think Co-ops are the way to go, because if your employees and your customers are also your owners (shareholders) then doing what's right for the customer is by definition what's best for shareholders.
- ekidd 3y ago
  Co-ops are a very flexible and successful business structure. For example, people in the northeastern US probably know of Cabot Cheddar. This is part of the Agri-Mark co-op, which does something like $1 billion in annual business and employs about 1,000 people. Agri-Mark is a "producer co-op," which means that it's owned by dairy farms. There are also very successful "consumer co-ops," as well as "worker co-ops." There are many nice things about co-ops: - They can be economically competitive. - They're democratically run. (Larger ones often elect a board and/or appoint management.) - They're strictly voluntary associations. There are also reasons why you don't see more co-operatives: - They don't have huge incentives to scale. There are plenty of amazing grocery co-ops, for example, that have one or two excellent stores but no desire to expand. - They raise capital through their members. Details vary, but they tend to scale more like bootstrapped businesses than startups. But a musicians' producer co-op could absolutely build something like Bandcamp. It would be a lot of work, and it would require some genuine organizational talent. A lot of the big open source foundations (the Linux Foundation, the Apache Foundation, etc) are essentially producer co-ops for open source software, even if that's not what the paperwork says. I think we should absolutely build more co-ops, for things that really matter.
thenoblesunfish 3y ago
Lazy question, but if I'm a B Corp and decide I don't want to be anymore, is it only PR standing in my way?

jacquesm 3y ago

Have a look at the Mondragon Corporation, it's fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

grenoire 3y ago
> At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. > These comparatively low wages can make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firms. Wow, actually brilliant idea to keep out the nasty investor-owned firms away!
mega_dean 3y ago
Ah, I couldn't figure out why it sounded vaguely familiar until I saw the "Works of Kim Stanley Robinson" section at the bottom of the page: > The Mondragon Corporation already appeared in Robinson's earlier Mars trilogy, as one of the Terran groups involved in the colonization and terraforming of Mars; the coop is also portrayed as the inspiration of both the bogdanovist movement [52] and the libertarian-leaning Praxis Corporation[53] two of the main forces leading the revolution for the independence of Mars. Red Mars was one of the best sci-fi books I've ever read, but Green Mars starts pretty slow so I didn't get very far into it. I think I'll start the trilogy over.

dionidium 3y ago

Of course anybody can start a co-op and nobody will object. It won't be controversial. It won't generate fierce online debates. Everyone will wish them well and that will be that. What's contentious about unionization is that the unionizers want to take over an existing organization that's already survived and become profitable. That's a lot easier to do than it is to build a company with that (or any other) structure. (And it's going to be contentious no matter how it's organized.)

tehjoker 3y ago
i mean that's what class warfare is right? owners exploit workers, workers fight back. profit comes from the extra value workers generate but are not paid for.
- dionidium 3y ago
  Obviously I reject the framing. I have never felt exploited by my employers, nor do I feel entitled to a share of the profits beyond what I negotiated when I took the job.
  - tehjoker 3y ago
    You may not have felt it, but profit comes from the value you generate beyond what you are paid. That's exploitation, and it is an objective reality. You may not have abused, which is different and tends to get people more immediately angry. Edit: You may not feel entitled to earn what you make, but others might just call that loser talk and no capitalist would ever say that.
    - dionidium 3y ago
      You’re describing the labor theory of value, which you present as undeniable fact, but which of course is the subject of one of the most salient and contentious debates of the last century.
      - 3y ago

legitster 3y ago

There are lots of examples of employee-owned companies or B-Corps or the like. The problem is that these structures are often self-defeating. A B-Corp has no incentive to grow, so B-Corp often don't grow. Had Bandcamp restructured into something like a non-profit foundation, that might have been pretty cool. Maybe even being musician owned.

thenoblesunfish 3y ago
Certainly they have less incentive than traditional corporations, but that is the point - they can elect not to grow if it best serves their other goals, which is very difficult for investor-owned companies.