Capitalist manifesto pdf

The Capitalist Manifesto defends capitalism as the world's most moral and practical social system. This book is written for the rational mind, whether the reader is a professional intellectual or an intelligent layman. It makes the case for individual rights and freedom in terms intelligible to all rational men. In , a U. Kelso, created the employee stock ownership plan ESOP to enable the employees of a closely held newspaper chain to buy out its retiring owners.

Two years later, Kelso and his co-author, the philosopher Mortimer J. Gary Wolfram refutes these principles with a clear exposition of the capitalist system--the only economic system compatible with both social justice and individual liberty"--Page 4 of cover.

Gary Wolfram refutes these principles with a clear exposition of the capitalist system--the only economic system compatible with both social justice. In , a U. Kelso, created the employee stock ownership plan ESOP to enable the employees of a closely held newspaper chain to buy out its retiring owners. Two years later, Kelso and his co-author, the philosopher Mortimer J.

Adler, explained the macro-economic theory on which the. The Capitalist Manifesto defends capitalism as the world's most moral and practical social system. This book is written for the rational mind, whether the reader is a professional intellectual or an intelligent layman. It makes the case for individual rights and freedom in terms intelligible to all rational men. In this manifesto-style book, radical economist and strategist Umair Haque calls for the end of the corrupt business ideals that exemplify business as usual.

His passionate vision for "Capitalism 2. Mismanagement of the United States as a national household during the 20th Century created the new Great Depression of this 21st Century. The creeping rot of inflation and socialism threaten continued existence of the United States as a national household under a constitutional form of government. A set of four. Capitalism — which is, as hinted above, a horrible system of unemployment, low wages, crises, chronic pollution, cyclical crises and "humanitarian" wars - is precisely a systemically violent system, whether it assumes the forms of a liberal- democratic society or not!

In fact, violence is, as it were, almost invisible in Capitalism. Capitalist media are always ready to depict subjective violence as demonic in TVs, Radio and Internet whilst not questioning the systemic violence that created the subjective violence; and therefore discuss its systemic nature. As philosopher Slavoj Zizek would put it, systemic violence the cause is far more dangerous than subjective violence the mere effect.

Violence is everywhere in Capitalism. It is behind the general Capitalist production of commodities. It is behind the smile of whoever plans to sell you a charity plan in exchange for your purchase of exploitative production. And yet, what can one generally see as a politically unaware honest buyers? Only commodities: an immense pool of commodities. And little more. Lenin - State and Revolution] Yes! Being a non-Leninist, all in all, doesn't prevent one Postcapitalist from quoting Lenin or concoct anti-Capitalist plans along with witty "dialectical" Leninists!

Anyway, Lenin is right in this case. Because abolishing private initiative, within the Liberal law, is first of all unconstitutional. Secondly, Bourgeois powers would probably find a fast way to stop your radicalism before you politically inflict serious damages to Capital. Parliamentary politics is not directly democracy, but representatively democratic. This representative hierarchy — once present in the then mathematically flawed Soviet representative democracy and still present in the political structure of the developed capitalist world — has to be absolutely avoided, if we want to implement real democracy, namely, demarchic power from commoners actively involved in the civic and political life — with no hierarchic intermediation whatsoever.

Hierarchic Political intermediation — as embodied by the parliamentary system too — can never be a politically and economically fair one; especially in Capitalism, which is a social structure producing billionaires, who can easily influence politics. Because not only it is a-priori filtered by unmonitored aristocratic decisions and a- priori subject to huge political costs of political filtering but, in Capitalism at least, is plagued by direct or indirect lobbying.

Suppose you are the most good-hearted and fair politician that can ever candidate him or herself to, say, the White House in the US. Who's gonna pay for your worthy campaign, for you pro-working class rhetoric?

Someone with money, and we all know where generally money goes. Certainly it goes not to pro-working class representatives. Who's gonna pay for your travels, for your banners, for your communicators and for all those communicative studies and efforts behind your political success? Of course, nobody. That's the job of Liberal ideology and "liberalised" religion. But a Postcapitalist is neither a Priest nor a liberal Storyteller.

Why would nobody pay for your fair and honest campaign? Simply because, as a pro-working class leader, you would be on the wrong side of Capitalism. This doesn't mean that a State cannot experience pro-working class historical "accidents". The fact parliamentary politics is a farce doesn't mean that through the State the working class cannot tactically improve its own situation, maintaining its own revolutionary aims.

