On the very positive side, a thorny problem--specifically finding a person to make a vector file for us at a price we can pay--appeared to resolve itself. I say appeared, but really the solution was the result of taking actions: telephoning people recommended to us by others and asking still others if they might know someone. The perception that no answer would ever come after calls to fewer than five prospective providers of the service is normal. The truth, however, is that the right person came forward after fewer than five efforts. I need to remember this. We didn't call a hundred people; we didn't even call twenty people, not ten. As we continue to determine what kind of working relationship we four have and how to establish clear lines among us, one of us agreed to come up with a basic partnership agreement. Another one of us had already failed to attend any but the first meeting and to return calls and email regularly. We other three decided to let that fourth know that we were moving forward as a threesome. It was painful, but the best evidence of desire to work on this project is work on it.
For my own part, as I read the partnership agreement and thought about my experience so far, I became very aware that, though I want to see this endeavor succeed, it looks more like a sole proprietorship than a partnership to me. The designer of the product we are working on and the person I think owns it in a serious way said that without my work so far and that of the third person, the project would not be where it is. I do not discount my own and the third person’s contribution and agree that without our help, the project would not be where it is today. It is, however, perfectly all right for a person like the designer to need help, to ask for it, and to receive it, without helpers having to be remunerated in any way. I think it will be best for me to continue my commitment to this year's goals for the enterprise without owning any part of the business.
Advocates of capitalism are wrong to say that only profit motivates people to contribute to society. I don't know that a desire for profit necessarily leads to greed and exploitation of others and of resources in all cases, but I do know that unregulated capitalism does. I also know that many other values motivate people. In this endeavor, I am motivated first and strongest by my desire to see my friend succeed. I am also motivated by my personal and professional mission to support the work of other artists (the other two members of our group are also artists). A further motivation is learning about how to start up a business.
On that last score, one thing I know now, not just intellectually, but experientially, is that a start up must have enough money. As a group, we do not have enough money to achieve the production goals we have set. The designer actually does have resources to commit and the partnership agreement called for expenses contributed by any of us to be reimbursed from sales of the product and then any profit shared by us equally. I had called earlier for an exact accounting of everything that is spent so that we know for sure what costs are rather than anyone contributing goods in kind or out of pocket expenses that are not counted. Certainly, the proposed agreement appears fair, especially in a system where money is valued more than the work and the people. I don't mean by that that the individuals concerned have those values, but that the values are so pervasive that they obtain without conscious choice. There was also talk of eventual investment from outside (perhaps corporate money) that would, in the US capitalist model, lead to ownership by outside persons or entities of some part of the business.
What would it be like for someone who has money to contribute it to a start up and still have only the share that everyone else has if they actually work on the project or no share at all if they do not? Why should money be more important than the work and people? Why should anyone who does not actually contribute to the production of something gain any financial value from it? This creates a need to deprive the actual workers in order to pay those who don't work. What possible real measure can be applied to money, work, and people? If there isn't one, then how can people proceed in these matters? What equitable system for providing funds for the production of things and remuneration for the people who make them can there be?
I do not want to replicate the non-productive capital model that exits in the US. I want to see the people who do the work be the only owners of the means of production, to be the only ones to decide what to make and how to do it. I want to see "work" extended to unpaid and mostly invisible productive and necessary activity that takes place in human societies. I also want to see production of many fewer things, most of them either essential to life or at the very least useful by small, local enterprises that benefit the workers first and then the local community. I am interested in alternatives to both capitalism and globalism. It would be ideal for this kind of enterprise to also take less of anyone's time and for all people to make "a living but not a killing".
All these questions and issues are very important to me. Our project is allowing me to pose the questions and think about the issues and to explore alternatives to the prevailing and accepted models.
No comments:
Post a Comment