Capitalism's Fatal Flaw, and the Way Forward: ‘Stewardship-Equity’ Cooperatives and “Cutthroat Competition”. Part 2: ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’ series. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Monday, December 22, 2025

‘Stewardship-Equity’ Cooperatives and “Cutthroat Competition”. Part 2: ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’ series. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

‘Stewardship-Equity’

Cooperatives

and

“Cutthroat

Competition”.

Part 2:

‘Citizen Stewardship

Equity’ series.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

We hypothesize that, among same-market(s) ‘Stewardship Equity’ Cooperatives there might be evoked a kind of ‘commercial athleticism’, and a “team spirit”, hopefully largely in the context of ‘“good sportsmanship”’, in their collective owners – an ‘‘‘athleticism’’’ more real, and more engaging, than today’s “opium of the people”: “spectator sports”/“professional athletics”, which involves the alienation of any real athletic participation on the part of sports enthusiasts, who are reduced to mere spectatorship, often in unhealthy forms.

Moreover, we hypothesize that Stewardship Cooperatives will be inherently, by their very nature, far less susceptible to the “imperatives” of capitalist “cutthroat competition” – which aims, deliberately, to the bankrupt competing firms/-acquire their assets and their market-shares – than are contemporary capitalist firms, in actually-competitive, non-oligopolistic markets, even if their enterprise managers and/or majority owners/founders do not share in that insatiability.

We think that enterprises with public, or even private, absentee stockholders – who constitute, in effect, an insatiable demand for enterprise expansion, and, especially for the ever-expansion of profits – tend to demand “beggar thy neighbor” strategies, based on a kind of profit motive that does not exist for worker-owned producers’ cooperatives.

The majorities of the internal owner-electorates of – the “associated producers” of – a ‘Citizens’ Stewardship Equity’ Co-op, we expect, will more likely be market-niche seekers, happy with a sustainable market-segment, although open to adaptation, e.g., to diversification, if that niche appears later to be becoming unviable.

But we see such Co-ops as being unlikely, in general, to seek the expansion of their work-time, and of their life-stress, that would be forced upon them by an agenda of “conquest”, of bankrupting their Stewardship Co-op competitors.

As well, there might likely be, in some degree, feelings of solidarity and sympathy for other such Co-ops – even for competing Co-ops.

But the Citizen Stewards of such Co-ops might not feel so charitably toward their remaining capitalist competitors, so that some regulation might be needed, not to even mention the “vice-versa” to that probable antipathy.

To ‘disincent’ capitalist enterprises from engaging in, community-damaging, “cutthroat competition”, e.g., “dumping”, against one another, as well as against Stewardship Co-ops, legislation regarding competitive practices – legal and illegal – might be the best means.

To ‘disincent’ Stewardship Cooperatives from engaging in “cutthroat competition” against remaining capitalist firms, as well as against one another, much of this regulatory need might be fulfilled by means of covenantings regarding competitive practices, by the Co-ops’ sponsoring Social Banks, making the Social-Rents-compensated provision of means of production to the Co-ops by the Social Banks contingent upon the non-practice of certain, community-damaging forms of competition.

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

www.dialectics.info

and

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –