Why is coopoeration better then competition?

[ContrarianLemming]

Why is cooperation better then competition?

[AK]

Because, as with any competition, there is one winner and far more losers.
This doesn't work out too well with peoples' livelihoods and it tends to get them poor or living on the streets.

Co-operation is better because you utilise all your ideas and tools for a collective effort, rather than perpetually trying to drive your rival our of business at the cost of them and their workers' livelihoods whilst at the same time being threatened with the reality of losing that competition and with it your home, your assets and your money.

Makes sense, no? Why couldn't humanity figure this out earlier...

[danyboy27]

cooperation dosnt mean lack of competition.

[The Vegan Marxist]

cooperation dosnt mean lack of competition.

Under the capitalist ideals of competition there's a difference. Maybe a worker cooperating with his exploitative boss who cons him into making $50 tables for the wage price of $10.

[danyboy27]

Under the capitalist ideals of competition there's a difference. Maybe a worker cooperating with his exploitative boss who cons him into making $50 tables for the wage price of $10.
i never made any reference to capitalism in my last post.

[The Vegan Marxist]

i never made any reference to capitalism in my last post.

I know this, but I was making an indication that competition, under capitalist ideals, is not in sync with cooperation.

[danyboy27]

I know this, but I was making an indication that competition, under capitalist ideals, is not in sync with cooperation.

this is obvious.

[robbo203]

Here's an article from the WSM site which might help throw some light on this question

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/co-operation_makes_sense.php

[Mendax]

Working in co=operation means that you can pool your ideas, resources and skills together - working in competition may get results but often if your working towards the same goal it would be much quicker to work as a team, especially in cases were the people working against each other have different skills which when co-operating could be used to complement each other rather then merely slowling them down and createing "Holes" in the final product which wouldn't be there if they'd had the other persons skills to hand.

[danyboy27]

Working in co=operation means that you can pool your ideas, resources and skills together - working in competition may get results but often if your working towards the same goal it would be much quicker to work as a team, especially in cases were the people working against each other have different skills which when co-operating could be used to complement each other rather then merely slowling them down and createing "Holes" in the final product which wouldn't be there if they'd had the other persons skills to hand.

cooperation dosnt mean no competition.

a worker cooperative can compete with another worker cooperative on a specific product,lets say a table or a chocolate bar, there is nothing inherently wrong about that.

[Uppercut]

a worker cooperative can compete with another worker cooperative on a specific product,lets say a table or a chocolate bar, there is nothing inherently wrong about that.

I don't think local coops would necessarily need to invoke competition. If higher management is involved, some sort of overall economic plan would be needed, though.

[danyboy27]

I don't think local coops would necessarily need to invoke competition. If higher management is involved, some sort of overall economic plan would be needed, though.

the thing is, nothing need to be forced, competition might happen, or might not happen.

shit will always hit the fan when you FORCE something upon a population, wich mean you cant force a society to always work together if they want some competition.

you are dealing with human, nothing will happen has planned.

[CartCollector]

Here's a question to think about: when have you ever heard of a competition that didn't involve a side trying to dominate and completely wipe out the other side? Capitalists assume people will play by the rules and compete in a nice, friendly manner, but history shows this is not the case, especially when great sums of money and power are at stake.

That said, there is a situation when competition is necessary, and that is the competition against nature and the limits it imposes on us. Under market capitalism we are distracted from this competition, the competition to better all of humanity, and instead driven to compete with sections of humanity to better ourselves. Capitalists claim that this artificial, substitute competition will eventually lead to a competition to better all of humanity, but again this is shown not to be the case- competition between people leads to competition between people, and all that it entails. Socialism must be a return to the true competition against the limits nature imposes on us.

How will this be done? Parecon has an answer to one part of it- balanced job complexes. Balanced job complexes are job rotations that are picked by the worker, but have to be as empowering as everyone else's jobs. Why is this a good thing? It means that everyone will have to do some crappy work that no one wants to do since all balanced job complexes are equally empowering. This gives people an incentive to figure out ways to reduce the amount of crappy work- reducing the amount of crappy work leads to an increase in the amount of enjoyable work in everyone's lives. This is the opposite of how things work in capitalism, where the business owners try to implement labor reducing machinery and the unions fight against it to preserve their jobs. An increase in productivity means more profits for a few, harder, faster work for most, and unemployment for the rest.

