Perez, the prior Secretary of Labor to the Obama administration, is head of the DNC. This constitutes a disappointment to "true progressives," who preferred Ellison to Perez. Perez has been likened to a "corporatist" by the "true progressive" camp. Indeed, if relativism is the standard by which we compare, then Perez represents closer cooperation and compromise than does Ellison, the cheerleader of the Farrakhan camp. It could appear an ironic observation that pragmatist compromise appears to affect even the collectivists, but it is their compromise that sustains them.

In What is Capitalism, Ayn Rand suggests the political economists begin "mid-stream", treating factories as "a natural resource, like a tree, a rock, or a mud-puddle". This is to say that the collectivists consider the means of production as a social product at best, or, as an a prior fact of existence without recognition of the contingent conditions pervading such a product: private property, e.g. capitalism. To put it succinctly, the looters have no concept of ownership because they decline the invitation.

So, if Perez is the pragmatist collectivist, then Ellison is the explicit collectivist. Ellison sincerely believes in an altruist and collectivist political premise. Of course, by nature, even an explicit collectivist believes under the visage of his rhetoric that he is selfishly rewarded by such a system as collectivism; whether by a kind of faith or by an explicit understanding of his own lack of capacity to effect a productive path, he has selected the path that reflects his nihilistic attitude toward productive activity, all the while maintaining that central control of the means of production is beneficial to all.

This gets to the heart of the capitalist versus the collectivist. The capitalist is revealed as the true progressive in the literal sense; he pushes society forward to greater and greater productive accomplishments, both material and intellectual. The collectivist seeks control of the material means of production without reference to intellectual achievement. Recognizing his poor foundation, he attacks the intellectual achievement qua achievement. He invents environmentalism, which then disintegrates further into anarchy-primitivism, which then reveals itself to abide by none other than "hatred of then good for being the good". (This is not to say that environmental claims lack legitimacy, only that environmentalist claims do.)

So, while the modern liberal camp posits that the Republican Party has disintegrated with the election of a populist conservative, it has generated a good point. The alt-right and populist sects within the conservative movement posit victory without reference to a standard. Yet, the collectivists in the Democratic Party fail to recognize that oligarchical control is not worse than the bureaucratic vision it espouses. As such, both parties continue to disintegrate without reference to the standards or laws of a proper capitalism.