Competition vs. Cooperation in a Nuclear World

Unless we develop a cooperative world, we can forget about any change in the status quo. We will continue our march towards war, we will be divided within: we will meet our destruction.

This is a big task, however. The neoliberal economic order which has swept the globe the past 40 years is founded on the concept of competition. Competition, it is stated, brings out the best in us; yet we march towards war. 

Part of the argument for competition is that it moves technological progress forward more quickly. This is a strange argument. The same people who push technology and other productive forces forward in a competitive environment, would be the same people, with the same capacities, which could likewise push economic forces forward under a cooperative framework. It is a matter of incentives. Incentives can be taught, as the current neoliberal framework has taught us that competition is best for us, we can also teach that a healthy global community would better serve our interests.

Within the neoliberal economic framework, it is believed, however, that self-interest will incentivize the individual more so than any other value. In the process of propagating this nonsense, it justifies, then perpetuates, self-interested behavior because: “Oh well, that’s just the way we are: it is human nature”. Apparently, there is to be no evolution of the spirit, no effort to overcome this state of being. This, despite a long history of religious and philosophical efforts which have  sought to raise us above this thought. This raises the additional question as to why we engage in criminal reform efforts, or why do we teach our children right from wrong, if people are unable to rise to a higher moral space?

Now, however,  humankind gazes directly into the eyes of death, embodied in the form of potential nuclear warfare. The Russia–West war continues to escalate. The talk of nuclear weapons use once again appears more frequently in the media. 

The escalation took a big leap when French President Macron emerged from a recent summit of western leaders and stated that the war in Ukraine cannot be lost and at some point this could lead to NATO boots on the ground. Other NATO members; with the exceptions Estonia, the Czech Republic, and subsequently Poland which supported Macron’s statement; quickly backed away from the idea.

But this is how it always happens. First, a western “leader” will speak out of line about sending this or that weapon system to Ukraine; other western leaders then state: “Oh, no no no, that would be too provocative“;  then eventually they all get onboard and send the weapon system. In Macron’s own words: “‘Many people who say today: ‘never, never’ were the same people who said two years ago: ‘Never, never tanks, never planes, never long-range missiles,’ […] ‘I remind you that two years ago, many around this table said: ‘We are going to offer sleeping bags and helmets.’”  (Wall Street Journal, Feb. 28, 2024)

A March 7 Opinion piece in The Hill, an influential Washington based publication, stated: “The dirty little secret is now public that ‘boots on the ground’ may be necessary if Russia is able to threaten Kyiv. . . . Half measures will not win the war. The West needs a plan and a message to send to Russia — that Ukraine will not fail, and that all options are on the table.’ “

It is safe to assume we will continue to hear more about NATO “boots on the ground” until we become immune to the idea and accept our “inevitable” fate. This seems to be the scripted pattern.

It is our competitive ideology which drives us towards war. We strive to get more for ourselves in the geo-economic context, or to win an ideological battle.

NATO and the European Union (EU) recklessly pushed towards Russia knowing this could provoke a Russian response–and, Russia responded. The West, pushing forward, sought to advance its economic and ideological interests, and Russia, through its invasion of Ukraine, sought to do likewise. Both sides, serving their self-interests, have offered up hundreds of thousands of lives in tribute to their respective economic and ideological gods. Turns out, some cooperative sacrifice, by both sides, prior to war, would have better served everyone’s interest.

Cooperation requires some individual sacrifice,  but the gains achieved through cooperation will most often exceed the losses to the individual, and, of course, the same can be said of nations. There will always be debate, but we can cooperate by agreeing not to shoot each other and by sacrificing some material welfare, if that’s what it takes, to come to an agreement. This shouldn’t be a problem as so much of our consumption is completely unnecessary.

War is about advancing one nation’s position over another. National self-sacrifice would be rewarded through a world without war and all that entails in the form of lost  human life and material resources. There is also fulfillment in knowing that one has done the right thing, that to sacrifice needless consumption and ideological promotion in order to prevent war is the right thing to do. 

Obviously this has to be a global process, otherwise nation’s will get run over. It has to be the working people, from all nations,  who demand a cooperative world. The competitive types  who currently run the world  lead us to our competitive destruction. In the end, it is only a cooperative world which can prevent this destructive end.

PostScript: Comments are welcomed, civility is requested. Please avoid partisan politics.