The basic idea of the anti-state-capitalist, Equitist Reform/Revolution, as I understand it, is to sprout the "seed" of economic democracy already internal to the Capital-relationship, into a full-blown political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, i.e., into 'Democratic [Real] Communism' -- in contradiction to both the private-capital-dominated version of totalitarian state-capitalism that is emergent in the "West", and, now, world-wide, and to the Lenino-Stalinoid versions of pure-state-bureaucratic-ruling-class totalitarian state-capitalism that once dominated the "East" -- via the four new species of generalized equity rights, which are not limited to capital owners, as is the old, Capital equity right, but which are the birth-right of every Citizen.
It is based, that is, upon a dialectical "immanent critique" -- i.e., a critique based upon the internal logic of the object of critique itself, and, thus, in fact, a self-critique of that object -- of "Bourgeois Right" in general, and of Bourgeois economic "Right" -- "Capital Right" -- in particular.
"Capital Equity Right" -- "Stockholder Democracy" -- will, due to the immanent dynamical "law of motion" of the capitalist political-economic system -- the "law" of the consolidation, concentration, and centralization of Capital-ownership -- ineluctably eventuate in concentrating virtually all effective economic power in a tiny minority of human society, which will not only render the majority of human beings economically essentially powerless, but will also subvert the civil and political dimensions of "Bourgeois Right" -- civil liberties, representative democracy, equality before the law, the very rule of law itself, etc. -- by enabling that tiny minority of concentrated Capital-owners to prostitute all three branches of political government, legislative, executive, and judicial, thus destroying constitutional checks and balances, and by motivating them to do so by mortally-threatening their power with comprehensive 'techno-depreciation' of their core fixed capital assets, if general technological progress/"growth of the productive forces" is allowed, by them, to continue much further, thus leading that plutocracy to try to impose a global system of totalitarian, humanocidal national [state-]capitalist cyber-police states, featuring a total loss of Bourgeois "liberty", to say the least, and a new, probably Final, "Dark Age".
Marx wrote about the "seed" of 'democratic [actual] communism' within the Capital-social-relation-of-production in some of his first, earliest notes toward an outline of his immanent critique of capitalist political economy, an outline that eventually became Marx's draft of the three volumes of <<Das Kapital>>, in these words --
"Capital is divided into four sections.
1. Capital en général [in Fr.] (This is the material of the first brochure).
2. Competition or the reciprocal action of the many capitals.
3. Credit, where capital appears as the general element in opposition to the
4. Share capital as the most perfect form (assuming the character of
communism), together with all its contradictions."
[Letter from Marx to Engels, April 2, 1858, in MEW 29, page 312, reproduced in Rubel on
Marx: Five Essays, Cambridge University Press (NY: 1981), page 216, emphasis added by M.D.].
-- And, in some of his last, final notes on that immanent critique, that became part of volume III. of <<Das Kapital>>, under Engels's editorship --
"The general remarks, which the credit system so far elicited from us, were the following: ...
III. Formation of stock companies. Thereby: ...
3) Transformation of the actually functioning capitalist into a mere manager, administrator of other people's capital, and of the owner of capital into a mere owner, a mere money-capitalist.
Even if the dividends which they receive include the interest and the profit of enterprise, i.e., the total profit (for the salary of managers is, or should be, simply the wage of a specific type of skilled labour, whose price is regulated in the labour-market like that of any other labour), this total profit is henceforth received only in the form of interest, i.e., as mere compensation for owning capital that is now entirely divorced from the function in the actual process of reproduction, just as this function in the person of the manager is divorced from ownership of capital. ...
In stock companies the function is divorced from capital ownership, hence also labour is entirely divorced from ownership of means of production and surplus-labour.
This result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is a necessary transitional phase towards the reconversion of capital into the property of producers, although no longer as the private property of the individual producers, but rather as the property of associated producers, as outright social property.
On the other hand, the stock company is a transition toward the conversion of all functions in the reproduction process which still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of the associated producers, into social functions.
This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a self-dissolving contradiction, which prima facie represents a mere phase of transition to a new form of production.
It manifests itself as such a contradiction in its effects.
It establishes a monopoly in certain spheres and thereby requires state interference.
It reproduces a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators, and simply nominal directors; a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promoting, stock issuance, and stock speculation.
It is private production without the control of private property. ...
The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organization all the shortcomings of the prevailing system.
But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour [The Equitists call this transitional hybrid form 'workers' capital[ism]' — Miguel].
They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage.
Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories.
Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production.
The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist [e.g., capitalist-family-owned -- Miguel] enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale [and, later, as with the Mondragon Cooperative, to their extension on a global scale -- Miguel]. ...
The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one, and positively in the other. ...
The credit system appears as the main lever of over-production and over-speculation in commerce solely because the reproduction process, which is elastic by nature, is here forced to its extreme limits, and is so forced because a large part of the social capital is employed by people who do not own it, and who consequently tackle things quite differently than the owner, who anxiously weighs the limitations of his private capital in so far as he handles it himself.
This simply demonstrates the fact that the self-expansion of capital based on the contradictory nature of capitalist production permits an actual free development only up to a certain point, so that in fact it constitutes an immanent fetter and barrier to production, which is continually broken through by the credit system.
Hence, the credit system accelerates the material development of the productive forces and the establishment of the world-market.
It is the historical mission of the capitalist system of production to raise the material foundations of the new mode of production to a certain degree of perfection.
At the same time credit accelerates the violent eruption of this contradiction — crises — and thereby the elements of disintegration of the old mode of production.
The two characteristics immanent in the credit system are, on the one hand, to develop the incentive of capitalist production, enrichment through the exploitation of the labour of others, to the purest and most colossal form of gambling and swindling, and to reduce more and more the number of the few who exploit the social wealth; on the other hand, to constitute the form of transition to a new mode of production.
It is this ambiguous nature, which endows the principal spokesmen of credit from Law to Isaac Pereire with the pleasant character mixture of swindler and prophet."
[Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (vol. III.), '''The Shapes Taken-On by The Reproductions-Process of/by Capitals Overall''', Chapter XXVII.,"The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production", International Publishers Co., Inc. (NY: 1967), pages 435-441, emphases added by M.D.]."