Capitalism and Cooperation; A. Levite

THEFREEMAN IDEAS ON LIBERTY Capitalismand Cooperation by Allan Levite I n a 1989 article appropriately titled "The Triumph of Capitalism," socialist econo mist Robert Heilbroner, who deserves to be commended for his honesty, observed:" ... at this moment socialism has no plausible eco nomic framework."l Perhaps socialists have finally reached the point where they will no longer argue that socialism or communism can ever outperform capitalism, confining themselves to the old argument that socialism is a more moral system than capitalism. Morality, however, is not something that can be demonstrated by facts. It is an out growth of shared values, such as cooperation. In the past, socialists have tried to convince people that their doctrine not only adhered to this commonly accepted behavioral norm, but actually epitomized it. The program of uto pian socialist Robert Owen, for example, was referred to as a system of "Mutual Cooper ation and Community of Goods."2 By using the word cooperation as its own exclusive property, socialism has always im plied that capitalism produces competition at the expense of cooperation. Without a doubt, capitalism involvescompetition, but socialism seems to view competition as entirely harm ful, placing little value on its role in economic improvement. Competition between prod ucts, however, launches the best ones to the forefront, while the makers of inferior prod ucts suffer losses. Price competition results in lower prices for consumers, and even when Mr. Levite is a freelance writer residing in San Francisco, California.

price "wars" are not taking place, competition keeps prices down. But in the midst of making these complaints about capitalism's alleged suppression of co operation, socialists joined liberals in com plaining about oligopolies, price-fixing, and other efforts by manufacturers to divide up markets and keep competitors out-activities that would necessarily involve cooperation between manufacturers who were trying to avoid competing with each other. Under American law, conspiracies to fix prices and allocate market shares became illegal. Al though socialistswould probably applaud the motives behind antitrust laws, it would be hard to deny that one of the aims of these laws was.to prevent cooperation between capital ists. Who Doesn't Cooperate? Despite socialism's refusal to recognize it, capitalism is founded on cooperation, and not only between capitalists within a given indus try who might seek to regulate their markets and freeze out competitors. The farmer co operates with the milling company, selling it grain at a price freely agreed upon by both.

The railroad cooperates with the miller and ships the grain at agreed-upon rates to an agreed-upon destination, where both miller and railroad know that factory workers will cooperate by being on hand to receive and process it. The supermarket cooperates with the food processing company, buying the finished products and reselling them, and honoring the manufacturer's coupons. In 615 616 THE FREEMAN • OCTOBER 1997 turn, the manufacturer cooperates with the supermarket by reimbursing it for coupons received. The bank cooperates with both by enabling them to make these millions of transactions very efficiently, and to transfer large sums electronically or by check. Banks also cooperate with families by making se cured loans (e.g., mortgages), enabling them to buy homes, which also pleases real estate and residential construction companies. Consumers have cash to pay for what they buy because they have cooperated with their employers by showing up for work on time and performing labor, for which the employ ers cooperate by paying them. Consumers also cooperate with supermarkets by buying the products and paying cash (and sometimes even by returning shopping carts to the rack).

Actually, even if relations between mer chants and their suppliers are not taken into account, there is nothing new about inter-firm cooperation due to mutual self-interest. About a century ago, fire insurance compa nies began to suspect that electrical equip ment was causing building fires, and backed William Henry Merrill's idea for an indepen dent testing laboratory for electrical products. Thus was born Underwriters Laboratories Inc., an independent, not-for-profit, nongov ernmental organization that now conducts over 77,000 product investigations each year. Manufacturers voluntarily submit products to UL for testing and safetyverification, and use ofUL is not required by law.But few electrical manufacturers would even consider market ing an electrical product without the UL's coveted seal of approval, which is placed on more than nine billion products annually, and is known and trusted the world over.3 Here is an organization that fulfills the function of a government bureau, helping make sure that products complywith rigid safety standards all without costing the taxpayers a cent-and accomplishes all this because capitalists want to cooperate with it! As this example illus trates, self-interest does not necessarily lead to competition at the expense of cooperation.

