Is Competition Important?

[Lolumad273]

I'm new here, and really glad I found this site! I'm just beginning to understand all these Communist, socialist, and anarchist ideas.

I'm having a tough time shedding my Capitalist conditioning.

I get caught up with capitalist rhetoric, like competition driving innovation. Is competition necessary to develop new technologies?

thanks in advance!

[Das_ALoveStory]

Competition does not drive innovation. That's easily disproven. Think about it, what is the capitalist's goal? Better technology and living standards? Nope. Profit. There are plenty examples of negative consequences this has. Look how capitalism treats the enviroment.
As for general technology, competition hinders it's access to the people. Let's look at Apple, they probably have the technology that they will use to sell their phones years from now. But will they just give the people their best and move on? Nope, little profits in that.
Also, just for the record, the USSR made incredible jumps in tech. Laser eye surgery, space exploration, etc.

[Das_ALoveStory]

I can't post links yet but google "Marxist Fightback". Once on the site, type "Science" in the search bar on the right side and click on the 13th result, "Capitalism VS Science". It should help :)

[Lolumad273]

That "Capitalism vs Science", was really helpful. I suppose necessity is the mother of invention, not competition.

I like focusing on the computer industry, since I pay particularly close attention to it. There will always be a benefit in producing faster, more efficient computers. Right now, it costs foundries a lot of money to reduce the size of transistors, and smaller start up companies have a hard time getting a hold of that technology. I suppose that without the money barrier, we could get better technologies to market faster, correct?

Thanks a lot!

[Revolution starts with U]

Where's that RTA video... I'll find it...

[Revolution starts with U]

It was RSA, sorry. Here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[Drosophila]

"Competition" may grant innovative technology, but it's almost always at the expense of workers. How do you think Apple makes those fancy devices? Surely it costs a load of money. Desperate workers allow them to do what they do.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I have no problem with competition. I like playing games and trying to improve myself to do better.
Capitalism isn't about competition, as much as conservatives try to tell you otherwise. It's a system based on exploitation and massive profits. CEO's and bosses cut wages and downsize, using the excuse of "staying competitive." What that really means is, they have this urgent need to keep their salary in the millions or billions, and to expand their business; no matter what the cost is.
Also, new technology is invented because people like technology, so it massively increases profits.
However, at the end of the day, capitalists aren't competitive. They're just as organized and linking-arms as the workers should be. They have their own unions. They call it the Chamber of Commerce, and "associations" and such.

Competition has nothing to do with capitalism if that is what you were getting at. Capitalists stick together and fight back when times get tough for them.

[Rafiq]

To a certain extent, yes it's important. It's also a great innovation, especially in post capitalism, where artists (film makers, etc.) can battle there shit out, leaving us viewers entertained in the process.

There isn't anything wrong with competition. I don't see how it could be contradictory to a post capitalist society.


I'd even go as far as saying there might very well exist more competition in communism, than in capitalism. The only competition that exists now is between the slave owners.

[Polyphonic Foxes]

Competition isn't what actually drives innovation, autonomy, self satifaction and I want to improve other peoples lives are what cause the greatest innovations.

I know it sounds idealistic but our greatest inventions were not born out of a corporate desire, but out the passion of a few men and women, and I think I'm backed up scientifically on that- I can't post the link but look up "The Surprisingly Truth About What Motivates Us" on youtube, it's pretty reputable and debunks the notion of pure competition being the driving force behind innovation - it just isn't.

[Lolumad273]

RSA video is amazing. I love all of this information so much.

The last few posts said that competition could happen in a communist society, which I'm sure it could. But the "capitalism vs science" article made a great case for cooperation. Which segues me into a money scenario, but perhaps I should make a new thread.... I'll give it a try

Alexander Berkman said this...

"Because nothing is truer than that the means
you use to attain your object soon themselves become your
object. So money, for example, which is only a means to
existence, has itself become the aim of our lives."

Money would still, under communism, serve as a way to trade goods and services, correct? As bartering wouldn't really be efficient. I'm assuming that, as that RSA video states, that if people don't need to worry about money, as they'll surely have more than enough to live, it simply won't matter, correct? As a result, people will be more driven by wanting to overcome challenging problems, as the open source software development community demonstrates.