[autonomous bomb thrower]

Competition as seen in the capitalist society is very unbalanced and anarchistic. An economy based on competition is one of instability. The instability of the capitalist economy causes inadequit allocating and supplying of resources, depression, poverty and monopoly. The socialist economy wishes to combat the competition of capitalism by introducing a system of planned development. This system of planned development also known as "cooperation" is designed to build the economy in a balanced manner to ensure that resources are used correctly, to direct the economy where its needed most, ensure all have jobs, and adequitly supply the masses with the resources to stabalize and raise the standard of living.

[Uppercut]

the thing is, nothing need to be forced, competition might happen, or might not happen.

That's fine. But what I'm saying is that it's very possible that the petty-bourgeoisie mentality may be encouraged, and a form of capitalism might spring back up. Take Yugoslavia, for example. Most enterprises were collectively owned, and they competed nationally and internationally. This brought on a hefty amount of debt, and these enterprises were more consumer-driven, rather than industrial or agricultural.

I understand what you're saying, but too much competition is a bad thing if material incentives and the profit motive blind the workers and management.


shit will always hit the fan when you FORCE something upon a population, wich mean you cant force a society to always work together if they want some competition.

Some competition? Fine, so long as it is local and not international like a multinational corporation. Although I'm unsure competition will even rear its head if we ever achieve socialism. By that time, the people might want a totally cooperative, community owned economy.


you are dealing with human, nothing will happen has planned.

True, humans are sometimes unpredictable and their interests change over time. That is why I advocate a Mass Line policy.

[Chambered Word]

Competition does not have a naturally uncooperative nature per se (e.g competing to see who can work harder and produce the most while cooperating with one another at the same time and not sabotaging efforts for personal gain), it's the idea that we need different competing businesses keeping their prices lower than their competitors to deliver us quality products that socialists have a problem with. It drives workers' income down and encourages cost-cutting wherever it is possible. Seems like common sense to me.

[danyboy27]

That's fine. But what I'm saying is that it's very possible that the petty-bourgeoisie mentality may be encouraged, and a form of capitalism might spring back up. Take Yugoslavia, for example. Most enterprises were collectively owned, and they competed nationally and internationally. This brought on a hefty amount of debt, and these enterprises were more consumer-driven, rather than industrial or agricultural.
.
Its up to the people man.




I understand what you're saying, but too much competition is a bad thing if material incentives and the profit motive blind the workers and management.
.
yes, but then again, its up to the people you cant force nothing on them.






Some competition? Fine, so long as it is local and not international like a multinational corporation. Although I'm unsure competition will even rear its head if we ever achieve socialism. By that time, the people might want a totally cooperative, community owned economy.
.
i dont see why 2 worker cooperative manufacturing beer wouldnt compete internationally to be more popular and come up with a better product just for the sake of fame, i would.



True, humans are sometimes unpredictable and their interests change over time. That is why I advocate a Mass Line policy.
sometimes? that an understatement, and the mass line policy is not suitable for human being, ants maybe.

[redwog]

Competition doesn't spring forth from the minds of people, but exists when there is both a scarcity and a reward to be realised from winning.

It is the issue of scarcity that must be tackled to remove the reward.

That said, while on the surface capitalism seems to be full of competing businesses; they cooperate more often than we realise. Its like empires, they spend a lot of time, negotating settlements and treaties whilst they organise their resources, when they feel they are in a position to advance the cooperation ends and the compeition is again ignited.

Competition is neither good nor bad, but a reflection of the social relation of capitalism.

Cooperation is also neither good nor bad, but should be the only viable social practice in a society of abundance.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Generally I don't think communists should concern themselves with this question. (Aside from to show that humans aren't so damn competitive that communism is impossible)

We aren't looking for a society based on cooperation, nor are we making general claims as to why one is preferable to the other. I think most communists think that is a matter for the individual to decide. Our beef isn't so much with the fact that capitalism is a competitive society - Its not. Like all societies, a mixture of both..with most likely a lot more cooperation going on that competition, but that its a society where 90 percent of the population is forced to labour for some asshole who just happens to have a legal document proving that he "owns" some factory or whatever.

