The basic situation is this: For-profit companies go away if they don’t make money (their stated goal). Non-profit organizations can labor on indefinitely even if they don’t make progress on fulfilling their mission statement (their stated goal).

There are lots of directions to go from here. First, a little clarification. While you’ll frequently see for-profit companies running a loss (i.e. supported by venture capital until they become profitable) those companies do eventually disappear if the market doesn’t support them. Consider Pets.com for an example (described by Wikipedia as “a leading icon of the dot-com bubble”). Contrast this with the (at the time) scathing rebuke of non-profit successes from “Death of Environmentalism“.

Over the last 15 years environmental foundations and organizations have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into combating global warming. We have strikingly little to show for it.

Fifteen years of not running a profit is relatively unheard of in the for-profit world. After a few quarters, their shareholders are up-in-arms demanding more responsible management. This often means tightening business focus (often accompanied with closing plants and laying off workers), which gets to a fundamental difference between nons and fors. Closing offices and laying off non-profit workers does not help them achieve their mission, in fact it makes it harder. The equivalent in the non-profit world is to “liquidate” their mission, by making it less aggressive and thus easier to achieve. Ta-da, we’re “profitable” again!

The question of “How can non-profits be more like for-profits?” comes up all the time (and the various pros and cons are well-summarized by this article over at N-TEN). Honestly, some afflictions attributed solely to non-profits (like “Founders Syndrome“) can be seen in the for-profit world, as well.

What doesn’t get asked as often is, “How can for-profits be more like non-profits?” Namely, what if the mission of a company shifted from “Make money by producing Product X.” to “Make the best Product X possible.”? I’m not claiming that this isn’t the goal of 90% of the employees of any company, but it’s still not the stated goal. There are obviously financial considerations that make this an unapologetically idealistic and not realistic suggestion, but it’s a worthy thought exercise. How would business practices change?

The specific discussion last night (and I should mention that the representatives for the for-profit-but-not-evil company and non-profit-but-often-frustrating organization tended to agree on a lot) mostly circled around how non-profits keep growing without a way to hold ineffective ones accountable. I would say that, like for-profits, non-profits are providing a product/service/utility that, if the public values, will get funded by donations. It might not be a thing you can hold in your hands (like a Coke can), it may just be a feeling that you’re part of the solution—which many people value even more. This is the beauty behind social entrepreneurship.

I’ve mentioned before that I worry that truly revolutionary communication is fast becoming impossible. I’m not one of those “there are no creative works left for our generation!” kinds of artists; instead I’d trace the problem to a new totalitarian semiosis. Let’s define those words quickly.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an, adj.

of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state

sem·i·o·tics, n.

the study of signs and symbols, how meaning is constructed and understood

Let’s dive a bit deeper, shall we? By totalitarian, I am not referring to any government that controls its people by force, as is commonly understood by the word. We don’t live in that kind of culture. Police are not beating down my door, I’m allowed to vote and even have a blog to express my views, for the most part people don’t disappear to some secret prison.

Still, ideas concerning what a life might be like where I didn’t pay rent or concerning a life-long romantic partnership that was not a state-sanctioned marriage are difficult to express if only because we lack both the literal vocabulary but also the emotional vocabulary to allow such feelings to transfer between one another. For this reason, I make a distinction between semiotics and semantics, as I’m primarily interested in the emotional resonance of a phrase and not its discrete meaning. Looking up “Hippie” will probably not accurately convey what is meant by calling someone one. Maybe I’m still rehashing The Spectacle.

Last week I chatted with Patrick Reinsborough of smartMeme concerning my thoughts on activating the creative class (more on that some other time). He brought up his surprise and fascination with Capitalism’s ability to account for the Commons, which he had previously thought an incorruptibly non-Capitalist idea. Indeed, even anti-Capitalist ideas have a place in Capitalism. In fact, as Capitalism grows more oppressive and undesirable, demand for anti-Capitalist or revolutionary ideas grows, creating a price point for dissent. All is accounted for. Patrick describes such a world and offers some solutions in his seminal “Decolonizing the Revolutionary Imagination“.

