An argument for collaboration over competition
Every month (or so) I attempt to describe, convey, orate, draw attention to and expose different ways capitalism harms our species. I want to show how it makes us all potential enemies in competition for the scraps left by the few who actually run the show. Meanwhile they continue to amass obscene wealth, and generally have no compassion for their neighbors, community, region or nation. Below I offer another facet of the harm caused by capitalism (and I don’t mean the kind of capital-ism where people think you are yelling in a comment.) We all know THAT KIND OF CAPITALISM SUCKS!
Now that I my pun is safely out of the way, I can get to my points. I often like to state what I see as the obvious, because sometimes what I see as obvious is not for others. It seems obvious to me competition for innovation costs more in terms of human and natural resources than collaboration. That is not all competition is costing us.
In terms of energy or time spent there are obvious cost differences between collaboration and competition, and collaboration wins hands down. Multiple simultaneous research, testing, modeling, etc… will expend much more energy than having collaboration of all these resources. Instead of multiple end results, competition typically produces products each with their own merits but all falling short of what collaboration — a collective effort — would produce. We often end up with ‘not the best’ product for our needs, ‘not the best’ design, durability, or usefulness but the one we are given. Many superior products, designs, and ideas are purposefully hidden from the public, or left unused due to market pressures, personal vendettas, fear, money, etc….
Suzanne Goldenberg in her 2016 article for The Guardian "Oil company records from 1960s reveal patents to reduce CO2 emissions in cars" reports:
"Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla."
“Scientists for the companies patented technologies to strip carbon dioxide out of exhaust pipes, and improve engine efficiency, as well as fuel cells. They also conducted research into countering the rise in carbon dioxide emissions – including manipulating the weather.”
“Researchers discovered more than 20 such patents filed by oil companies from as early as the 1940s for technologies that could help in the development of electric cars.
However, Ron Dunlop, president of Sun Oil and API chairman, told a joint hearing of the commerce committee in 1967 that government funding of research into electric cars would be misplaced– because the oil companies were so advanced in their research of cleaner cars. ‘We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint,’ he told Congress. ‘Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.’”
Surely no big surprise at the time. I believe it was and is a commonly held belief oil companies have known more than they tell us and are purposefully standing in the way of cleaner alternatives — including cleaner ways to use their own products apparently. Without competition there would be no reason to withhold information that helps everyone. Capitalism-free collaboration would have put us on a better path to fighting climate change over half a century ago.
Actually, collaboration is alive and well at all companies. They all know collaboration yields a better product, better innovation, more creative ideas, and a faster timeline to final design / specs. As long as everyone collaborating is an employee or contractor and the company stands to reap financial rewards, that is. The fact is, any large organization should already know the correlation between how much collaboration a project has how much more efficient the company will be at making money.
Forbes’ Shawn Kent Hayashi had this to say in a 2017 article “Competition Or Collaboration: Which Will Help Your Team Produce The Best Results?”
Apparently when asked this question by her peers, she recounts a story from
“…an organization where the CEO created intense competition among the leadership team.”
“…it created a culture of backstabbing, in-fighting and resource hoarding. No one on the leadership team trusted each other. I watched talented people walk out the door, and then I did the same.”
She finishes:
“Ultimately, you want to create a workplace culture where people freely share information, opinions and perspectives. The best way to achieve that is through building trust and emphasizing collaboration, not competition.”
Larger companies will, on average, have more innovation at a faster rate than smaller ones. Larger population countries (of similar socio-economic status) will typically have more innovation. Both use this leverage to control and dominate the smaller players — the “competition”. The smaller players are crushed, patents owned, (or cultures demolished,) with no intention of use, all while marketing the ‘superiority’ of their own ideas, whether or not they actually are.
The nice thing about free and open collaboration is the lack of hurdles. No NDAs, no vetting required (although advisable in most situations), no monetary cost accounting, no worries about theft of ideas, no cause for distrust, no patents. Everyone collaborating is there to help solve a problem. Nobody is there ‘for the paycheck.’ We see collaboration alive and well at many levels.
Norman Jacknis of Intelligent Community Forum “Collaboration vs. Competition For Economic Growth” :
“The fact that individual businesses often find themselves competing with each other doesn’t mean that regions as a whole thrive by focusing on competition with other regions.”
“…overall economic growth of a region is much more about collaboration than competition.”
How will we solve our current climate crisis / emergency /disaster most effectively? Most efficiently? Each country plotting their course for survival will cause some to compete for their survival. Refusing climate refugees, letting the worst polluters to continue by trading ‘carbon credits’ while they continue to our environment. In extreme conditions of capitalism, the governments actually subsidize these polluting companies while their citizens are dying from these same companies pollution. Here are some numbers (a few years old) discussing global fossil fuel subsidies. It is absolutely astounding!
“Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs” (pdf)
"...rather than being phased out, fossil fuel subsidies are actually increasing. The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) report estimates 6.5 percent of global GDP ($5.2 trillion) was spent on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017, a half trillion dollar increase since 2015. The largest subsidizers are China ($1.4 trillion in2015), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion). According to the IMF, ‘fossil fuels account for 85 percent of all global subsidies,’ and reducing these subsidies ‘would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.’ An Overseas Development Institute study found that subsidies for coal-fired power increased almost three-fold, to $47.3 billion per year, from 2014 to 2017."
In their conclusion, authors Clayton Coleman and Emma Dietz submit:
"Reducing the subsidies fossil fuel stakeholders receive can help correct inefficient economic interventions into energy markets, save billions of taxpayer dollars,and reduce negative social and environmental impacts."