[Uppercut]

Its up to the people man.

I think if we studied the economy of past socialist states, we could learn that developing things inside your own country is more beneficial, and that enterprises can be nationalized and still have elected management and worker participation. Also, the PRC during the Mao era included extremely efficient, locally owned co-ops. There was a rapid growth of rural industry during the Cultural Revolution.

"In 1996 the proportion of industrial output value from collective and commune/brigade run industrial enterprises to state enterprises was 17:83; in 1976 it was 37:63, with the output value of collective industry growing at the annual average rate of 15:8 percent over the 10 years."-Taken from The Battle for China's Past, pg. 88.

You don't need to "force" workers to cooperate economically. Given the correct circumstances, they can do it well on their own.



i dont see why 2 worker cooperative manufacturing beer wouldnt compete internationally to be more popular and come up with a better product just for the sake of fame, i would.

Then we would make a huge circle and we would have ourselves a new form of capitalism, eventually. Profit can breed conceit and self-centeredness. People need to understand and overcome this. International economic cooperation is needed to present a long-lasting and secure socialist economy.
Take coffee beans, for example. Most of them are grown near the equator, but let's say that someone in Mozambique developed a new strand or a more flavorful or unique mixture. If socialism were achieved in a first world country, along with Mozambique, the two enterprises could cooperate and incorporate the Mozambique coffee beans, with the technical expertise of the first world enterprise. The mixture would reach more people under this system, rather than under capitalism, where the person who developed the product would most likely remain isolated. Corporations may search for new ideas in the world, but they always buy the original producer off, and take the idea as their own.



sometimes? that an understatement, and the mass line policy is not suitable for human being, ants maybe.

I beg to differ.

[danyboy27]

I think if we studied the economy of past socialist states, we could learn that developing things inside your own country is more beneficial, and that enterprises can be nationalized and still have elected management and worker participation. Also, the PRC during the Mao era included extremely efficient, locally owned co-ops. There was a rapid growth of rural industry during the Cultural Revolution.
.
I think its dangerous to centralize everything around 1 single entity, no matter if this entity is a governement or a state, its just a recipies for more tiranny and opression, you give too much power to fews individual.






Then we would make a huge circle and we would have ourselves a new form of capitalism, eventually. Profit can breed conceit and self-centeredness. People need to understand and overcome this. International economic cooperation is needed to present a long-lasting and secure socialist economy.
Take coffee beans, for example. Most of them are grown near the equator, but let's say that someone in Mozambique developed a new strand or a more flavorful or unique mixture. If socialism were achieved in a first world country, along with Mozambique, the two enterprises could cooperate and incorporate the Mozambique coffee beans, with the technical expertise of the first world enterprise. The mixture would reach more people under this system, rather than under capitalism, where the person who developed the product would most likely remain isolated. Corporations may search for new ideas in the world, but they always buy the original producer off, and take the idea as their own.

If nothing is managed around profit, then what is the problem with having big exporter and small one?




I
I beg to differ.
yes, i can see that clearly.

[Uppercut]

I think its dangerous to centralize everything around 1 single entity, no matter if this entity is a governement or a state, its just a recipies for more tiranny and opression, you give too much power to fews individual.

I'm going to have to disagree. It's good to be skeptical of state power, sure. However, I don't think it's fair to throw every institution or state into the same barrel, as a workers' state can be very grassroots and participatory. Ordinary people may run as candidates in their local council/commune or for a higher body.
I'm just saying that it's not necessarily a bad thing if workers can get assistance or representation from above.



If nothing is managed around profit, then what is the problem with having big exporter and small one?

The problem is that a large-scale market like the one you are describing would always need to rely on a profit motive in order to stay in business, which in turn can lead to conceit and monopolization. You see, the whole point of competition is to beat the competition and retain as much profit as possible. A few small co-ops in friendly competition is no problem at all. Multi-national cooperatives is where things might start to fall apart.