Guess I'm also going to need an explanation on how supply would be effectively met, for leisure items instead of needs, like clothing. I'll finish reading Now And After, the ABC of Communist Anarchism, surely that will help.... Then there's a bunch more questions I have, haha

Sorry for changing topics like that, I'm just trying to tie up all the loose ends in my head, so I can fully embrace this idea!

I'm starting to really understand all this, thanks a huge amount!

[LewisQ]

Bear in mind that, even within the capitalist epoch, many of the great innovations have emerged from the public sphere. In fact, one of the major factors in the US reaching the moon before the USSR was its entrusting of the project to a single state agency (NASA), impervious to wasteful competition. (Ironically, the USSR's bid was stifled by competing and bickering agencies).

[blake 3:17]

I think there's room for competition in socialism as a movement and in a socialist society. I largely agree with NOII.


I like playing games and trying to improve myself to do better.

Yeah, we need to push ourselves. It can be recreational or creative and productive. I started playing chess a few years ago, don't play very well, but it's a war game. Parts of the Left have taken up being nicey nice about everything, and then other parts become total wrecking machines.

Part of the fun of a board like this is to hash things out, defend your position, and maybe "win" or "lose". It's best when it's respectful, honest, and between people with some common goals.

[Rafiq]

RSA isn't a legitiment source for understanding human incentives, none the less a mere fucking youtube video.

All it takes is to destroy that video theoretically and you fools will be on your knees, bowing down to the notion that "Communism doesn't give incentives".

[Revolution starts with U]

Are you just mad because it got higher praise than your post? I don't see what your point is. "Destroy it theoretically..." than do that.

I'm guessing you haven't watched the video, because it actually gives Kudos to competition, but says it has been proven to not be the major factor in innovation.

[Rafiq]

Are you just mad because it got higher praise than your post? I don't see what your point is. "Destroy it theoretically..." than do that.

No, because, if you haven't notice, my posts aren't meant to be "praised". Otherwise I'd be like some kind of Anarchist/Stalinist asslicker. My posts, if you haven't noticed, are not looked well upon by the majority of users on this web site, ranging from Anarchists who call me too Stalinist, to Stalinists who call me all sorts of bizarre and obscure names, ranging from a revisionist apologist, to a Trotskyist or whatever.

Besides, a mere two people thanking my post doesn't exactly equate to "praise".


I'm guessing you haven't watched the video, because it actually gives Kudos to competition, but says it has been proven to not be the major factor in innovation.



I've watched that video about ten times. It was one of the first "Leftist" video I watched when I first joined, and I kept watching it over and over again for ideological reassuring.

The point is not for me to "Disprove the video". The point is for an opponent of the Left to do so, and that is all it will take to make users here bow down to the notion that "Communism doesn't provide incentives". Every single fucking thread we get that video, as if it;s like: "Hey guys, no discussion, no debate, just throw in the fucking video to do the hard thinking for me instead". Such disgusting, unoriginal, useless posts are what dumbs down the users of this site. What it does, is that it doesn't allow users to formulate arguments of their own, instead, they adopt the language of the video, and leave it at that. All it takes is for that video to be destroyed, and then, they are left with nothing .

[Revolution starts with U]

That only holds true if you hold the incentive issue as the foundation of your ideology. I don't. Do/did you?

To me, the point about the video is destroying, with evidence, the notion that competition is the major driving force in innovation; it's not, nor is money. The point is not to say that competition sucks. Far from it. I've been an avid sportsman my entire life; I often get in trouble with my friends for bieng TOO competitive.

[Deicide]

If I'm not mistaken, a heap-load of high-tech technology in the United States was developed in the public sector.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes. Also, most corporations use open source software

[Rafiq]

If I'm not mistaken, a heap-load of high-tech technology in the United States was developed in the public sector.

And the public sector's funding comes from the wealth of the capitalists, stained with the explotation of the working-people.

[Lolumad273]

I don't think that in order for incentive to be an important issue, it has to be at the heart of someone's ideology. Speaking personally, if I was given the option to be a janitor, or to use all of my mind and be an engineer, I'd absolutely be an engineer. In fact, I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a janitor... So I don't believe incentive is much of an issue.