Yesterday, I walked into a comics store and walked out with “Channel Zero“. The introduction from Warren Ellis claims:

We’re in cultural lockstep, taking holidays in other people’s misery, asking for our stinking badges, dead heads nodding over phosphordot fixes.

The actual comic follows Jennie 2.5, a media activist who gradually becomes a media terrorist, who gradually becomes just a face on a t-shirt like Che Guevara (sidenote: a friend tried to get “ClicheGuevara” as an AIM name, but it was taken). Though the book was written in 1997 and imagines a world of overt censorship—this was in the middle of Giuliani’s rampage against art—it gets everything else right. It’s not apathy that undercuts the modern revolution, it’s that revolution reaffirms the status quo. Subversion has been subverted.

Nor is the truth being suppressed. Bush gets caught violating the Constitution left and right. How many scandals can he weather? Honestly, he can probably keep going until the food runs out. The American that needs to revolt in order for revolution to occur, the mass consumers of mass media that provides the social mass that lowers the momentum of social change to zero, doesn’t have it that bad. But when they do, will they realize it?

Perhaps brigades of Black Bloc standing against riot cops are doing more than inviting violence. Perhaps they’re taking and holding the territory necessary in case the rest of us need to join them. Considering that Giuliani is the current Republican front-runner, we may both get another chance re-enact Channel Zero.

It’s possible, but not probable, that’s I’m just an out-of-touch curmudgeon completely unable to see any value in what “The Kids” are into these days. I don’t believe this to be the case, however, as I just watched an episode of MTV’s “The Hills” and, while it’s loathsome content left me pining for the days that MTV played videos (who didn’t see that criticism coming?), I still found it’s concept compelling. Documenting the dangerously petty lifestyles of Hollywood socialites is something I’m not sure even Steve Irwin would’ve been able to handle.

No, “Epic Movie” is wrong, wrong, wrong for a different reason. Watching a movie that makes a mockery of other movies, like Snakes on a Plane, Nacho Libre, or even X-Men: The Last Stand presupposes that the source material was not a mockery, something which cannot be said for any of those movies. In fact, seeing posters up around town of Pirate Captain Jack Swallows [sic] running from cannibals only suggests to me, “Look! We cannibalized a bunch of movies!” Do they think they’re being clever by making a funny movie by taking scenes from other funny movies? Like someone will think, “What a great idea! Just take other peoples’ great ideas!”

You can’t spoof a spoof. You look stupid trying.

That won’t keep people from going to see it, and even laughing at some parts, but I meant what I said about it being a milestone. Movies cost money and Hollywood has long since stopped being anything other than a business, if it ever were. The concept of “franchises” is not unique to the silver screen, though they perhaps exploit them most overtly. Wade through all the marketing and the thinking comes down to this, “Why take a chance on a movie people have never seen before?” It seems that “Epic Movie” has decided to take that question (which already turns my stomach) quite literally.

“Epic Movie” is a symptom of a much larger problem, like many things that suck are. Our mental space, just like our physical, is being knowingly polluted, for profit. It’s easy to see when raw sewage is being dumped in your backyard. It’s not as easy when the same waste is being dumped straight into your conscious or sub-conscious mind. I’m not willing to commit one way or another on whether projects like “Epic Movie” are systematic efforts to reduce the range of thought of which we’re capable, but some sort of decolonization needs to happen internally—and hopefully then spread to our theaters.

Seriously, this thing looks like an SNL episode.

My mother, a thoroughly good-natured person whom I often use to gauge the pulse of America (to which I am somewhat deafened by living in San Francisco), has recently put forth the criteria for her next car purchase. It must be:

1. A hybrid.
2. Not an SUV.
3. American.

It doesn’t seem to be a terribly tall order, yet at this time there are zero models that obey those three simple rules. In short, US automakers can argue that there’s no demand for whatever the West Coast Enviro-crazies are clamoring for, but they’re simply not making the car that my mother—the elementary school librarian in Indiana—actually wants.

Being a good son, I tried to help her find the car she was looking for, even though I knew that the first available model to meet her criteria was the Chevy Malibu, estimated to hit markets late 2007. I pressed a bit more about why it was important to her to buy American and got more information. My great grandfather worked his whole life for GM on the assembly line and a family devotion to support his work had been passed on from generation to generation. This complicates the situation a little bit.

