Competition fragments solidarity
Competition is not a natural law. It is a manufactured scarcity designed to prevent collective action.
When people compete for artificially limited resources, they cannot coordinate against those who control the distribution mechanism.
──── The solidarity problem
Solidarity requires shared interests. Competition creates opposing interests.
This is not accidental. Systems that depend on exploitation need populations that cannot organize effectively. Competition provides this fragmentation automatically.
Consider academic grading curves. When only 10% can receive A grades, students cannot help each other without harming their own prospects. The artificial scarcity transforms potential collaborators into necessary enemies.
The professor—who controls both the curve and the material—faces no such dilemma. They benefit from students competing rather than questioning why grades must be distributed this way.
──── Economic competition as social control
Market competition extends this dynamic across entire societies.
Workers compete for jobs, suppressing wages and working conditions. Small businesses compete for market share, preventing collective bargaining with suppliers or landlords. Regions compete for corporate investment, offering tax breaks and deregulation.
Meanwhile, those who own the means of production face no equivalent fragmentation. Capital coordinates freely across borders, industries, and political systems.
Competition is mandatory for the powerless, optional for the powerful.
──── Meritocracy as fragmentation tool
Meritocratic ideologies make competition seem fair by suggesting it rewards individual value.
This obscures the fundamental structure: someone else controls the rules, the evaluation criteria, and the resource allocation. Your “merit” is measured against standards you did not set, in games you did not design.
More critically, meritocracy frames collective action as cheating. If success should reflect individual worth, then organizing with others becomes an illegitimate advantage.
This transforms solidarity from a natural human tendency into a moral failing.
──── The ranking obsession
Modern society ranks everything: schools, countries, employees, ideas, relationships.
Rankings create hierarchies where none need exist. Instead of focusing on whether something serves its purpose, we focus on whether it outperforms alternatives.
This shifts attention from absolute improvement to relative positioning. Resources go toward gaining advantages over others rather than solving shared problems.
Universities spend billions on marketing and prestige projects while educational quality stagnates. Countries pursue GDP growth while infrastructure crumbles. Companies focus on stock prices while product quality declines.
The ranking system rewards gaming the metrics rather than achieving the underlying goals.
──── Competitive cooperation
Even apparent cooperation gets converted into competition.
Team sports create artificial tribes that compete against other artificial tribes. This provides the emotional release of solidarity while channeling it toward harmless outlets.
Corporate “team building” exercises teach people to collaborate—but only within predetermined boundaries and toward predetermined goals. The team solidarity cannot extend to questioning management decisions or workplace structures.
International cooperation frameworks like trade agreements facilitate coordination among elites while creating new forms of competition among populations.
The cooperation serves to make competition more efficient, not to replace it.
──── Network effects of fragmentation
Competition fragments solidarity at multiple scales simultaneously.
Individuals compete with other individuals. Teams compete with other teams. Companies compete with other companies. Nations compete with other nations.
Each level of competition prevents solidarity at that level while reinforcing the structure that maintains all levels.
Workers cannot unite across companies because companies compete. Companies cannot unite across industries because industries compete. Nations cannot unite globally because they compete for resources and influence.
The fragmentation is systematic and self-reinforcing.
──── False scarcity generation
Most competitive systems depend on artificial scarcity.
There are enough resources for everyone to have housing, healthcare, education, and meaningful work. But these resources are distributed through competitive mechanisms that ensure many people will be excluded.
The exclusion is the point. Without the threat of losing, people might not accept the terms of competition.
This is why “full employment” is treated as dangerous by economic planners. If everyone could easily find decent work, workers would have more bargaining power. Unemployment must be maintained to discipline those who are employed.
──── Technology as competition amplifier
Digital platforms intensify competitive dynamics through quantification and scalability.
Social media transforms human relationships into measurable competitions for attention, engagement, and status. Dating apps convert romance into market dynamics with swipe-based selection and algorithmic ranking.
Gig economy platforms create hyper-competition among workers who bid against each other for increasingly precarious work opportunities.
The technology doesn’t just mediate competition—it makes competition more precise, more invasive, and more inescapable.
──── Educational competition training
Schools serve as training grounds for competitive mindsets.
Students learn to view their peers as obstacles rather than resources. They internalize the belief that their success requires others’ failure.
This training begins early and intensifies throughout the educational process. By graduation, most people cannot imagine organizing collectively for shared benefit.
The curriculum content matters less than the competitive structure within which it is delivered. Students could be learning cooperation skills, but within a system that rewards individual achievement over collective progress.
──── Breaking the competition trap
Recognizing competition as a control mechanism is the first step toward escaping it.
The second step is identifying areas where solidarity remains possible despite competitive pressures.
Sometimes this means refusing to compete. Sometimes it means changing the rules. Sometimes it means creating alternative systems that operate on different principles.
But it always requires understanding that competition is not inevitable—it is imposed.
──── Solidarity as structural threat
Those who benefit from competitive systems understand the danger of solidarity.
This is why collective action is consistently undermined through legal restrictions, media campaigns, and cultural messaging that promotes individual solutions to systemic problems.
Strike-breaking, union-busting, and the criminalization of protest are not responses to specific threats—they are maintenance operations for the competitive system itself.
Solidarity represents an existential challenge to any hierarchy that depends on fragmentation for its survival.
────────────────────────────────────────
Competition is not about excellence or efficiency. It is about preventing coordination among those who might otherwise demand fundamental changes.
Understanding this reveals new possibilities for collective action, even within systems designed to prevent it.
The question is not whether to compete, but whether to accept the terms of competition as they are currently defined.
────────────────────────────────────────
This analysis examines structural dynamics, not individual choices. Personal decisions to compete or cooperate occur within systems that shape available options.