Apparently collaboration of subsidies by the fossil fuel corporations and many countries is working out just fine. Just fine for them, that is. Another example of the cost of capitalist competition is a concept called "planned obsolescence." Although it would seem counter-intuitive companies in competition with each other would build products meant to not last as long, the reasons are purely capitalist in nature. Money. Even though it would cost a nominal amount to manufacture superior products, instead they are often produced inferior on purpose. Not just saving on initial costs, but adding a return customer much sooner than actually needed. This results in more costs — of both natural and human resources. A society that operates on cooperation would never allow such waste of natural and human resources. It is a waste of opportunities.
Turning back to collaboration, there are abundant sources and themes for its success. This is from the Editorial Team at BIT.AI“21 Collaboration Statistics that Show the Power of Teamwork!”
“…collaboration and teamwork play a crucial role in the success of any business.
However, collaboration and teamwork remain one of the most underrated and underutilized workplace tactics. Even though collaboration can stimulate creativity, increase productivity, builds a sense of community, improves problem-solving, and can lead to groundbreaking innovations and ideas, it remains one of those commonly underutilized tools.
We all like to work in our little corners, wanting to get work done without any external distractions. However, only when brilliant minds collide that new ideas, methodologies, processes, and procedures are born.”
From “Collaboration vs. Competition” by Charlie Nelms, Ed.D., Contributor, speaking on the issue in terms of higher learning academia:
"I am more convinced than ever that collaboration across institutional and disciplinary boundaries--not competition--is the path forward for our success. There is no need for us to reinvent the wheel.Scientific research is founded on collaboration, and we can learn much from this model to facilitate both intra- and inter- institutional collaboration."
"Time and time again, research has shown that student retention and degree success is not a solo act, but rather the result of collaboration on many levels."
Concluding paragraph:
"Competition has its place, but collaboration is one of the most underutilized opportunities for institutional effectiveness and student success. Each institution of higher education should define incentives for implementing collaborative initiatives that transcend institutional and disciplinary boundaries. The greatest of these incentives, above all, should be student success. Our future as a nation depends on a partnership of equity and excellence, nurtured and fostered by collaboration."
In looking at business start-ups, this example shows the clear benefits of cooperation over competition in business strategies.
“Compete or Cooperate? Choosing the right commercialization strategy as a technology start-up”
From the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, based on the research of Joshua S. Gans, David H. Hsu and Scott Stern
Their conclusion:
"Start-ups benefit more from cooperation strategies than compete strategies when they possess strong intellectual property rights, when they can utilize brokers to facilitate trade, or when they can leverage the assets of established firms to commercialize their innovation. In these situations, a start-up can earn higher returns by acting as an upstream supplier of innovation rather than as a horizontal innovation-oriented competitor. In other words, by participating in the market for ideas rather than in the market for products, new companies can make the best use of their innovations."
True global collaboration will utilize a broader selection of viewpoints from a far more diverse set of life experiences than even a ‘global’ company would have available.
This should come as little to no surprise to you. Working together, collectively, instead of against each other is like swimming downstream instead of upstream. Why waste so much energy on competing with each other? How many situations can you apply this to? Competing for land vs community organized sharing is one. Individual workers vs unions is another good example. So much constant competition adds unneeded stress to everyone’s life, negatively affecting their health *(I am not a doctor and the opinions express here with noted exceptions are mine personally, like all of my diaries).
Below are examples of some global collaboration success stories, in hopes we can have at least one more global success story — on halting and reversing climate change.
4 Examples of Global Collaboration: Pure Imagination, Check Out These Amazing Global Team Collaborations by Kim Wolf writing for Redbooth.
First she speaks about the NIH, partnering with nonprofit organizations and biopharmaceutical companies in their "Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)"
"Mikael Dolsten, M.D., Ph.D., President of Worldwide Research and Development of Pfizer. 'This type of novel collaboration will leverage the strengths of both industry and NIH to ensure we expedite translation of scientific knowledge into next generation therapies.'"
Second is an educational example:
“ePals Corporation Educational Collaboration
This free global learning network connects students and educators in over 200 countries and territories. When teachers are looking for collaborative projects, they are able to obtain instant access to community forums, and can join in on meaningful discussions while interacting with thousands of other like-minded participants online.
One of the biggest ePals initiatives is the Spark! Lab Invent It Challenge, an annual collaborative competition that encourages K-12 students all over the globe to identify and solve real world problems."
Next is the 460 ton, football field sized, $100 billion International Space Station, exhibiting some of the best of human global collaboration over competition.
The last example is the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Collaboration
"a global partnership involving 15 research centers and almost 10,000 scientists and staff members from around the world. With a goal of obtaining a food-secure future, CGIAR is dedicated to improving human health and nutrition, and ensuring more sustainable management of natural resources by collaborating with civil society organizations, research institutes, the private sector and academia."
When we look at the wasted time, human energy and natural resources what we are seeing are the extended costs associated with an inefficient human construct created by capitalism. All of these costs mean we do not find that medical cure as fast, and may mean not having enough human and natural resources to fully end climate change. It is time for some drastic paradigm shifts, some major changes to society in the face of this crisis. If we take motivation for competition out of the equation, not committing mass murder becomes less appealing. We must do everything we can do as a race (human) to stop this current climate emergency. We otherwise lose all hope of having this ability to debate competition and collaboration in the near future. Can we cooperatively collaborate on that at least? Will we instead add humanity to the cost of competition?