The Ford Model-T, which still gets twice the MPG as an Explorer.

The auto industry is fast on its way to a collection of platform companies where the products aren’t even manufactured by the branded corporation, or at least not in the same country. For instance, while Ford closes its US factories, it’s opening up factories in Mexico that employ half a million people. On the other hand, Toyota has factories in California, Kentucky, West Virginia, Texas, and even Indiana. In fact, Toyota and Subaru share a factory in my birthplace of Lafayette, IN.

The story gets even more complicated if you want your car produced not just by American labor, but unionized American labor. For that, you pretty much have to grab your car’s VIN and use this reference on the UAW site. Though it really should be noted that “American labor” technically includes Canada, Mexico, and a bunch of other countries as they are part of North or South America after all.

If, like me, you just go by pithy statements to determine your allegiances, you might consider the classic Cal Coolidge aphorism: “The business of America is business!” In which case, it might behoove you to note that Toyota is outselling both Ford and Daimler-Chrysler now, making it the #2 largest retailer in North America and, consequently, more American than either Ford or Daimler-Chrysler. Considering that Ford thinks that being American means talking bold without backing it up, I can’t say I’m surprised.

The term “Conspicuous Consumption” was coined in 1899 to describe (with no small amount of disdain) the buying patterns of the Nouveau Riche. They suddenly had lots of money and wanted to let everyone know. Huge cars, lavish mansions, fur coats, sparklin’ dookie, etc.

Who’s sexier: George Cloonery or Al Gore?

The same thing seems to be happening with the trend-setting creative class in the present day. These Nouveau Righteous have developed a conscience and, by god, they’re going to let people know. Fashion magazines this summer were abuzz with the new “Eco-Chic” trend (as opposed to Eco-Chick, which is always in season). Everyone was checking labels to make sure they were toting certified organic, sustainably cultivated, fair-trade clutch bags that really reflected their worldly values on the way to the plastic surgeon for lipo, in their Hummer.

Evangeline Lilly thinks you should wear more hemp.

Making known one’s ethical affiliations is nothing new. Bumper-stickers proclaiming preferences for love-making over war-making could have grandkids by now and the colored-ribbon frenzy of the 90s has merely evolved into the colored-bracelet frenzy of the 00s (no, not that one). Still, there’s something about the ultra-ubiquitous white iPod as symbol for cultural capital that suggested to me that this (RED)^TM coalition was more about capitalism than activism. Afterall, fancy iPods and Bono go hand-in-hand.

The (RED)^TM campaign (yes, they’ve trademarked the term “(RED)”) has a wonderful manifesto that explains their intention with the branding strategy. My favorite bit is reproduced below:

(RED) is not a charity. It is simply a business model. You buy (RED) stuff. We get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. … If they don’t get the pills, they die. We don’t want them to die, we want to give them the pills…

Does that read like a protection racket to anybody else? “Hey kid, buy this iPod or Africans die. I could help ‘em out y’know, all you gotta do is buy this iPod. C’mon, you wouldn’t want anything bad should happen.” This is strange to me, because the (RED)^TM products seem to be priced exactly the same as their non-African saving contemporaries, what kind of “business model” is that?

The new face of activism?

In the end, I don’t think this campaign is truly about leveraging the power of consumption to help resolve the world’s tragedies, it’s leveraging the world’s tragedies—and the incredible transformative power of activism—to further fuel consumption. Otherwise, we could skip the iPods and just send $10 to The Global Fund ourselves and save $189 plus tax. The truth is that many corporate business plans rely on Third World poverty to keep costs down and if we really want to address global inequities, it’s probably not best accomplished by pouring money into the very institutions that have perpetuated them.

The cover of the latest Fortune blasts the bold headline: “Chaos@Google!” But before you sell your favorite stock, read the subtitle: “The inside story of disorder, disarray, and uncertainty at Google. And why it’s all part of the plan.” Indeed, the article implies that the Googleplex in Mountain View, CA is closer to a raucous playground than the austere sanctuary one might expect as the home of arguably the internet’s biggest success story. That’s how they want it. VP for Business Operations Shona Brown even wrote a book on the subject, “Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos“.

