Comcomism For Small Businesses

ComComIsm is the new 3rd way, which is not communism or capitalism, but which integrates the good in both. Unlike in communism, it allows going out of the system with a positive returned value of the investment put in the system and unlike the capitalism it regulates and reserve a predefined part of the system to be held by holders owning an equal share in it.

Hence, as such it forces decentralization of power of holders and when common interest/treats/goals become an issue, but mistrust or luck of responsibilities creates some problems it is practically the better way to go.

  • In short It is useful structure of organization in the case of smaller business when they are organized in front of the bigger ones. e.g. as the nobles did when confronting the king, but it is also useful for any position:
    • If you are in the position of "the king" (as in the p-holder's position), would you like your soldiers to be holding share in "your land" for being really loyal and do the most they could for protecting that "land" and
    • if you are a useful force like a horse, what kind of horse are you? is that one bind tight to a wagon or the free one (as in the c-holder's position) able to run to the next village for to offer your product for to bringing your costumer to you?
Equal and free owners. Have me in? Y, but only when i have my way out!

In the old times of the capitalism, the way for bodies to grow was by these 3 steps:

  1. takeover some elements, of which each is one small business,
  2. pack these elements so that you could
  3. hand it over, meaning hand the new package as a new product for higher price to the richer.
  • And so, as the over centralization is proven to work against the small business (by actually killing the small ones) and by increasing the risk of having too big players in any economy, we, the small business, now, in the new times of comcomism, have
    • small business able (as in step 2.) to be packed (but now) as c-holders for better performing and stronger establishing our market and for being able better resist against being taken over by bigger bodies (as in step 1.).

Take a look on this: most of the time, we are in both positions we are comparative and also we have something in common. e.g. let's take 2 small business, in one street actually having the same clientele and hence they would try to fight each other about that same market, but that clientele could also be(come) bigger or smaller, just because the street gut be more or less attractive.

And so for making the street be more attractive they now must be well organize.

Here comcomism can help and especially where the partners are competitive just because it sets the rules and the power's distribution for always and right in the the start, it does so simply and clearly, in other words, ComComism increases trust. So, of course we are not equal, but we could have equal power in one project of which goal/cause/threat is common for us both. And so, as long as some people can have some common goal/cause/threat there comcom could be the way they could organize even only for the trust they could share in such organization.

Here you can read about the personal experience of mistrustful partner which led me to the comcomism.

Matters related to Defensing Small Business, can be better organized when competing and/or complementing business are organized as c-holders in comcom, as these comcom are the base for establishing the requirement meeting their common need.

Here is an example:

  • The Problem: One may have the equipment and the space for allowing several practitioners (maybe also including her/his self) to practice their profession as a service (such as teaching, massaging etc) for their clients, where the clientele per each practitioner is somewhat insufficient, but collectively is sufficient, for being able to pay the rent for the space.
  • The solution: The practitioners are organized as one ComCom of which d=1 (defined by this personal-agreement), so that the new comcom is the body renting the place (but now from better position of negotiations for practitioners versus the owner of the space, but also while easing for the owner the trouble of large scale initiation ) and also (as the new comcom) are now ready to be developed in other spaces with their own brand (the brand of the new comcom) and with new practitioners with their new clienteles.
    • Another solution: the d of the comcom of which c-holders are the practitioners is smaller than 1, hence allowing other p-holder to hold some share in the same comcom, so that the preferred attendees, meaning the preferred clients of the practitioners could be organized as c-holders in a comcom of which d=1 and which is a p-holder in the comcom of which c-holders are the practitioners.
      • This way the brand developed by the practitioners can offer the attendees something beyond the service they actually provide, with the plus of when the c is big enough the attendee might attract new such attendees to the same brand.

Another useful example: Dear owner - are you in the stress of such zero-or-100%-option (could you take 60%)?

Do you have a mortgaged property for which you are periodically paying your payment for rescuing 100% of the property, while fearing the risk of the default, in which case you are losing the whole property;

and if your payment to the bank was planed to be covered by e.g. renting your property, but is acutely not covered, would you like an alternative option? Say, to still have, but now only 60% of the property?

If so, well, you could make it, as you are the p-holder and the renters to buy are the c-holders of the comcom holding it as its d=0.4!

And here is a general ComComized apparatus for becoming more authentic and more organically developed:


By namzezamnamzezam, on 06 Mar 2010 14:15 history Tags:


~~Page's End!~~ Ignore ads by installing ublock.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License