On the other hand, parliamentary politics, taken as a primary goal, is, I dare say, pure smoke on the water, in the broadest sense of the term! Politics can never be separated from Economics. People satisfy their needs through a material economic system, which is regulated by politics.

Polity is always in function of the mode of production, which sustains it and through which politics find sustain. Rejection of political action? On the other hand, despite all the limitations of parliamentary activity, the rejection of politics - as encouraged by the Zeitgeist ideology and Anarchy - may end up representing a serious obstacle to the coming of a Postcapitalist society, which might require tactical pre-revolutionary participation to parliamentary politics, though not de- contextualised and de-processed from a Postcapitalist front struggle Workers should actively engage into parliamentary politics, which is to be taken as a tactic, in order to improve their socioeconomic conditions and be able to struggle against Capital.

All in all, in order to make the revolution one needs first of all to survive! However, it 20 I shall return on this issue in a while. Davide Ferri — The Postcapitalist Manifesto — page 24 is dangerous to do without an efficient participatory radical plan It must be borne in mind that one should not mistake this tactical logic with that narrow-minded logic, whereby after revolution Capitalist relations must be maintained.

That would be sheer apology. In fact, in case of a "political bribe to the working class", say, by Centrist or explicitly Capitalist political powers, a socio-economic improvement would be the coup-de- grace on workers' consciousness and at the same time, would mean the workers' prolonged subjugation to Capitalist exploitation, even if, say, higher wages may be attained.

Such a scenario would foster the passivity of the working class, rather than its political conscientisation against the economic system. One thing is a worker actively struggling for an economic demand, along with a revolutionary party. Another thing is a worker passively receiving a "sedating bribe" from a ruling Capitalist party or an institution, in the form of a transfer payment.

Workers' embourgeoisment should be avoided, by means of propaganda activity of all Postcapitalists united. It must be remembered that through the Liberal law — which, as we know, justifies private production, competition and profit - one cannot do much against Capital for the benefit of wage-labour. Davide Ferri — The Postcapitalist Manifesto — page 25 Because abolishing private initiative, within the Liberal law, is first of all unconstitutional.

Secondly, Bourgeois powers would probably find a fast way to stop radicalism before one politically inflicts serious damages to Capital. It must be borne in mind that one cannot do away with imperialist wars "by decree", without toppling down the class that wants those wars.

One cannot do away with pollution, without toppling down the class that pollutes through economic units operating within a framework of profit, merciless competition and activity property! NGO-style consciousness Eco-friendly initiatives, groups boycotting in the name of animal rights, NGOs non-governmental organisations and any kind of politically de-processed and de- contextualised activity are bourgeois in nature, not only because their approach is individualistic in itself and so very far from mass action but also because these queer historical products try to act on the effects rather than on the cause of suffering.

Needless to say, they unawarely help the reproduction of the Capitalist system in its apolitical and pro-charity form. Acting for the promotion of workers' rights through a NGO, while maintaining Capitalism without a revolutionary aim might even save, say, But what about the opportunities of revolution? What about the far greater number of workers one could save by actively working for the revolution, without spending precious energies for NGOs?

Assume that revolution is going to come in the same time, 10 years, with the help of, say, revolutionaries. Namboodiripad commonly known as E. Davide Ferri — The Postcapitalist Manifesto — page 26 What about the marginal contribution of an additional revolutionary? With revolutionaries the revolution could come earlier, say, in 9years, rather than What about the workers saved in that capital-less year?

It goes without saying; this is something that NGO activists haven't grasped at all. The same could even apply to those who care about animal rights; in their full narrow-minded interest I won't discuss this controversial bourgeois imbroglio hereby, as I already did at length in another article. One cannot do away with "odious jobs", without first overthrowing the private labour market and actively working for the introduction of a rational economic planning. For one can even "boycott" odious jobs, but not without hurting the labourers forced to work in such jobs on account of their surrounding material scarcity, as well as their families.