But it’s not just talk. Consider what Larry Page’s response to an employee that cost the company millions of dollars:

I’m so glad you made this mistake. Because I want to run a company where we are moving too quickly and doing too much, not being too cautious and doing too little. If we don’t have any of these mistakes, we’re just not taking enough risk.

That’s crazy talk! Millions of dollars and he’s practically happy about it. To the asylum with him!

But he’s not the only one milking madness. Business Week this week (I really don’t normally read so many mainstream, Wall Street-y type magazines, but my officemate had some around) has a whole section called “Inside Innovation“, which seems to be basically a list of crazy ways for suits to get creative—and they’re good! Some of them:

1. Pairing sensible engineers with wacky artists to co-generate ideas.
2. Important rules for brainstorming from Bob Sutton, who has previously suggested ignoring your boss to promote innovation.
3. Apple Designer Jonathan Ive suggests that an innovative idea will likely change the company that produces it.
4. Or just steal good ideas from places like TED, which I’m shocked I haven’t linked to previously.

I feel kind of dirty linking to Fortune and Business Week as proof that chaos, anarchy, and noise have a vital place in the world today. Could it be that Corporate America is making the slow transition from Orange to Green?

The features begins with a seemingly inspiring question…

Can we turn capitalism into an open source design project and make it more sustainable and responsible to our and future generation’s needs?

… And then becomes a version history of sorts, beginning with 1.0 (Shortage Capitalism) and ending with 4.0 (Sustainable Capitalism). I would link to the article itself but Adbusters is a bit exclusive with their content, so I’ll just recap it here.

Shortage Capitalism (1.0) is the capitalism we all learned about in high school. People have needs, businesses make products to fill them. If demand exceeds supply, prices go up. If supply exceeds demand, prices go down. Everyone acts in their own best interest and “the market” does the rest. It’s easy enough to understand, but capitalism hasn’t really functioned like this for a long time.

Next came Surplus Capitalism (2.0). Resource extraction and manufacturing are exported to the Third World, lowering costs but sending externalities skyrocketing. With a wealth of goods, supply far exceeds demand—but corporations have learned how to prevent that from translating into lower prices. Advertising becomes the new business of business. To pay for all the things they don’t need, consumers turn to credit and go into debt. This is the most current version… and it has a lot of bugs.

Commons Capitalism (3.0) is Barnes’ proposed next update. Inspired by Garret Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, he envisions a capitalism that includes a commons transformed from a victim to a market force of its own. Nature (including air, water, or even DNA), along with communities and culture, would have representation via a trust tasked with defending and preserving the commons and paying dividends to the collective shareholders.

The essence is to fix capitalism’s operating system by adding virtuous feedback loops and proxies for unrepresented stakeholders.

Since there are efforts out there that are trying to do something like this, I’m comfortable saying that while 3.0 may be in Beta, we might see a Release Candidate soon.

Finally, Adbusters imagines Sustainable Capitalism (4.0). This conglomeration of existing ideologies like True Cost Markets, Ecological Economics, the Tobin Tax, and Corporate Social Responsibility come together to create a model of capitalism that could evolve beyond the EOLed version we have now.

I have two major responses to the article. The first is that, while the metaphor of capitalism as open source software is a great one, power over corporations and their “operating system” is already in the hands of civil society; we just keep forgetting. It is dangerous to objectize “Capitalism” as something not fundamentally controlled by humans. At the end of the day, we are the programmers and the responsibility for providing tech support (in the form of patches, updates, and new features) falls squarely at our feet.

Second, and this comes back to my friend trying to decide if she is an anti-capitalist or post-capitalist, I want to caution anyone thinking that merely having a roadmap to 4.0 secures its inevitability. Every oil worker kidnapped or brick through a Starbucks window is a bug report reminding us that the current product is not working. Put more fancily, the Hegelian synthesis requires conflict between actual and potential ideologies in order to manifest progress.

Finally, can we all take a moment to appreciate how incredibly clever I am to have put the Web 2.0 reflection under the Monopoly Guy?