It sounds like you have been burnt, badly.

There is surely a business out there that does fit your world view, though the pay and conditions might not.

In my view, the need for growth at any cost is toxic and leads to all sorts of horrible behaviours.

There are no good organizations, only ones that aren’t completely corrupt yet. Consider that to start and maintain an organization takes significant capital and energy expenditures upfront, which means you need to fund them from somewhere and ask sources of funding are corrupted. Consider: there are no long lasting egalitarian, distributed power, grassroots organizations that can compete at a level of social influence that can overcome or resist the existing power structure.

I’ve looked at every possible organization that could theoretically fit including; MSF a.k.a. doctors without borders, swords to plowshares, goodwill industries (who employ significant numbers of disabled people for sub min wages while the CEO makes 3M+), Mondragon etc… and they all have exactly the same fucked up incentives

why? because there is no way to survive as a structure, if your org is made up of people who want to eat and don’t want to be a monk.

unless your organization is the lead maximalist resource dominator you will be overrun by some organization with no ethics

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that people have to trade physical and mental work for money to survive. So there is no alternative to do the “right thing” without also risking your own safety and stability in your chosen society. 99.99999% of people are completely unwilling to risk their life on behalf of any particular philosophy - if only because those people don’t feel strongly enough about any particular philosophy to actually put themselves on the line for it.

So whoever has the most money, has the ability to get the most people to work for their goals.

Unfortunately the people with all the money/power do not care about anything other than growing their own personal power

▲

lostlogin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> why? because there is no way to survive as a structure, if your org is made up of people who want to eat and don’t want to be a monk.

The worse offenders in terms of corrupting power structures seem to be religious organisations, so being a monk is out too.

That power eventually corrupts shouldn’t rule out an organisation, but if it does, start your own and keep it to one employee.

▲

alwa 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’d be curious what you identified as the shortcomings of e.g. MSF or Mondragon. I might throw semi-decentralized social ventures like the IFRC in the mix there too: that emblem alone sure carries an almost-talismanic degree of social weight, seemingly worldwide, I think in large part because they’re foresworn from swinging around their influence outside of their lane.

And I mean… “don’t want to live like a monk” seems like a telling qualifier: the whole monastic lifestyle seems pretty widespread and enduring across cultures and through time… is the humbler mode of religious devotion an example of what you’re looking for?

In any case you’ve clearly thought deeply and widely about this question—I’d be interested to read your thoughts if you end up collecting them somewhere!

	▲	AndrewKemendo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I’m simply acknowledging that only a tiny fraction of any group will find themselves devoted to the group in the “monastic” way of self erasure