Can Cooperation Outperform Competition? 💪

We are living in an era of increasing polarization. From political turmoil to economic uncertainty, from social divides to ideological clashes, the dominant narrative of our time is conflict. The rise of extremist parties, culture wars, corporate greed, and the growing disconnect between governments and citizens all contribute to a world that feels more adversarial than ever.

But is there another way?

Professor Bernard E. Harcourt explored this question at a recent event at the Munk School, drawing from his latest book, Cooperation: A Political, Economic, and Social Theory. His argument: we have built our political and economic systems on competition—but what if we shifted our focus to cooperation?

Harcourt proposes a radical alternative to capitalism and hierarchical governance—a cooperative model where democracy, economic production, and social relations are restructured around collaboration rather than competition. His work isn’t abstract theory—it’s rooted in historical precedents and current realities, from worker cooperatives to mutual aid networks to decentralized governance experiments.

This idea is not new, but its relevance today is undeniable. If we are serious about solving systemic inequality, economic instability, and political dysfunction, we need to rethink the very foundation of our institutions.

🛠 The Cooperatist Model: A Different Political Economy

At the core of Cooperatism is a shift away from punitive, reactionary systems toward preventive, community-driven solutions.

🔹 Current System: The Punitive Paradigm

Low investment in prevention (education, healthcare, social mobility).
High spending on reactionary measures (policing, incarceration, emergency medical care).

🔹 The Cooperative Alternative

Democratic self-governance across all areas of life.
Worker cooperatives, banking co-ops, and decentralized governance models.
An economic system that prioritizes long-term collective well-being over short-term individual gains.

This isn’t just theoretical—it’s already happening in pockets around the world:

✅ Mondragon Corporation (Spain) – A worker-owned conglomerate where the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is 4:1 (compared to 3,100:1 at McDonald’s).
✅ Jackson, Mississippi – Community-driven development projects reshaping local economies.
✅ Black Panther Party’s Community Programs – Free breakfast programs, healthcare clinics, legal services—microcosms of cooperation in response to systemic neglect.
✅ Financial Cooperatives – Models such as Crédit Mutuel (France), Mutual Farm (USA), and Desjardins (Canada) demonstrate how finance can function within a cooperative framework, emphasizing member ownership and long-term stability.

Harcourt argues that before dismantling failing systems, we must first build viable alternatives. But how do we do that when existing institutions actively resist change?

⚖️ Gandhi, the Black Panthers, and the Limits of Nonviolence

During the event, I asked Bernard about how Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolent resistance fits within the cooperatist model. The Black Panthers, as Harcourt had highlighted, combined cooperative principles with self-defense and strategic opposition to state oppression—a contrast to Gandhi’s strict commitment to nonviolence.

We later followed up via email, discussing a quote from Gandhi that encapsulates the dilemma:

“Where choice is set between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”

Harcourt expanded on this in an essay, reflecting on Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha, which he describes as exceptionally demanding—requiring a level of fortitude that not everyone possesses. What happens when cooperation alone isn’t enough? Harcourt admitted that he, too, questions whether he would always have the strength to adhere to nonviolence. I know I would not have the fortitude required by Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha. The level of sacrifice, patience, and resilience it demands is beyond my reach.

This led me to reflect: Is a purely cooperative system truly sustainable if it lacks mechanisms for protection and resistance? Even if cooperation is the goal, history shows that systems built on mutual aid are often dismantled precisely because they threaten established power structures.

So where do we draw the line? When does cooperation demand confrontation?

🛑 The Limits of Cooperatism: My Thoughts on Where It Breaks Down

While Harcourt’s vision is compelling, I see several challenges that could hinder the establishment of a cooperative-based system. Nonetheless I believe some of these challenges could be addressed with the right incentives and we could live the rest…no system is perfect, ever!

🚧 How do you fund parallel systems?

If we want to shift from a punitive to a cooperative paradigm, we can’t simply dismantle existing structures overnight.

But running two systems simultaneously (e.g., current “sickcare” vs. preventive healthcare) would be prohibitively expensive and face extreme political pushback.
Who funds the transition, and how do we ensure its sustainability?