Or in the case that money has been abolished altogether, then I believe that competition would still remain needless, as there is nothing to compete for. It wouldn't matter how much of a product you distribute, so long as there is enough for everybody. There would be no need to worry about production costs.

[danyboy27]

I'm going to have to disagree. It's good to be skeptical of state power, sure. However, I don't think it's fair to throw every institution or state into the same barrel, as a workers' state can be very grassroots and participatory. Ordinary people may run as candidates in their local council/commune or for a higher body.
I'm just saying that it's not necessarily a bad thing if workers can get assistance or representation from above.
.
Sorry, i never bought this whole worker state thing, communism is supposed to get rid of that horrible thing called state, not enforced it under some kind of orwellian power structure.

in a centralized system, ordinary people may run has candidate, or not, depending of the critera of the vangard in place at the time.

[Uppercut]

Sorry, i never bought this whole worker state thing, communism is supposed to get rid of that horrible thing called state, not enforced it under some kind of orwellian power structure.

The state cannot be abolished so long as imperialism, capitalism, classes, and outside harassment still exist. A workers' democracy needs a safeguard, something workers can grab onto.
Again, I don't think it's fair to throw every state that ever existed into the "evil" basket. But I'm not going to change your mind, so whatever.


in a centralized system, ordinary people may run has candidate, or not, depending of the critera of the vangard in place at the time.

If a socialist democracy does not allow ordinary citizens and workers to be selected as candidates, based on popular vote, then sure, I would probably have problems with that. But that isn't the case with every workers' state in the past. True workers' governments have encouraged voting and participation on a mass scale, and I don't see a problem with that.

[RebelDog]

The state cannot be abolished so long as imperialism, capitalism, classes, and outside harassment still exist.

You need to understand what the state is. It is capitalism, imperialism and class.


A workers' democracy needs a safeguard, something workers can grab onto.

What is a "workers democracy" and what do they need to grab? Workers need a safeguard against Leninism.


Again, I don't think it's fair to throw every state that ever existed into the "evil" basket. But I'm not going to change your mind, so whatever.


The state exists to enforce class rule, therefore it is by definition a negative institution and always will be. It performs a function for the ruling class.

[InuyashaKnight]

Teams can do far better things then divided entities...dived entities can only do so much..

[danyboy27]

The state cannot be abolished so long as imperialism, capitalism, classes, and outside harassment still exist. A workers' democracy needs a safeguard, something workers can grab onto.
Again, I don't think it's fair to throw every state that ever existed into the "evil" basket. But I'm not going to change your mind, so whatever.

A state, socialist or not, is the biggest anti-safeguard you can get.
The whole worker state thing only work if all the people running it are holier than thou, but lets be realistic,You cant give that much power to a fews individuals. a centralized form of governement in the hand of a fews vanguard is a recipies for abuse, history speak for itself on that matter.





If a socialist democracy does not allow ordinary citizens and workers to be selected as candidates, based on popular vote, then sure, I would probably have problems with that. But that isn't the case with every workers' state in the past. True workers' governments have encouraged voting and participation on a mass scale, and I don't see a problem with that.
Yea, they encouraged voting for their side, and then claimed the opposition where counter-revolutionaries, denied to those elected figure access to decisional process, monitored,jailed and intimidated them, Took member of their party in hostage. yea, that pretty much it.

[Uppercut]

I don't feel like repeating myself until you anarchists understand. You're just repeating the same posts over and over and making dogmatic claims without any evidence to support what you're saying. How the hell do you expect me to take you seriously if that's the best you can do? Honestly...

[danyboy27]

I don't feel like repeating myself until you anarchists understand. You're just repeating the same posts over and over and making dogmatic claims without any evidence to support what you're saying. How the hell do you expect me to take you seriously if that's the best you can do? Honestly...

Well, i dont consider affirming that a a centralised governement rulled by an elite create an authoritarian regime a dogma, that a fact man, look around you!

Based on thousand of year of autocratic, elitist practice trought the world, i can affirm without fear that what happen when an elite seize power.

But hey, Elitism dosnt mean bad life quality for the population, you can have a boot up your ass and eat 3 meal a day, and have a good healthcare system!