By
SAM GINDIN
and
DAVID

ROBERTSON

14 ¢ Pacific Tribune, April 30, 1990

The trap of global
competitiveness:
challenging the view
from the corporations

hatever kind of society we envision, socialist
or social democratic, we certainly want it to
be productive. Under capitalism, the
achievement of economic growth is aecomp-
lished in a very particular way: through
private companies competing to maximize
their profits. This competition between
firms — international or domestic —
includes as a fundamental element a parallel
competition between workers.

“Competitiveness” is, therefore, not just
a mechanism for wealth creation. Its logic
brings with it very powerful implications for
other aspects of society, from the distribu-
tion of income and power, to definitions of
freedom and the content of culture. Compe-
titiveness is an expression of ideology: an
instrument for reinforcing the interests of
the economic establishment and limiting the
inroads the rest of us can make.

There are those that acknowledge this
problem but believe that by taking advan-
tage of recent technological developments
and with the proper “‘political will” we can
have our cake and eat it too. They believe
that we can take on the challenge of compe-
titiveness and retain our socialist values;
indeed, that competitiveness will create the
very economic success essential to sustain
social programs.

They are wrong. But they are not just
wrong. The framework they invite us to
accept is ultimately dangerous. They are
wrong because competitiveness, despite the
views of recent converts to its blandish-
ments, is not a strategy of advanced tech-
nology, value added restructuring nor a
progressive social partnership between
labour and management. -

They are wrong because in the particular
case of Canada there is no capitalist class
with the interest or capacity to develop a
strong domestic industrial base. (The free
trade debate certainly raised and answered
the question of the Canadian nature of
Canadian business.)

They are wrong because even if there
were such a class, our industrial structure is
so dependent, so underdeveloped that play-
ing catch-up when other countries are
already so far ahead and certainly not stand-
ing still would require the sacrifice of too
much. As the prime minister of Singapore

was recently paraphrased, “either you have
a vital competitive economy or you have a
social policy.” |

And that is why the framework of com-
petitiveness is dangerous. Its other aspects,
other solutions, such as attacks on social
programs which are blamed for diverting
resources from the competitive priority,
quickly reassert themselves. Having decided
to play on the terrain of competitiveness, we
cannot then step back without a serious
price. Having legitimized the importance of
being competitive (when we should have
been mobilizing to defend our social
values), we are extremely vulnerable to the
determined attacks that will come in the
name of “global realities.”

The competitive strategy will not work. It
will not allow us to capture the social
rewards of economic success because:

@ The game never ends; we'll be
reminded forever that trying to obtain these
rewards will undermine future ‘“competi-
tiveness”.

© As a process, the competitive strategy
weakens us, taking away the power to truly
win what should be ours.

There is no easy way out. Any honest
description of the problem overwhelms the
timidity of “consensus” solutions. Solutions
which do not take on private capital in a
radical way will simply not work.

For socialists, competitiveness (accepting
the rules of capitalism) cannot be any kind
of alternative. It means giving up. It is a
dead-end street that we must unambigu-
ously reject as the foundation of our econ-
omy. Once we have finally cast aside the
barren search for a “more progressive” way
to be competitive, we can move on to find-
ing an alternative economic orientation.

We are not arguing that competitive
pressures will disappear simply because we
do not like them. But if we develop our own
ideological perspective, we will at least be in
a position to survive and negotiate the inev-
itable compromises. There is even the pos-
sibility that we can begin to change the
political culture of this country. Without
such an independent perspective there is just
no way we can withstand the unremitting
quicksand of “competitiveness.”

Capitalist economics and its expression

ST ie Kote by ie ee

_ computer hardware and peripheral devices,

oe ee ee

in competitiveness is fundamentally unde-
mocratic in that the few, under the guise of
the “needs of the market,” subjugate the
capacities and the needs of the rest of us,
The starting point of an alternative
perspective — a socialist economics — jg
the democratic development of our produc-
tive capacities.

By “democratic” we not only emphasize
popular control over the economy but also
equal access to participation in the economy
(democracy must be universal) and the
development of individual capacities (dem-
ocracy as achieving each individual’s poten-
tial). It is from this perspective that we
approach the issue of advancing our pro-
ductive capacity.

Our goals are:

© Creating a strong industrial base (in
factories and offices, machinery, engineer-
ing, research and development capacities),
This increases our wealth, our options and
oursskills.

@ Building a comprehensive social infra-
structure (transportation, housing, com-
munications, health, child care, environ-
mental protection). This not only sustains
and supports the industrial structure but is
also fundamental to removing barriers to
universal participation.

@ Strengthening individual economic
rights, including the basic right to produc-
tive employment, education and training,
That package of rights together with the
development of cultural potentials are fun-
damental socialist goals, central to the
extension of democracy and a critical aspect
of increasing the community’s productive
capacity.

e Sustaining and rejuvenating the natu-
ral environment. Sustainable development
is the precondition for survival of all our
capacities and potentials.

Let’s consider how this focus on the
democratic development of our productive
capacities might differ from a competitive-
ness-centred agenda.

One of the important differences between
a competitive strategy and its democratic
alternative is the focus of effort. In the com-
petitive model the target is the pea
firm. In a model whose goal is the dem
cratic development of productive capa
the focus is on sectors or clusters of firms
within sectors. The goal is to develop pro-
duction networks rather than world class
entrepreneurs. Such a framework recog-
nizes the central role of workers and their
unions as well as recognizing the impor-
tance of community input.

In the competitive model, the policy
issues centre around what we can do for the
companies to encourage their investment
here. In focusing on our democratic rights
to maintain and strengthen our productive
capacities, policy turns to enforcing job and
investment commitments from corpora-
tions if they want to share in our market
(such as the managed trade of the auto
pact).

To supporters of competitiveness, North-
ern Telecom operates as a model firm. But
rather than interpreting that success story in
competitive market terms, the story is actu-
ally quite different. :

The lesson to be learned from Northern’s
past is the importance of regulated devel-
opment in building productive capacity
within Canada (ie. a regulated telephone
industry offering Bell a market monopoly
which, along with financial support, was
central to Northern’s commitment to
research and development and to Canadian
regional production). The competitive
model threatens that development. North-
ern’s already alarming shift of production
(employment growth) out of Canada Sue
gests the threats are real.

If the knowledge and skills developed at
Northern labs aren’t used for reducing our
productive dependency, how else can it
happen? If the critical mass in research and
development isn’t used to expand our gen-
eral capacity from telecommunications to

to software and to spinoffs in other fields,
how else do we take advantage of the new