Capitalism also features cooperation in a more formal sense: what is now known as strategic partnering. Despite this impressive new description, joint ventures and licensing agreements have taken place for quite a long time, and newer industries have merely adopted these standard practices. In the com puter industry, for example, it is routine to buy a hardware device and find it "bundled" with software made by a different company, whose software the hardware company had licensed in order to include with their own product. Many companies have also been making agreements with other firms, by which mar keting, manufacturing, or research will be conducted jointly between them. IBM, for example, jointly built a $200-million plant with Toshiba, for the manufacture of screens for laptop computers. IBM also began in 1991 to jointly develop dynamic RAM chips with the German electronics firm Siemens. In Japan, Mitsubishi sells IBM mainframes un der its own name, which augments IBM's own sales efforts.4 No U.S. manufacturer produces its own color television sets, VCRs, or CD players; all electronics products sold under the Kodak, General Electric, RCA, Zenith, and Westinghouse brands are made by these firms' foreign alliance partners and imported into the United States.5 Cooperation, Not Collusion This cooperation between competitors is a far cryfrom the collusion that some capitalists have used on occasion to stifle competition or restrict output. Such conspiracies attracted criticism from writers and politicians, but the agreements never lasted long. The reason why Adam Smith observed that capitalists were always colluding to try to control markets is that markets were always changing, making yesterday's agreement obsolete and con stantly necessitating a new agreement to try to hold together the previous conditions. Today, different reasons have been inducing capital ists to cooperate, and with different results.

The fragmentation and spiraling complexity oftoday's mass markets have made it increas ingly difficult for any single firm to possess everything it needs to succeed. Such agree ments as those entered into by IBM were designed not to restrict output or control markets, but to acquire the skills, resources, or markets that one firm lacked and could The Foundation for Economic Education Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533 Tel. (914) 591-7230 Fax (914) 591-8910 E-mail: freeman@westnet.com October 1997 A Free-Market Case Against Open Immigration? R ecently, upon finishing Leonard Read's superb book Anything That's Peaceful(FEE, 1964), I felt a surge of thankfulness and honor. I'm thankful that such a wise man lived and wrote, and I'm honored to now lead the organization that he founded. Leonard Read was truly a great liberal-a liberal, of course, in the original and correct meaning of the term.

Genuine liberals (as opposed to the statists who today in America have stolen this noble name) never fancy themselves fit to interfere coercively in the lives of others. As Read expressed his liberal philosophy, all peaceful and voluntary actions among adults should be immune to state interfer ence. The only justifiable use of physical force is to defend against another who has initiated coercion. What a marvelous and workable princi ple on which to build civil society! Both theory and history prove that this princi ple generates peace, stability, prosperity, and a culture that is rich and diverse~ And yet so many people are distressingly hos tile to this principle. Leftist hostility is predictable. After all, leftists are virtually definedas those who see state-initiated coercion (or the threat thereof) as a magic potion capable of con juring up all imaginable good and ridding humankind of all existing evils.

It is bothersome, however, to find such hostility among those who claim to be friends of liberty and free markets. In par ticular, during the past few years a num ber of pro-market writers have argued against a policy of open immigration. While the airing of different sides of the immigration argument is surely useful, I personally find such arguments as present ed to be wholly unpersuasive - and even, in some cases, distressingly illiberal. The most popular version of the so called libertarian case against immigration runs something like this. Each privatepropertyownerhas the moral right (and shouldhave the legal right) to banfrom his property,or to admitonto his property,anyonehe chooses.In afree society,no one is coercedinto unwanted associationswith others. Therefore,because in afully free societyall land would be pri vatelyownedand governmentwouldbe limited(at most) to keepingthe peace, immi grationpolicyin this societywould be what ever each privatepropertyownerdecidesit to be. IfI wish to let 100 unskilledIrish peasantsonto my property,so be it. Ifmy neighborchoosesneverto admitonto his propertyeven peoplefrom across the street, so be it. There would,in fact, be as many immigrationpoliciesin thefully free society as thereare landowners.As a practicalmatter, immigrantswould be peoplewho con tributethroughgains-from-tradeto domes tic citizens.

But we do not live in afully free society. Like it or not, we'restuck with a large and intrusivegovernment.And this samegov ernmenthappensto own enormoustractsof land and publicfacilities.Given that exces sivegovernmentis a realitythat isn't soon disappearing,the best that citizensofa democraticsocietycan hopefor on the immi grationfront is that theiroverlypowerful governmentmimicsthe immigrationpoli cies that afully free societywouldadopt. Becausethere wouldbe no free admissionin afully free society,thereshouldbe nofree admissionin today'sless-than-freesociety. Indeed,open immigrationtoday is tanta mount to forced integration.Citizenswho do not wish to associatewithforeignersare forced to do so by agovernmentthat too freelyadmitsforeign immigrants.And becauseforce is bad,forced integration a.k.a. open immigrationis bad. This argument for limiting immigration appears in several different variations, but the above rendition captures the main theme. It is mistaken.