The opportunity cost of forgoing the revolution — and with it the introduction of an economic planning that may remunerate people according to quantity and quality of labour performed — is huge, both in human and economic terms. Needless to say, Capitalists are compelled by competition to maintain a certain average rate of profit which is above the competitive level in monopoly Capitalism if they wants to survive as Capitalists. Davide Ferri — The Postcapitalist Manifesto — page 27 Any serious and non-opportunistic political economist would agree on that NGO- like income redistribution has extremely limited social effects, apart from those of confusing activists on what to do and absorb their precious revolutionary potential into Christmas gifting and other gewgaws.

Charity or NGO action cannot bring down profit to an extent that jeopardises the very same process of reproduction and accumulation of the very same Capitalist that promotes charity-like action. It is not chance that most of charity-like initiatives ultimately help promoting the marketing image of one company, which with one hand cures the malnourished child and the other hand enslaves a whole chain of production.

The funding of NGOs or charity initiatives on the part of one corporation plays the game of the investors very well. More than a cause, it is a relatively important investment, as far as loyalty marketing is concerned.

Poverty is the last gear of a horrible mechanism of elite enrichment and impoverishment, sense of insecurity, perpetual crises, unemployment risk for the vast majority of the world population. The woman can only be liberated with full realisation of a Postcapitalist society, insofar Capitalism — with its competition, profit and private production — too often thrives on the inherited tradition of remote ages and their negative human consequence.

Capital thrives on giving credit to the individual family, which is opposed to the defunct joint family or the polyamorous family where inter-credit would make things slightly more difficult for Capital. Needless to say, the only solution is the abolition of Capitalism and with it, the superseding of its values that historically delay the civic, sexual and social emancipation of people.

Now, take the concept of rule after a Postcapitalist revolution! What to do after a revolution? How to ward off the potential danger of a growing bureaucracy? One might argue - not without reason - that Capitalist relations must be avoided from the very beginning, with the introduction of pure economic planning.

A bureaucracy balancing the interest of Capital and Wage-Labour, while implementing Capitalist policies that always end up increasing the weight of bourgeois layers, has never helped in history.

At the same time, one can argue that Postcapitalist factions will not have to fight each other to then end up fostering contradictions perhaps through the help of their respective "armies, collaborators and bureaucracies".

Nobody wants another "Spain of the s" where Anarchists, Trotskyists and Stalinists witnessed historically useless intercommunist fights, that did little more than contributing to the failure of Communism in their respective regions of political action. Similarly, nobody wants a "USSR of the s", in which Makhno's Anarchists were repressed, the workers' soviet demands were ignored also in defence of private property and the Constituent Assembly was shut down without taking the workers' will into account.

A victorious people's front of, say, Libertarian Marxists, Leninists and Anarchists, could allow and encourage all-sector workers themselves to electively decide for themselves about the provisional party to provisionally rule in a determined area, if people want so. However, it is advisable that the contesting vanguards sign a constitutional agreement in which all front parties admit their will to reject party- based rule and allow the full realisation of the concept of demarchy, which chooses the contextually necessary representative samples of spokespersons by lot and not through elections.

Needless to say, these spokespersons would have no independent decision-making and no fully representative powers, insofar as they would have to perpetually consult workers to take decisions or at higher levels, they would have to consider the spokespersons of lower tiers, who, in their turn, will have to consult the positions below The posts of these participatory delegates would have short-terms and rotational character.

I shall return on this in some time. Such a Post-capitalist experiment could ward off possible inter-communist fights and the potential growth of bureaucracy or even the very same potential revolutionary failure. Further, as long as all-sector workers' electively25 allow that, there could be reservations for all kinds of the above-mentioned experiments of political economy say, Libertarian, Anarchist and Leninist ones in separate areas of the revolutionary society; and in a rotational way.

This would consolidate the historical validity and performance of the political and economic theories of all the said factions. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will.

Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. In any society, People desire products and services for their pleasure and realisation of individual needs. Hence, people indirectly desire labour. In fact, people want a social production, full stop, whose prerequisite is labour alone in all kinds of societies, and not ownership.

Remarkably, products and services can be produced either with ownership or without; ownership of the means of production is a mere historical transitory contradiction, typical to Capitalism, namely, to Commodity production. Pro-Capitalist Reformists make short work of what all I discussed above. In their driest naivete, they legitimise ownership of the means of production and the market subjugation of wage-labour to it therefore the conflicting coexistence of Capital and Wage-Labour.

