Would you trade cooperative enterprise for ‘capitalism?’ Pt 2

Part Two of Two

In Part One I concluded that, what’s needed is a renaissance in true value exchange, absent third party interference. The reason is not money.

‘Capital,“ is not money! Capital is Mans effort and enterprise, his ambitions, thoughts, passion, plans and deeds, his vitality and his integrity. Capital is each man or woman’s respect for every other man and woman’s effort and enterprise. Capital of this kind suffices, provided it neither dominates nor sacrifices. Its core trading platform is voluntary, uncoerced trade, which represents ‘justice.’

Market cooperation - principle

I consider myself fortunate to have been employed (late 60’s early 70’s) by a private business in Sydney (NSW Australia) whose ‘product’ was (building) new houses for a niche market. This company’s MO embraced the principles of market cooperation, congruence and integrity, not in substitution or antagonism of ‘capitalism,’ but in wholesome support of its original moral, not financial meaning.

New houses were built on customer’s own building sites, as exact replica’s of a ‘display (or model) home,’ that had been prior erected to show potential customers the finished product. This method, similar to buying a new car off the showroom floor, enabled cosmetic choices, but refused structural alterations of the (original) ’house plans,’ (blueprints.)

Profitable success, for the company and its customers, depended entirely on its founding premise and unrelenting ideology. Simply stated, “research what the market wants, learn what price it is willing to pay for what it wants, then deliver inside that certain knowledge.” Consumers were offered houses in the same manner that Ford motor company offers Ford cars. Fully allowing some cosmetic preferences, one buys what is on the showroom floor, or shops elsewhere.

Delivering what consumers want, being that which satisfies what the market has requested, is cooperation; not competition. So long as the builder fully cooperated with the desires of its own researched (niche) market, no competition existed, save those who addressed and satisfied the same market niche! Still no competition existed, because consumer satisfaction was the only goal. Market supremacy was not even considered.

Whomsoever preferred to buy a different product, was free to seek and obtain satisfaction from suppliers of different products, i.e. from a different market. Different products in different markets do not compete.

Market cooperation - example

How did this venture in co-operative capitalism shape up in practice? I’ll quote from first hand experience, then show, also from first hand knowledge, what happened to those who found the morality of capitalism tough going, so to abandon it.

  • All products were designed by architects. Consumers benefitted, value was assured and maintained.
  • Because structural alterations were refused, mass production methods applied, thus…
  • Costs and prices touched rock bottom and remained, whilst…
  • Construction errors were virtually eliminated.
  • Construction (sub) contractors were assured work continuity. (Substandard work phased itself out.)
  • All suppliers and subcontractors were paid, ‘cash 7 days,’ no credit arrangements necessary.
  • Materials were ordered 12 months in advance where possible, given past sales records and based on staged delivery over time.
  • Drawings, schedules, quantity lists and the like were rendered finite, even to the number of sandpaper sheets and tubes of glue needed for each new house.
  • Architect drawings were re-drafted into mass production drawings.
  • Customers could choose all cosmetic variables, but were refused structural alterations, and alternative CP (cost price) items, e.g. sinks and hand-basins.
  • Sub-contractors were subjected to regular scrutiny, i.e. by soliciting alternate contractors, thus a co-operative work ethic and keen pricing was maintained.
  • Market advertising was slashed from 1/4 and half page newspaper ads to one short paragraph. (3000+ visitors on one weekend was a record result.)
  • Such vehicular traffic caused re-building of a local traffic intersection to relieve congestion.
  • Consumer preferences were recorded and forwarded to architects to be included in all new designs. i.e. the market influenced design to its benefit.
  • Up to 70% of sales arose from satisfied customer representation, versus 6-8% as standard, e.g. one airline pilot breathed “satisfaction,” and 6 other pilots from the same airline became customers.
  • Product suppliers were invited to contribute new products to meet architectural specifications at budget price, based on repetitive orders. One fledgling product supplier, at that time, is now a leading Australian producer.
  • Cost competitiveness enabled my employer to sail through a severe building recession in the late ’70’s, one that saw architects becoming taxi drivers.
  • Whereas (so called) competitors introduced new (house) designs six monthly on average, my employer’s designs lasted 15-18 years in the market, with cosmetic (fashion) changes only. Market cooperation, bears no better testament.
  • 40+ years later, several of these houses, (read designs) are now posted in NSW architectural ‘heritage listings.’ Profits linger on.

That process, describes integrity of intent, performance and delivery. It took raw guts! Point blank refusal to alter a product to suit a particular customer’s wishes, is to the builder’s detriment, not the customer. He or she can shop elsewhere. Differently said, my employers success depended entirely on addressing and satisfying his market to the fullest extent, all else being irrelevant. Those turned away were not his market. Those who committed to buy, were. Customers knew it and my employer knew it. Both understood free, uncoerced, voluntary, value exchange; despite damnable nuisance of government interference at every step.

Market competition - principle

Arising from the example above, many (so-called competitors) grasped the principle of a visually appealing ‘display home’ that proudly showed their building expertise and quality of construction. But, they insisted, dogmatic refusal to make minor alterations is bloody-minded foolishness; arguing that when prospective buyers wave money in your face, never do you refuse their offer! Quite naturally they (very proudly) advertised their willingness to alter construction drawings and specifications to suit customers wishes, hopefully to capture and sell to those whom my employer had refused.

