Cooperation should replace competition as the dominant organising principle in Politics and Economics

Competition has desirable uses, e.g. sport, product development, brainstorming, etc, but is destructive when it is the dominant way in which resources are distributed. Just recently, an Oxfam report concluded that the top 100 richest people in the world had a combined wealth equivalent to the poorest half of the human population.

A dominant cooperative society would keep competition in check. Any competition would be optional and would not result in any major financial/poltical gains(or losses) for the competitors).

Official Views


Arguments For

1 0
Cooperation underpins the whole universe! Without it, everything would collapse. It baffles me how cooperation can be seen as the cause of the barbaric totalitarian regimes that killed millions of people. I don't view Stalin and his supporters as Communists, rather as psychopathic mass murderers.
0 0
Yes, provided we can put a cooperative capitalism, with democratically run/created sovereign money/full reserve banking, & the right fiscal system of tax & benefits, with taxes on bads & on natural resources/on extracted value (& on idle money), and not on goods, not on ordinary level of work, not on added-value, not on trade, not on ordinary level of invested wealth/small level of rainy day funds; and unconditional benefits for every adults (& first 2 children ; & from third child: a decreasing support [by 20% of previous child] with each child, & means-tested).

Arguments Against

0 1
It sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented in practice. I think there is also a danger we end up drifting toward the 'communitarian' 'society based' models of governance which ended up leading to the deaths of millions in the last century.



Public Vote

Related Articles