Some cultures, like the one we have in Latin America, made us misunderstood what collaboration means. Collaboration means working together in the same direction even if we don't totally agree, specially on the small stuff. We just have to agree on a solid, common ground.
The result of this are multiple small efforts on multiple fronts, which lack laser-focus and power. What can you really bring into worthy manifestation without both?
Politicians and activists totally miss this point because they have found on it a great excuse to blame their faults on others' "lack of participation". This is called being not self-responsible. First, participation has nothing to do with collaboration, and second, they fail to realize that people are really doing great stuff but it's just not with them.
Collaboration requires trust, participation don't.
What I mean by the term collaborative capital is summing up individual greatness through a common platform or delivery format. Sometimes we feel naked when the platform or delivery format is not of our own creation. However, synergies (value) occur far greater at the platform (capital) level than at the talent level so we must join, find or create one. Else, it makes no sense.
I leave you with an example. It is not the same for a pianist to play in a restaurant than to play in a wedding band, or to join a famous-singer touring band. The value follows the platform (capital), not the talent. At the end, Ego doesn't pay!