🚧 How do you prevent free-riders?

If everyone contributes equally, how do you ensure some don’t take advantage of the system while giving nothing back?
I personally embody this challenge growing up in France—where the government invested heavily in my education, healthcare, and opportunities—only for me to leave for Canada. France took the cost, Canada reaped the benefits.
This state of affairs didn’t prevent multiple people (even some supposedly educated and informed) from telling me to go back to France. Visibly for some geniuses, immigrants are not allowed to question the system even if they are participating in it and funding it 😉. Pay up and shut up! is visibly what is expected from us.

🚧 Does cooperatism reduce mobility?

Would a worker cooperative or a mutualist governance model function like a business partnership—where members are locked in and leaving is costly?

How do you prevent people from extracting resources and then abandoning the system?
Would cooperative systems restrict individual freedom in ways we don’t yet fully understand?

🚧 What happens when cooperation isn’t enough?

The Black Panthers mastered cooperative structures—yet still faced brutal government suppression.

As Gandhi’s quote suggests, is it better to resist violently than to be complicit in oppression?
How do we balance cooperation with self-defense in an inherently conflict-driven world?

💡 Final Thoughts: Can We Make This Work?

My background is in finance, and since the 2008 financial crisis, I’ve been pondering our economic system, which I see as anchored in the mutualization of costs and the privatization of profits—while neglecting the benefits of prevention in favor of after-the-fact care.

The food and healthcare industries are prime examples of this dynamic:

🍟 Step 1: Corporations sell ultra-processed, unhealthy food (privatization of profits by food companies + low/no investment in health promotion/prevention by the medical-industrial complex).
🏥 Step 2: People get sick (privatization of profits by the medical-industrial complex, healthcare financed by taxpayers—mutualization of costs).
🧠 Step 3: Poor nutrition impacts cognitive function and decision-making, making populations easier to manipulate and get addicted to unhealthy lifestyle—a perfectly self-reinforcing cycle.

You can expand this cycle to the financial services and technology industry very easily:

Tech companies want cheap labor to preserve their margins and fuel their growth, countries attract loads of immigrants, tech companies & institutional investors thrive (privatization of profits combined with tax optimization schemes), overall population supports the costs of infrastructure (mutualization of costs). Cherry on the pie: Immigrants and governments are blamed.
Financial institutions offer exotic high margins products, they thrive (privatization of profits combined with tax optimization schemes), system collapses after being pushed to the limits by corporates and individuals’ greed, overall population picks up the check (mutualization of costs).

This is why I’ve always been intrigued by financial cooperatives and union-based financial models. Unlike shareholder-driven banks, where short-term gains dominate decision-making, cooperative banks (like Desjardins, Crédit Mutuel) prioritize long-term stability, ethics, and members well-being.

But even in financial services, incentives and power dynamics favor extractive models over cooperative ones.

So, the question remains:

✔ Can cooperatism be scaled effectively, or will it remain a niche alternative?
✔ Can prevention-focused models gain enough traction when they don’t produce immediate ROI?
✔ How do we prevent the exploitation or co-optation of cooperative systems?

I don’t have the answers. But I do know that staying on our current path is not sustainable.

💬 What do you think?

Let’s continue the conversation.

Until next time,
Peggy

Peggy Van de Plassche is a seasoned advisor with over 20 years of experience in financial services, healthcare, and technology. She specializes in guiding boards and C-suite executives through transformational change, leveraging technology and capital allocation to drive growth and innovation. A founding board member of Invest in Canada, Peggy also brings unique expertise in navigating complex issues and fostering public-private partnerships—key elements in shaping the Future of Business. Her skill set includes strategic leadership, capital allocation, transaction advisory, technology integration, and governance. Notable clients include BMO, CI Financial, HOOPP, OMERS, GreenShield Canada, Nicola Wealth, and Power Financial. For more information, visit peggyvandeplassche.com.

#democracy #economy #Cooperation #conflicts

🤝Cooperation in Conflictual Times: Can We Reimagine a Different Way Forward?