First, to ask government to mimic the outcomes of a pure private property rights system is to overlook the single most important reason why government should be strictly limited. Unlike owners of pri vate property, government can resort to force to increase the size of its property holdings and the value of its portfolio. Government is not an owner of private property. Restrictions on government dis cretion are appropriate precisely because government possesses a legitimized monopoly on coercion. Consider, for example, the constitution al protection of free speech. Would it be sensible to argue that, because each pri vateproperty owner has the right to regu late what is said on his property, govern ment in our lessthan-libertarian world should have the power to regulate speech uttered in public places or over public air waves? Of course not. But such an argu ment is analogous to the argument for government restrictions on immigration.

Secondly, labeling open immigration as "forced integration" is disingenuous. Such a practice is identical to labeling the First Amendment's protection of free speech as "forced listening." But keeping govern ment from regulating speech is not at all the same thing as forcingpeople to listen. Likewise, allowing people to immigrate to America is not the same thing as forcing Americans to associate against their wills with immigrants. Under a regime of open immigration, I need not hire or dine with anyone whom I don't wish to hire or dine with. Indeed, whenever government restricts immigration it coercively prevents me, as an American, from hiring or dining with whoever I choose to hire or dine with. An immigrant who receives no welfare payments engages only in consensual capi talist acts with those (and only those) domestic citizens who choose to deal with the immigrant. Just as trade restraints are, at bottom, restrictions on the freedoms of domestic citizens, so, too, are immigration restraints restrictions on the freedoms of domestic citizens.

Thirdly, even if some coherent justifica tion could be given in the abstract for restricting immigration, it is curious in the extreme that any proponent of liberty is willing in practice to trust government with the power to pick and choose which foreigners we domestic citizens will be permitted to deal with on our home shores. There is no reason to suspect that government will exercise this power more prudently and intelligently than it exer cises other powers. Whether or not immigrants increase or decrease measured GDP or per-capita income is an empirical question that can be answered only by sound empirical research. (Economist Julian Simon has car ried out much of this research; he finds that immigrants promote prosperity.) But the moral case for open immigration is paramount. That case is this: a geopolitical border is a grotesquely arbitrary reason to prevent people from dealing with each other in whatever peaceful ways they choose.

Donald J. Boudreaux President OCTOBER BOOK SALE October Milestones: James M. Buchanan, born Oct. 2, 1919; Henry Hazlitt's Economicsin One Lesson,#7 on the New York Times Best Sellers list, Oct. 6, 1946; Wilhelm Ropke, born Oct. 10, 1899; Ludwig von Mises, died Oct. 10, 1973; Albert J. Nock, born Oct. 13, 1870; Mark Skousen, born Oct. 19, 1947; John T. Flynn, born Oct. 25, 1882; John Locke, died Oct. 28,1704; Rose Wilder Lane, died Oct. 30, 1968; William Graham Sumner, born Oct. 30, 1840. James M. Buchanan, editor THE THEORY OF PUBLIC CHOICE The standard textbook of an important school of thought. 512 pages, reg. $24.95 sale $19.95 Henry Hazlitt ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON Foreword by Steve Forbes This primer on economic principles brilliantly analyzes the seen and unseen consequences of economic and political actions. 221 pages, reg. $10.95 sale $7.95 Wilhelm Ropke THE SOCIAL CRISIS OF OUR TIME The author analyzes social issues as deterrents to individual freedom.

290 pages, reg. $24.95 sale $19.95 Ludwig von Mises ON FREEDOM AND FREE ENTERPRISE: ESSAYSIN HONOR OF LUDWIG VON MISES A superb collection of original essays by nineteen noted scholars from six nations in honor of Ludwig von Mises. (Edited by Mary Sennholz.) 333 pages, reg. $15.95 sale $11.95 AlbertJ. Nock COGITATIONS A delightful introduction to the wit and wisdom of Albert J. Nock, the editor of The Freemanduring the 1920s. (Edited by Robert M. Thornton.) 100 pages, reg. $6.95 sale $3.95 Mark Skousen ECONOMICS OF A PURE GOLD STANDARD A compelling case for honest money. 176 pages, reg. $14.95 sale $10.95 John T. Flynn FORGOTTEN LESSONS: SELECTED ESSAYSOF JOHN T. FLYNN Flynn's best essays on the growth of the State in twentieth-century America. (Edited by Gregory P. Pavlik.) 199 pages, reg. $14.95 sale $10.95 John Locke TWO TREATISESON GOVERNMENT Two essays on government from the seventeenth century by one of the progenitors of classical liberal thought.

