>It's like the writing's on the wall and we already know what's going to happen..

Because it is, and you explained exactly why:

>We're in a segment of time where companies are so over-valued by VC that when they go public they have no choice but to engage in egregious practices to maintain the stock price. It often alienates the customers/users/supporters that got them there.

It's the inevitable outcome of enough cases that we should celebrate those that don't take this route. I'm thinking of orgs like Debian here, but there are many others for whom profit is not a or the sole motivator.

Some business person probably read this post and thought "Hmm, Debian ...".

>> Is this the inevitable outcome in all cases or is this a symptom of a flaw in our model?

The problem seems to be that "investment" these days is all about selling to someone else at a higher price. Stock performance has decoupled from company value but people still try to "meet expectations" anyway.

One driver is low interest rates. Another is the 401k plans in the US where every middle-class employee is systematically pushing money into the market. this provides an ultimate sucker for every VC to sell to since the end-game is to IPO at astronomical valuations.

How about Cooperative business models?

Tech industry examples:

NISC, makes software for electric and telecom cooperatives (disclosure, I am a new employee here)

Tessitura, makes software for event ticket sales

Can't float the idea of worker cooperatives without tossing Mondragón[1] into the mix!

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

> How do we stop this cycle where it's a (well-deserved) reluctant goodbye every time a company we like seeks to go public and IPO?

venture communism instead of venture capitalism?

peer-to-peer communism instead of the client server state?

http://media.telekommunisten.net/manifesto.pdf

While I respect your willingness to think outside of the box, and am thankful for your reply, I am old enough to remember that communism is not something I personally desire.

If you ignore the historically loaded proper nouns in that piece, most of the values described are the sort of thing that's typically pretty popular around here. Decentralization, free software, information freedom, etc. It doesn't really have anything to do with the communist parties that come to mind when one hears the word "Communism".

Pure communism as conceived in theory is not the same thing as the Soviet and Chinese applications which are really authoritarianism.

Unfortunately theory once it hits reality is often found to be untenable.

The aggregation of power into some kind of central authority system for the good of the people always ends up bad for the people.

> The aggregation of power into some kind of central authority system for the good of the people always ends up bad for the people.

You will find that this sentiment is quite popular among communists these days. The idea of achieving a classless, stateless society via the use of a central state is inherently contradictory. (Though that's not to say that the alternatives are necessarily more realistic)

It's obvious to anyone who has read history, or can see the 'communist' countries of today.

It's just the wannabe communists who are still silly enough to think they'll get it right this time.

Can you point to a communist government which has not devolved into authoritarianism?

I cannot. It seems to be the inevitable end of that form of government.

Many companies are kind of communist when looking at their internal structure.

Communism is totalitarian by nature. It will always be evil and abhorrent

There's nothing totalitarian in communism by definition[1]. Marxism-Leninism and Maoisn certainly are very totalitarian implementations, but there are others.

`Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal') is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. Communism is a specific, yet distinct, form of socialism. Communists agree on the withering away of the state but disagree on the means to this end, reflecting a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more vanguardist or Communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state.`

You cannot have a collectivist regulation of supply and demand without a totalitarian control of the production and distribution of everything. Totalitarianism is integral to the core of communism, it's the hinge point of it's entire function. Dogma which rejects that reality does not change it, and _every_ instance of it in real life backs up this simple reality.

if we all organized, we could probably collectively own more stock than any single shareholder

or just buy any amount of stock, and be a normal shareholder - go to the meetings and make your voice heard?

if enough of us even owned the minimum 1 share, the foundation / company would be in a better place

Imo, it's a flaw in our model. If 'fighting them' failed, then, we should join them. Here, that would mean participation in the ipo, in the style of gamestop. Push the p/e ratio to something completely absurd. Maybe it'll fail as a result. (Thus begetting a libre office, response to an open office initiative.)

Hello, I think your account's ability to post and be seen is being interfered with, as all your comments are greyed as soon as you post, and I had to 'vouch' for this post in order to reply, thought you should know, because this was an otherwise insightful comment.

Aka capitalism.

We know it sucks, but gotta get yours while you can right?