Davide Ferri — The Postcapitalist Manifesto — page 31 They don't see reality in dialectical terms, namely, as a pool of contradictions perpetually clashing with each other. They don't see Capitalism as a social structure where exploiting Capital sucks the blood of exploited wage-labour and, therefore, they fail to grasp that until there are contradictions in society, there will never be real justice, as the workers will never get the full produce of their labour.

These queer intellectuals also legitimise the horrible consequences of the two contradictions of exploiting Capital and exploited Wage-Labour, and with it the consequent people's de-humanisation, all over the world! O Reformists! Further, as also pointed out by Cockshott and Cottrell, among others Cockshott et al, , Reformist Capitalism relies upon the health of the private sector, in order to provide the public good to the people. This says it all. Reformists — especially the opportunists that see inequalities and tolerate them — fail to give an answer to this economic imbroglio.

Take the issue of employment! Whenever "national employment" is at risk for the tendency of desperate "foreigners" to accept lower wages as compared to the national citizens, they call for strict Protection of National Capital.

That is to say, these comedy personas and court philosophers merely try to export unemployment abroad, with all the narrow-mindedness of their wretched anti-internationalist logic! That's what century of Capitalist ideology produced in political terms in the mind of these narrow-minded brats. These buffoons are not "bothered by Capitalist realisation crises", because they are "transitory"; at the same time they are implicitly not bothered by the transitory millions of people displaced all over the world because of these Capitalist dynamics, as well as the transitory millions who die because of the "imperial" effects of crises in the form of "humanitarian wars", of low profitability of Capital.

Davide Ferri — The Postcapitalist Manifesto — page 32 These queer intellectuals boast the "worthy" policies of Keynesian Scandinavia and Social Democracy in Europe, as if these doctrines could really prevent the European people from falling into the tyranny of double-digit youth and non- youth unemployment, not to mention the never-prevented occurrence of the inherent Capitalist cyclical crises!

It is important to discuss Social Democracy and Keynesianism to understand, among other things, the Capitalist tendency to produce austerity — the neoliberal policies of cuts in private and public wages as well as in public spending. Before coming to Social Democratic policies and outcomes, we might wonder one question: What will be the ultimate outcome of debt repayment with austerity?

I shall return on this. Talk about Social Democracy, Keynesianism and Reformism in general. Reformistic Fiscal policies like those of pro-workers Social Democratic governments in post-WW2 Europe - however partial they may be in fighting Capital - are not tolerated by the Financial gang, whose political and economic power is nowadays enormous. Needless to say, an increase in government spending or a decrease in taxation - the typical policies of Keynesian Capitalism — brings forth an increase in the price level, especially in the era of Monopoly Capitalism.

This robbery occurs because Monopoly Capital prefers raising the price, rather than increasing the output level after a spending-induced rise in the aggregate demand. It goes without saying that the finance cannot allow inflationary policies like those of Social Democracy or Keynesianism, if it cares for its own survival. Also, as the growing power of Wage-Labour is something politically feared by the financial gang, and it will do anything to hinder it, exactly as it started doing from the s, when Keynesianism caused the uproar of Financial Capitalists with its systemic limitations.

It is not chance that Leftist Reformistic parties have become implicit appendages of the Right-wing establishment in Europe. Given the growing power of Finance, which has a particular crave for deflationary policies and higher short run profits, by now Social democratic parties don't manage to implement welfare state policies like once. One can take the example of Spain, Greece and Italy in the s.

Social democratic policies - particularly in advanced countries - are not easy to carry out like once. Of course, this condition might easily help in giving rise to the historical possibility of radicalisation of all-sector labourers.

Assuming these parties can really do something concrete for the working class in social democratic terms, that would be even dangerous, considering the potential "return" of the far right. Yes, because the specific dimension of Fascism is the historical product of crisis and always tends to return during times of low Capital profitability.

Proposing welfare state policies which could raise real wages of workers definitely scares the investors, who have to revise downward their investment decisions. Such a process infuriates the industrial capitalists or the financial Capital involved in industrial production.

And this is very dangerous, as suggested above. Almost needless to say, again, Reformists fail to see beyond mere gewgaws to the working class. Before coming to the concept of austerity, what all could we evince from what has been said so far? One could evince that, firstly, it has become very difficult for social democratic parties to undertake pro-welfare policies.