200 pages, reg. $14.95 sale $11.95 Rose Wilder Lane THE DISCOVERY OF FREEDOM: MAN'S STRUGGLE AGAINST AUTHORITY A fascinating discussion of man's struggle against political authority and his victories over tyranny since the dawn of civilization. 262 pages, reg. $14.95 sale $11.95 William Graham Sumner WHAT SOCIAL CLASSESOWE TO EACH OTHER A classic statement that it is not wicked to be rich. 145 pages, reg. $10.95 sale $6.95 Sale ends October 31, 1997. Postageand handling:Please add $3 per order of $25 or less; $4 per order of $26-$50; $5 per order of more than $50. Send your order, with accompanying check or money order, to: FEE, 30 South Broadway, Irvington-an-Hudson, NY 10533. Visa and MasterCard telephone and fax orders ($10 minimum) are welcomed: (800) 452-3518; fax (914) 591-8910. Call Renee Oechsner at (914) 591-7230 for quantity discounts.

~_..~..~.-_.- ---~~.-~.- _.-~.-'T~ -~ -~ .~ .~ -~ .~~.~ .~ .~ ., I Christmas Gift Subscriptions I ., THEFREEMAN ., 5· Checking your holiday gift list? There is still time to give a year of The Freemanand Notes '5' i\i, from FEE to friends, business associates, teachers, students, employees, clergy, libraries- ~\i, " whomever you choose. " 5. First gift $30.00, $45.00 Foreign. '5'Each additional gift $20.00, $30.00 Foreign. Gift cards included. ~, ~." New subscriptions begin with the January 1998 issue. Orders should be received at " I. FEE by December 15, 1997, for delivery in time for Christmas. I" Send 1 year of The Freemanto: Send 1 year of The Freemanto: ~, ~." Name Name___________ " I Address Address I ., City City ., 5' State ZIP State ZIP 5' Send 1 year of The Freemanto: Send 1 year of The Freemanto: ~ ~ ~ ~ 5· Address Address '5' a~ a~~i. ---------- ~'. State ZIP State ZIP _ I Send 1 year of The Freemanto: Send 1 year of The Freemanto: Ift ~ ~ ftI ~~dreSS ~~ess I ., State ZIP State ZIP"

5. Send 1 year of The Freemanto: Send 1 year of The Freemanto: '5' Name Name~i, ---------- ~i, Address Address _ I City City Ift State ZIP State ZIP ., I· ~~~I"Address~i. Ci~ --------------S-ta-te-------Z-IP--- ~i. 5' ,t'TOTAL ORDER: 1 @ $30 and __ @ $20 $ _ ~... o PAYMENT ENCLOSED ~i. 5 CHARGE MY: 0 VISA 0 MASTERCARD 5.' , .Card # Expiration _ ~. ~" Signature _ I For fastest service, call (800) 452-3518 or fax (914) 591-8910. Ift THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION ., i IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533 i ~_~W.;r:;~.;r:;!Wf1.;r:;_.;r:; ..~.;r:;_.;r:;QiC.;r:;Q~~ obtain only from another-which, in return, would receive something it lacked. Some times, the parties to such agreements are competitors, but these partnering agreements are cooperative, not collusive. In the fast changing world of today's capitalism, compe tition and cooperation are becoming indistin guishable. This does not mean that this increased cooperation will result in rigid oligopolies in which the major players share resources and keep out the newer, smaller players, because the cooperation itself was forced upon the major players by the same technological changes that tore apart their previous market structures. If anything, strategic partnering bodes well for small, emerging firms, because instead of having to compete against the giants, they will find themselves in a better position to offer skillsor facilities to the large firms. IBM North America already has over 4,000 "partners," many "creating highly spe cific software for smaller customers.,,6 Indeed, partnering and "outsourcing" show no signs of leading to increased market con centration or reduced levels of competition, because, as one study has shown, 70 percent of all the alliances of this type that cross national borders break up within a short time.7 While there are still oligopolistic mar kets, and mergers that turn large firms into even larger ones, it is overlooked that capi talism has produced a constantly increasing number of different industries and markets, just as it has generated an ever-expanding number of products.. This fact refutes the old Marxian idea of a trend toward a final, very small group of giant, highly profitable firms that buy up failed rivals until they control everything.

