To begin with, we present some first ideas aimed at putting an end to the contrariety that prevails among workers who aspire to replace the capitalists, and with those determined to continue with their stinginess that has generated hundreds of thousands of poor and generalized misery in bourgeois societies.

Prima facie, it is reasonable that those who have acquired privately owned means of production, because they have taken them belligerently, by inheritance, by purchase, etc. and use those means of production to employ them with workers derive from that management a reasonably admissible gain.

Indeed, only the most tenacious entrepreneurs have been the outstanding ones and, of course, they have accumulated immense private fortunes that, reasonably, they now defend with greater zeal based on the size of their capital accumulation.

Entrepreneurs have been praised for this work as isolated workers, without organization or direction are unproductive and anarchic: only a high citizen awareness would be the one that would unite them in a community effort that, by the way, continues to be an arduous task and almost unattainable once the capitalist production system has been installed.

So, perhaps, only an agreement between capitalists and workers could settle this permanent separation and tension that today divides our societies into rich and poor, generates unavoidable periodic crises that end up stagnating society without major improvements, of today's with respect to yesterday's.

The rich, precisely, would be the first to give up part of their fortunes translated into improved wages, housing and complementary common services aimed at the general welfare of workers, achievements that undoubtedly suits the capitalists because to greater comfort and well-being of the greater worker is the potential of surplus value that would offer to the employers, so that we would all win.

It is already good that thanks to Karl Marx's Capital we know where the profit comes from, but the fact remains that, once the social regime of private ownership of the means of production is established, its owners aspire to a profit that, by the way, , they take each other away -production prices- because every capitalist aspires not to earn less than the others, which is less reasonable.

The competition, then, does not have its own vectors, it is a derivation of the same class division.

I could not continue admitting that hundreds of centuries disappeared under the bourgeois regime only to adjust them inelastically to a bad version of Capital, according to which, if we ended up with private property, everything would be resolved.

As a result, neither the economic can walk for an Aldo and the political for another, nor can the Policy account drastically or without concessions in a common search (laborpatronal) for a better distribution of immense wealth generated only under capitalist regime.