Secondly, Keynesian-like social democratic policies focus on high government spending or lower taxes for the low layers of society so as to boost aggregate demand for the sake of private production, of course ; in the age of Monopoly Capitalism, this imbroglio boosts inflationary tendencies, for monopoly production prefers to conveniently raise prices, rather than scaling up production; given higher aggregate demand. Thirdly, it is not accidental that all the "Keynesian experiments", like those of the golden age of Capitalism, tend to dangerously produce hyperinflation.

Fourthly, apart from a downward pressure on real wages, hyperinflation tends to produce that regime of accumulation called Neoliberalism, in favour of the implementation of deflationary policies everywhere in the world.

For financial Capital, in fact, inflation is a big problem. Since the nominal interest rate on loans is contractual, the only way for bankers to earn higher yields, namely, higher short run profits, is by curtailing the inflation rate, which puts a downward pressure on the nominal contractual interest rate. So, how to reduce the inflation rate? Said this, it is very difficult to believe the liberals when they argue lower inflation "is for the sake of people".

Davide Ferri — The Postcapitalist Manifesto — page 35 The recent austerity imbroglio was not for a "planned" reduction of the inflation rate, as it was already low given the advancement of crises, but it was still about "yields".

In fact, since the bourgeois State - to use a liberal term - "lived beyond its means" by borrowing too much relatively to the national production, the austerity measures are there to bail out the bankers, who would have not been repaid.

Before discussing this austerity imbroglio — for which the banking system is responsible too - one needs to focus more on Finance. A Bankers' Capital is fictitious Capital. Industrial Capital A would repay the loan by producing an annual yield for the banker B as long as it manages to sell its produce.

Ultimately, the banker's yield in question, based on a given interest rate, is a claim on real production. Assume that meantime, bank B in question issues promissory notes or bills of exchange , namely, papers conventionally backed by its financial yields. These yields are in its turn backed by real industrial production A dynamics. Now, these financial papers are to be circulated in the financial market, yielding an additional profit according to supply and demand dynamics.

As we may see, these bills of exchange may ensure an additional profit for a bank, which already gets a yield by loaning out to real Capital. Thanks to these promissory notes the bank B can usually gather additional money from other financial agents C within the financial market so as to invest here and there, basing its profit expectations on the expected profit in real industrial production which backs this entire imbroglio.

But what if, say, Industrial Capital A cannot repay for whatever reason, say, overproduction? You can easily imagine the horror of such scenario. Bank B would not be able to repay the financial loans gathered in the financial market from other financial agents C , creating payment problems to the other financial agents C too, which invested here and there and initially based their profit expectations on the repayment of the bank B in question!

These payments problem would urge these financial agents C to fire part of their personnel D , creating a drop in aggregate demand. Similarly, the bank B in question would not be able to economically maintain its productive and unproductive activities, throwing part of the relative personnel E on streets, creating a further drop in aggregate demand.

Industrial Capital A would not only be in trouble for overproduction, but also for the yield it has to pay to bank B. Needless to say, many of its workers F would also be thrown on streets, creating another drop in aggregate demand. This humbug would generate a general crisis, transferring a lack of demand to the rest of society with some sort of economic plague.

Other industrial capitalists G would face similar problems of overproduction, once they receive the blow of a drop in aggregate demand, firing part of their personnel H etc etc Besides, you can easily imagine what is going to happen if financial agents C also issued promissory notes to each other!

Such is the anarchy of commodity production, amplified at the nth level with financial transactions, producing crises, death and unemployment. Such is the tragedy of living under Capitalism. These problems clearly show how Capital as a whole industrial and financial represents a clear Contradiction, a hindrance to economic, social and human progress.

Value is split into two contradictions, insofar as the transactions of financial institutions in the financial market are completely divorced from what happens in real production in temporal terms.

In brief, money circulates within the financial market, religiously assuming that there is going to be industrial profit backing the profit of financial institutions.

These contradictions render the crises more violent than they would be without financial capital, which was a necessary evil at the time of its birth, as it allowed Capitalists to reduce the time between production and sale of their produce.