To those who lack understanding of how markets operate, such increased concentra tion may have even appeared to be happening during the 1960s, which featured the rise of the "conglomerates"-corporations that ac quired smaller firms that belonged to com pletely different industries. For example, in 1969, Quaker Oats, a well-known food prod ucts company, acquired Fisher-Price Toys. But Quaker sold Fisher-Price in 1991, two years before tobacco giant Philip Morris sold CAPITALISM AND COOPERATION 617 Birds Eye frozen vegetables to Dean Foods.8 The furniture company I worked for in the early 1970swas acquired by a food conglom erate, which soon regretted its decision, for the furniture companyproved unprofitable. A few years later the food company closed it down. While large firms often find it advisable to diversify,they do not simplybuyup everything in sight just so they can own everything.They do not want to own assets that fail to make money. A division that becomes unprofitable will be "spun off," and since few conglomer ates will show equal profitability for each of their divisions, there will always be some divisions that are less profitable than others, even if they are all making money. The incentive exists to sell the less-profitable di visions and retain only the most lucrative ones-the "core competencies"-and rely on outsourcing for the rest. Thus, although part nering and outsourcing will increase inter firm cooperation and help make firms more competitive, the increased reliance on agree ments as opposed to acquisitions will prevent ever-increasing economic concentration.

Words and More Words In spite of this trend toward increased collaboration between corporations, many writers still cling to the idea that capitalism is competitive in ways that forestall coopera tion, while other forms of economic organi zation (such as socialism) would engender truecooperation. Discoveringthe basis of this interpretation, however, involvessociological rather than economic analysis. The great economists F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises were well aware of the importance of the intellectual class and the extent to which it had embraced socialism.This was discussed in Hayek's article "The Intellectuals and Socialism" and Mises's book The Anti Capitalistic Mentality. Both Marxism and so cialism are doctrines that claim to exist to improve the condition of the working classes, but the doctrines themselves were the prod ucts of intellectuals. For example, when Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels began to call themselves the Communist Party, they asked 618 THE FREEMAN • OCTOBER 1997 socialist friends in Brussels to join, recruiting 15. Of this total of 17 members, including themselves, 15 (88 percent) were writers.9 To a very great extent, socialism has alwaysbeen the product of what is now called the "knowl edge class," the "information elite," or "sym bolic analysts"-academics, writers, journal ists, and others who make their living by processing and analyzing documents and ideas.

Because socialism was originated by the social class that lives by words, it has always been highly productive in the use of labels, slogans, and buzzwords. Despite its failure as an economic system, socialism has never lacked the ability to have itself described in the most glowing terms, which explains why the cooperation produced by capitalism is not called cooperation, and why the jealousy and friction produced by socialism's arbitrary di vision of goods is called cooperation. Because the origin of this descriptive divergence is sociological rather than logical, the triumph of capitalism over socialism is unlikely to affect it. Instead of resorting to the use of favorable labels (such as "cooperation") for the things they approve of, and unfavorable labels such as "dog-eat-dog competition" for the things they disapprove of, it would have been more accurate for socialists to eschew these devices in favor of such descriptions as profit-making and nonprofit-making. For it is clear that socialism does not distinguish "cooperation"

from "competition" by the nature or results of these acts, but by the intentions of their initiators. No matter how much cooperation goes into a profit-making activity,socialists will claim that it is competitive rather than cooperative, and will treat economic compe tition as destructive and divisive,as if it could never contain cooperative elements. Socialists were aware, of course, that the parties to a transaction must cooperate with each other in order to make the exchange, but insisted that this cooperation was merely formal, hiding a deeper relationship that is actually exploitative, and which "forced" one of the parties to act. Yet even a highly paid athlete might consider himself to be ex ploited, because although he is a millionaire, his employer makes a great deal more money from his performance than he does.·Still,most people would disagree, because his earnings are high, and even socialists do not spend their time complaining about the exploitation of highly paid employees. This indicates that socialism does not always define exploitation as a relationship between persons occupying positions of greatly unequal power. A very highly paid worker, such as a film star, might make a great deal less than his employer, but could hardly be considered powerless: some film stars become directors and even produc ers!