[mykittyhasaboner]

If I'm not mistaken, a heap-load of high-tech technology in the United States was developed in the public sector.


And the public sector's funding comes from the wealth of the capitalists, stained with the explotation of the working-people.

Also from money taken by the US state, from the working population, by force in the form of taxes. Some of the most used technological innovations were developed by NASA. NASA was actually a unified structure, with central coordination, while the Soviet space program had groups competing for designing new technology. Which i think is pretty interesting.



Competition is not necessary to develop new technologies, but it can be a factor in some ways. For example, the reason why we have to deal with huge monopolies over most of the commodities we buy is a result of competition. It is the very phenomenon of competing capitalists (or capitalist firms) that drives the social relations of capitalism towards greater concentration.

If we forget about capitalism for a minute, there's no reason to think why there wouldn't be technological competition in a post-capitalist society. Since a post-capitalist society would not be ruled by atomized, privately owned production of social wealth; i'd would assume that more and more technological innovations would be created to the point that it would inevitably lead to competition.

[Rafiq]

Also, with mykitty being correct, users here need to stop with the "public sector" fetishes. This is not a battle between "public" and "private" sectors, it's a war to destroycl the system that they both function off of.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Competition does not drive innovation. That's easily disproven. Think about it, what is the capitalist's goal? Better technology and living standards? Nope. Profit. There are plenty examples of negative consequences this has. Look how capitalism treats the enviroment.
As for general technology, competition hinders it's access to the people. Let's look at Apple, they probably have the technology that they will use to sell their phones years from now. But will they just give the people their best and move on? Nope, little profits in that.
Also, just for the record, the USSR made incredible jumps in tech. Laser eye surgery, space exploration, etc.

Sorry, that's bullshit. Competition may not be the only driver of innovation, but it certainly is in within the confines of a Capitalist system.

And yes, technological innovation is of course the goal of the Capitalist, as it means they can switch from expensive labour- and energy-intensive production functions, and in the long-term from capital-intensive production functions to those which actually accumulate capital, which of course Capitalism's main goal - accumulating capital via surplus/profit/rent etc.

[Firebrand]

The important thing to remember is that for most of human history we have not competed against each other. We aren't psychologically set up to innovate in competition with each other. Our brains are hard wired for co-operation. In the hunter gatherer societies we evolved in it was a case of co-operate or die.

People innovate either to solve an immediate problem or because they are at a loose end about what to do. under capitalism the immediate problem is how to make money, therefore the technology created won't be the most efficient for the task it is supposed to do, it will be the most profitable. When products are designed to do what they're supposed to rather than make the maximum profiits then the things created will be better.
Example, I am a capitalist who makes lets say streetlights. Now I've been given a choice between two differnt streetlamp technologies. Type A and type B, type A costs slightly more to make but lasts for 50 years, type B is cheaper and has to be replaced every 2 years. Under a logical economic system it would make far more sense to install type A, as it will maximise the usage of scarce resources. However if type B is installed then I can continue to sell type B every 2 years and thus increase my profits. Therefore I ignore type A and put resources into developing type B. Capitalism has led to a less effective solution being championed over a more effective one because it increases profits. Innovation outside capitalism would be for the end product not for the profit in between and would therefore lead to better technology.

[Zulu]

Also, just for the record, the USSR made incredible jumps in tech. Laser eye surgery, space exploration, etc.

Actually, that's because the USSR had the best form of competition: a fair one. Not rigged, fixed or skewed for profit, like under capitalism.

Also, there is that thing in Marxism, called the unity and struggle of the opposites. And that's how competition under socialism works: in unity and struggle with its opposite, cooperation. So one may even call it "cooperative competition". Or "competitive cooperation", whichever suits the best the purpose at hand. Competition not in order to eliminate all other competitors from the face of the earth, but to bring the best in them, and in yourself. And cooperation not in order to be a nice guy, but to use the augmentation of the collective for your own personal properties. Something like that.

[blake 3:17]

If I'm not mistaken, a heap-load of high-tech technology in the United States was developed in the public sector.

Often called "The Internet". Though it has gone in different directions.