Needless to say, there will be no real justice until we base our system on contradictions. In the "Capitalistic" sense, a State lives beyond its means whenever it cannot repay its debt with the bankers. Bankers, of course, would be well aware of low real production, given the interest rate at which they contractually lend money to the State. There is no growth real production that can sustain the growth of debt and yet not only the Bourgeois State accepted to take loans from an aggressive financial gang with people's taxation money , exposing people to potential extremes, but also the bank accepted to give loans to such a State, even if it knew if would have much probably not been able to honour its debt in a regular way.

As times goes by, the debt grows in magnitude, even if from the very beginning there was no real production to back the claims of financial capital!

Davide Ferri — The Postcapitalist Manifesto — page 38 Despite this, even a yield higher than the original one is claimed by Finance, though it is "backed" by a production that doesn't exist! That's the parasitic character of Finance! One might argue, not without reason, that the bourgeois State "lived beyond its means", which is true in the Capitalistic sense, but at that same time one could also argue that finance exploited a State living beyond its means to claim profit from people's production, at the future detriment of people , by hands of austerity measures!

If the bank in question knew the State would have not been able to honour its debt in the regular, legal way and yet it lent money to the State, that would simply mean the bank also knew austerity would have come.

That would mean the bank knew that blows on the people in the form of higher taxation and lower government spending would have come, sooner or later, not only to contextually decrease inflation and raise financial profitability as lower inflation raises the real interest rates but also - in the case of a crisis scenario like that of Europe - to directly and shamelessly bailout the very same hypothetical bank that lent money to the State.

That's the criminal character of finance. And what about the Reformists? They still can't "see". Or probably they don't want to see. Reformism is the cognitive plague of this pro-Capital planet of slums, disguised as its religious path to salvation, and at the same time a consolation for the Capitalist impoverished and ideologised masses.

Reformists are fine with ownership, profit and competition! It is not. People want social production; and not a class of parasites who got nothing to do with it. People want commodities to survive and humanity to thrive, and don't want profit, rent, financial yields to be exploited and humanity to be alienated.

But the Reformists we mentioned before fail to grasp it! These production- ownership-loving intellectuals are fine with what all is already there, Capitalism: a horrible system of exploitation of real production! Yet, production ownership does not produce a single unit of commodity value but rather, it steals it in the form of surplus-value and converts it into the form of industrial profit, rent or financial yield.

How does it do it? Or you also need human labour employed in production, whether it is capitalist, feudal or tribal production? Because a wild apple doesn't contain any human labour.

Only desired labour, namely, socially necessary labour, gives you commodities, in any social structure, from primitive Communism to Capitalism. The value-objectifying desire exists only in the fancies of bourgeois investor-friendly economists. Conventional ownership of a wild apple tree would simply forbid or make people pay for what's naturally free: the use-values achievable through the produce of nature.

Similarly, production ownership prevents people from fully enjoying the use-values through the produce of labour. Because the purchasing power of workers - through the profit drain, a deduction to wages - is reduced. For what? Because there is no human labour embodied in it, behind its production.

It would only be a "gift" of nature which ownership could appropriate and render costly for the sake of excluding people from enjoying the gifts of nature. Human labour is also a "gift" of nature, which ownership doesn't render costly, but rather renders underpaid. As the wild apple example shows, Demand desire is not the only prerequisite for the achievement of a social production. Supply human labour is also necessary. Labour and desire are the prerequisite of social production, unlike ownership, which is not.

Hence, ownership is not value, insofar as social production can be attained without private property of the means of production. Desired labour, namely socially necessary labour, is the only value, is the only standard of measurement. Consumers - by desiring commodities on the market - implicitly desire the human labour behind their production, given a certain development of productive forces.

That's why commodities embody "socially necessary labour". As already hinted above, social production can be achieved even without ownership, though it can't generally be achieved without human labour and desire. The only scenario in which production could be achieved without human labour is in the case of a fully developed robotised society.

Needless to say, in such a completely automised society, people would potentially be able to pay nothing for the consumption of commodities. Again, because there would be no human labour behind the production of those commodities!

They would be made by self-sustaining robots! Davide Ferri — The Postcapitalist Manifesto — page 41 One could argue that one should pay if such a robotised production is under ownership of some Capitalist. Why not. And that would only show humanity that people have to unnecessarily pay for a useless ownership, whereas without ownership they would pay nothing for commodities created by self-sustaining robots!