Therefore, at some wage level, the amount of remuneration is what determines whether exploitation exists. But if a sufficiently high wage negates exploitation, it means that work ers can decide that if their wages exceed a certain level, they are not being exploited, making their decision to accept employment at those wage levelsa free and unencumbered choice. If workers use their wage levels as an indicator of whether they are exploited, then the indicative point can be set at any level,and an unemployed worker might very well con sider anyjob offerto be an acceptable bargain. What is a bad wage offer now might be a good one later, depending on one's circumstances, in the same way that a good price now might be a bad price later. This refutes the notion that workers who are not receiving as high a wage as they would like are not cooperating willfully with their employers, even though they show up for work on time and do their jobs. From the employee's viewpoint, the remuneration is always insufficient. No matter what the agreed-upon wageis,workers seek the highest wages they can get, just as merchants seek the highest prices they can get. They will always conclude that if conditions had been more favorable, they could have gotten more. To call this "exploitation" because the worker was "compelled" by economic circumstances to accept a job at lower wages than he wanted is no different from saying that a merchant who is "forced" to offer close-out prices on his goods is "exploited" by consumers because they would not offer him the higher prices he wanted. To make an offer and settle for the best deal available, in the absence of the ideal deal-which is never available-is a function of self-interest, and it is difficultto say with a straight face that people who are following their self-interest are being exploited.

Intellectuals and Sacrifice When the interests of two parties intersect, cooperation results, and a transaction occurs. If socialists consider an activity to be coop erative only if it lacks the element of personal gain, then the socialist definition of cooper ation must include, if not focus on, some element of self-sacrifice. From this stand point, "cooperation" must be mainly an act of renunciation or submission. "Cooperation," however, sounds much better to working-class people than renunciation or submission, so this favorable word is used instead. It is the foundation of sacrificethat best explains why capitalistic endeavors cannot qualify as "co operative" under the socialist definition. Gov ernments can disburse goods or cash to their citizens, but only by taking them from other citizens. However, all market exchanges of goods or services reap gains for both parties. Sellers value the money they receive for their goods more than the goods themselves, and buyers value the goods more than the money, otherwise the exchanges would not have oc curred. Whatever name might be given to such transactions, the two parties have in fact cooperated with each other, and sacrifice was absent.

The intellectual class, however, might well have felt uncomfortable about its separation CAPITALISM AND COOPERATION 619 from the workaday world. Its members grasped pens and spent long hours in cafes, while others had to swinghammers and wield sewing needles to make their living. Capital ism's replacement of sacrifice with gain did not constitute a happy change for such remorse-ridden thinkers who, unlike work ing-class people, place a high value on sacri fice because it alleviates their uneasiness, while gain only adds to it. They could not change reality, but they could, at least, rename it, especially since the application of names and labels was their natural function. Accord ingly,economic sacrifice soon became known as "cooperation," while gainful cooperation became "dog-eat-dog competition." It is time to start insisting that the labels used to describe economic activitygivea more accurate depiction of that activity and its results. 0 1. Robert Heilbroner, "The Triumph of Capitalism," The New Yorker, January 23, 1989, p. 109.

2. James H. Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men: Originsof the RevolutionaryFaith (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1980), p. 253. 3. Underwriters Laboratories publications: "An Overviewof Underwriters Laboratories," "Questions & Answers About the UL Mark," and "This Inventive Century." 4. David Kirkpatrick, "Breaking Up IBM," Fortune,July 27, 1992, p. 54. 5. David Lei and John W. Slocum, Jr., "Global Strategy, Competence-Building and Strategic Alliances," CaliforniaMan agementReview,Fall 1992, p. 82. 6. Kirkpatrick,op. cit., pp. 54-58. 7. Robert Michelet and Rosemary Remade, "Forming Suc cessful Strategic Marketing Alliances in Europe," The Journalof EuropeanBusiness,September-October 1992, p. 11. 8. Hoover'sHandbook of American Business1995, pp. 870, 900. 9. Eugene H. Methvin, The Rise of Radicalism(New Roch elle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1973), p. 157; Joel Carmichael, Karl Marx: The PassionateLogician (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967), p. 128.