capitalists don’t own capitalism or its definition…if property is theft, the solution is within reach…//An alliance of big business and democratic socialists…?

The corporate world is starting to realize the dangers of extreme capitalism.

Source: Could Democratic Socialists and Big Business Become Allies? | Fortune

An alliance of big business and democratic socialists…?

Our democratic market neo-communism has already produced an answer to this question, not the only one, but one that could evade the demise through compromise of the already compromised ‘social democratic’ distortion of the term socialism, its sad demise. The warnings given to social democrats come home to roost here as the original terms lose their meaning: and that meaning, socialism/communism, means the expropriation of private property, capitalist property. Here the legacy of Harrington will no doubt lead to the final idiocy of capitalist socialism. Capital, not your teddy bears as your propertied privacy, but the overall apparatus. Unless that expropriation can be achieved it is wrong to use the term ‘socialism’. And here the capitalists will never agree. But why not? Our DMNC allows the possibility of ‘markets’ in the context of a Commons. Both planning and markets can coexist, a difficult point but if you open your eyes and look that already exists, sort of.
Here let us note that the majority of capitalist true believers who own no capital but are a part of that system would prosper far better in our DMNC: the only issue is deprogramming the brainwashed to socialist repentance, they own nothing anyway beyond those teddy bears, so what’s the problem? The remainder, the capitalists themselves, are a mere minority, are obsessive, often psychopathic, greed worshippers and increasingly worse and worse as Ayn Rand fanatics, etc..These people are the final obstacle but they are a minority, and their ‘property’ being mostly plunder of a Commons suggests they haven’t a leg to stand on with their ‘private property’, that is capital, the fruits of primitive accumulation, property is theft, hat tip to Proudhon, and all that. So the issue is not just private property but dealing with thieves, the bad guys.
Our DMNC model, once the overall status of private property is brought to a Commons, still allows the capitalists the option of socialist corporations inside a special kind of market inside a Commons. So let the ex-capitalists become socialist entrepreneurs and lead socialist market corporations. Ditto for the managers who in reality are peons, stooges of the capos, owning no private property in our sense, working class stiffs, and perfect candidates to be managers in socialist/neo-communist corporations. Everything is nip and tuck save that I have a bad feeling about capitalists given their fruits of theft, the ‘property’ that was never really theirs, all that primitive accumulation and plunder, will not agree to give up their propertied fictions. So at least we can see the real enemy, the small group of fanatics who think they are owners and who need a new kind of debriefing on their status. At least they are a small minority. I see no problem in theory then, such a minority operates through various forms of witchcraft to bewitch their victims who own nothing. That was one of the original ideas of the ‘proletariat’ which now includes even those wage-labor managers, that it outnumbered the capitalists, so what is the problem?
we are close to a solution to the problem. Now all we have to do is apply semantic therapy to the DSA on the verge it seems of sordid Harringtonian compromises with the System, of capitalists. We can treat them as prophets of a better communism to come, if they can stop abusing semantics. The DMNC can include social democrats, if not vice versa.

Still this essay from Fortune raises issues that are worth study, but I fear that the capitalist system here is aiming to swallow the DSA whole like a ravenous wolf pack…proceed, the idea at least is interesting: and I note that a number of capitalists and business folk have actually looked with interest at the DMNC which shows, not a sordid compromise, but a hybrid communist/market system in which the issue of private property is really about a piece of paper which says that Acme Corp ‘owned’ by Thief so and so, is now part of the Commons. In a sane world, the capitalist owners could become socialist entrepreneurs and the brainwashed managers socialist managers, no longer brainwashed. Socialism with a stroke of the pen. A bit too simple, but in principle this could work, and if it won’t work we can warn the recalcitrant capos they are outnumbered…
There are obviously problems here: there is a lot of middling equity like home ownership and umpteen other intermediate categories but these as such are not fatal obstacles necessarily.

In any case we must remind the DSA that you can compromise with business up to a point, but as ‘socialists’ you must consider the issue of expropriation. Otherwise you are not socialists but the  perps of the primitive accumulation of plundered terminology. The DSA will end up tragic figures who destroyed socialism?

Let us note that capitalists think they control the definitions of capitalism, or think they do, more plunder. We can just as well redefine capitalism in the context of our DMNC. Markets in a Commons. Let redefinition stand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s