Observe the fundamental difference. These building entrepreneurs who bowed to every customer’s wish and desire, prided themselves as being the true exponents of market co-operation. Those who did not capitulate in such manner, such as my employer, were considered to be antagonists, fierce market competitors, operatives intent on giving capitalism a bad name! Never did it occur to their feeble minds that no competition existed, simply because both factions served different markets. 

Here’s how this (other) market functioned.

Market competition - practice

  • Consumer research was rendered meaningless; wasted effort and money since customer desires always prevailed.
  • Professional design was rendered meaningless; nothing can be gained when consumers are invited to alter house plans according to their fancies.
  • Mass production economics were smashed. Every house was custom designed and built.
  • Government red tape and administrative costs escalated for that reason.
  • Company overhead costs escalated, more staff were needed, thus…
  • Product price per ‘unit area’ escalated uncontrolled.
  • Custom pricing necessitated that desirable features be stripped from new houses to maintain affordability. 
  • Every Tom, Dick and Harry able to arrange different postage stamps on a desk in some order, as though a house-plan blueprint, and draw a roof on top, became the author of ‘architect-ural design.’ This phrase is peddled today as a legal loophole.
  • ‘Design quality’ suffered unmistakably. Wishes by now had replaced reason.
  • Thus “marketers,” blindly deceived as to what what constitutes ‘good design’ pushed consumer fancies, pseudo fads and fashions as “must have’s.” Printed and electronic media trotted along like obedient puppies. Magazine media fed the frenzy to fantasise.
  • As architects true market became polluted and prostituted by ignorance, whims, wishes, fads and fancies, sold to a gullible public as ‘architectural design,’ so they squealed to government demanding greater professional protection.
  • As families, and building sites diminished in size, so houses grew in size; prices rising commensurately.
  • Building companies rejoiced! No need to find 15% more customers, just sell 15% more ‘house’ to the same number of customers. Add family rooms, games rooms, home theatres, parent retreats, alfresco spaces, then add a second kitchen. Don’t stop! Keep going until, just short of twin laundry facilities, one customer buys two houses! (Banks obliged with cash from computers out of thin air.)
  • The more ‘poor design’ drove market turnover, the more competition escalated.
  • ‘Sustainable building practice’ that had once been offered a viable, practical, and affordable market base, fell victim to false marketing and rampant make-believe costs; but that’s a long story for another day. Small wonder these proponents have lamented its market failure since its inception, and to this day find no answers as to why.
  • Market competition multiplied faster than rabbits, based on all the above deficiencies, industry ignorance, false market supremacy, design decadence, and consumer deficits; all compounded by the aforementioned regulations and taxes.

My first example described unbridled capitalism, full cooperation between a supplier and its market, raw entrepreneurial guts reliant on nothing less than market research and deliverance, despite being confined by governmental interference. This undeniable success is now recorded history that every Australian should applaud!

Does the market applaud?


Why not? 

Because what is now standard practice, represents the lie that we’re taught is ‘capitalism.’

If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of free enterprise and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on businessmen were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to big industrialists, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessman, but the legislator, not free enterprise, but government controls. Ayn Rand

Grasp the principle. Third party interlopers, aka government (with enforcement guns), are predatory leeches. They contribute nothing. They only take. They understand, and consistently abide the principle, that to pay Paul, Peter must be robbed. Government has not the slightest interest in Man co-operating with Man. Interference is essential, because without conflict there is nothing to rule.

Does anyone wonder why neither Peter nor Paul can cooperate with their respective markets. They’re forced to comply with interference, regulations, registrations, taxation, statute law, applications, coercion and compulsion. Irony is that the more they triumph over such immorality, which presumes they endorse it, the more they’re applauded as ‘market leaders,’ socially minded entrepreneurs, respected businesses, charitable benefactors and trustworthy corporations.

The whole charade is a viciously evil, masterminded crime; one in which (third party) coercion and compulsion smashes voluntary ‘trade,’ blasts ‘cooperative integrity’ to bits, destroys Mans ‘values’ and delivers his life up to tyranny and slavery.

Now do you understand the full meaning of ‘capital’? Do you see that ‘capital’ is Mans heart and gut undertaking, his effort and his pride; not its monetary reward? Do you see that ‘capitalism’ is a moral commitment to excellence, to life and its rewards; not a financial methodology; as predatory thugs with criminal minds would have us believe?

Do you see why ‘capitalism’ had to be destroyed? How its moral foundation was antithetical to unlawful and authoritarian domination and control? Those matters should be foremost today. Are they? 

Alas, no. Few understand that …

“The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice.” –Source

Todays harm is not money; harm is the violation and perversion of justice. Precious few understand that justice is the only way forward; that ‘cooperative integrity’ is a ‘just’ trading platform curing all todays ills.

Just as ‘freedom’ and ‘responsibility’ go hand in glove, so do ‘co-operation’ and ‘integrity.’

Those four key-words are the hallmark of justice. Justice is excellence. Excellence does not compete. Excellence is reverent throughout of all that is just.


Return to Part One

Top of Page

Back to Independence news

Previous comments carried over from the former “Absentlimits” website.

lead retrieval app· 11 weeks ago

Nice info.. Thanks for post..

© Ken Bartle 2016