Capitalist and Socialist Competition

[Queercommie Girl]

Question: Would there be more competition in general or less in socialism compared with capitalism?

Marx was explicit about eliminating capitalist competition, in the "anarchic" free-market sense. Of course he was talking about capitalist economic competition and not competition in general or intrinsically, which would be both impossible and to some extent undesirable to eliminate completely.

But I believe in the capitalist world we live in today there is too much competition. The very history of capitalism is the history of intense ultra-competition. From the "free" competition among the petit-bourgeois to the competition among monopolists and imperialist nations today. I'm not against competition intrinsically but I would want for a socialist world to have less competition than our world does now.

I don't agree with the excessive focus on productivity and efficiency that some socialists have. It is a Stalinist trait to some extent I believe. As a Trotskyist once put it, originally industrialisation is primarily a means by which socialism can be achieved. But under Stalinism, industrialisation for its own sake has become a goal, while the achievement of socialism has been pushed to the distant future.

I'm not a Trotskyist but I'm significantly influenced by Trotskyism. I tend to focus on productive relation more. Efficiency is useless if it does not benefit the working class people at large. I won't oppose capitalist efficiency only because it is objectively wasteful and therefore not efficient at all, I will oppose it even if it does genuinely make things a bit more efficient, because I simply don't consider productivity, efficiency or competition as the ultimate end. Why should one care more about efficiency than equality and fairness? If efficiency brings about greater inequality I'd rather not have this efficiency. I'd rather have a socialist world that is somewhat less productive than an efficient capitalist world with gross oppression and inequality.

I'm also explicitly opposed to Social Darwinism. I'm sure you all know what social darwinism means so there is no need to waste time here to explain. I believe socialism and social darwinism are essentially mutually exclusive. Of course, I think socialism is only the dialectical negation of social darwinism, not its total negation, since darwinism in the basic scientific sense is still essentially correct, and socialism also believes in human progress and hard work for the benefit of humanity etc. But I would literally be quite shocked if a socialist comes up to me and actually says he or she believes in Social Darwinism.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but judging from my observations on Chinese and Western socialist forums, it seems that on Chinese forums there is quite a bit of explicit critique of Social Darwinism, but on Western socialist forums one hardly sees this aspect mentioned at all. Why do you think this might be the case, is it due to a cultural factor?

Thanks for the feedback.

[mountainfire]

Marx was explicit about eliminating capitalist competition, in the "anarchic" free-market sense

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but it's worth pointing out that Marx never defined capitalism in terms of competition, and despite living only during the early part of capitalism's existence he was aware that capitalism inevitably tends towards monopoly, or, as he put it, the concentration of capital, due to some capitalist firms being able to buy out others and force their owners into the ranks of the proletariat, especially during periods of falling profit when the prices of assets fall, thereby resulting in industries that are dominated by a small number of enterprises, and forging links between hitherto isolated sectors. It was Lenin who was able to carry these observations to their full conclusion by arguing that the increasing concentration of capital culminates in the formation of cartels, which control prices and profit rates across industries, the merging of bank and industrial capital to form finance capital, and the creation of links between enterprise and the state apparatus, eventually giving rise to geopolitical competition between states in place of the market competition characteristic of early capitalism.

I don't know of any revolutionary socialist who would endorse competition as a central part of our vision of an emancipatory society. A central part of the Marxist understanding of the future society is that it involves human beings overcoming alienation, that is, the existence of an unnatural separation between our human essence and the way we actually live, especially the experience of being dominated by the products of our labour, and the overcoming of alienation is incompatible with the continued existence of competition, because competition necessarily involves human products and institutions assuming lives of their own, and dominating the individuals who are responsible for their existence. Rather, socialism centrally involves a democratically planned economy, rationally orientated towards the needs of the producers.

it seems that on Chinese forums there is quite a bit of explicit critique of Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism and the ideas of Herbert Spencer in particular were influential amongst intellectuals during the late Qing - the works of Spencer were introduced in the 1890s by Yan Fu, I believe. I'd imagine that contemporary critiques are derived from the historic place of Social Darwinism in Chinese political thought.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but it's worth pointing out that Marx never defined capitalism in terms of competition, and despite living only during the early part of capitalism's existence he was aware that capitalism inevitably tends towards monopoly, or, as he put it, the concentration of capital, due to some capitalist firms being able to buy out others and force their owners into the ranks of the proletariat, especially during periods of falling profit when the prices of assets fall, thereby resulting in industries that are dominated by a small number of enterprises, and forging links between hitherto isolated sectors. It was Lenin who was able to carry these observations to their full conclusion by arguing that the increasing concentration of capital culminates in the formation of cartels, which control prices and profit rates across industries, the merging of bank and industrial capital to form finance capital, and the creation of links between enterprise and the state apparatus, eventually giving rise to geopolitical competition between states in place of the market competition characteristic of early capitalism.

I don't know of any revolutionary socialist who would endorse competition as a central part of our vision of an emancipatory society. A central part of the Marxist understanding of the future society is that it involves human beings overcoming alienation, that is, the existence of an unnatural separation between our human essence and the way we actually live, especially the experience of being dominated by the products of our labour, and the overcoming of alienation is incompatible with the continued existence of competition, because competition necessarily involves human products and institutions assuming lives of their own, and dominating the individuals who are responsible for their existence. Rather, socialism centrally involves a democratically planned economy, rationally orientated towards the needs of the producers.



Social Darwinism and the ideas of Herbert Spencer in particular were influential amongst intellectuals during the late Qing - the works of Spencer were introduced in the 1890s by Yan Fu, I believe. I'd imagine that contemporary critiques are derived from the historic place of Social Darwinism in Chinese political thought.

Marx however did say that socialism would end the "anarchic" free market competition of capitalism.

Also, it is a complete mistake to think that the growth of monopolistic capitalsm means the termination or even reduction in the level of competition. Competition simply changes its form, but in many ways actually become even more intense and destructive in the era of monopolistic capitalism. The so-called "trans-nationals" are never really internationalist at all, but are always rooted in specific capitalist nation-states. As long as capitalism exists, extensive and often destructive competition among different nation-states would never cease (so I think Negri's idea of a capitalist global "empire" transcending the nation-state is complete rubbish), and the sword of a world war would forever hang above our heads.

The early Chinese social darwinists were economically and politically right-wing, as with their Western mentors like Spencer. The first real critique of social darwinism in China came from Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the leader of the Chinese 1911/1912 Xinhai revolution, who borrowed from the "mutual aid" anarchist theories of Kroptokin.

[Queercommie Girl]

Another reason why Social Darwinism features more heavily in Chinese socialist discourse is due to the condition of the Chinese working class today. The conditions of Chinese capitalism are significantly worse than the conditions of Western capitalism, and therefore remind people more clearly of "social darwinism" in the literal sense of the word.

[nickdlc]

Question: Would there be more competition in general or less in socialism compared with capitalism?

It would be in our interests as workers to do away with competition and gear production towards co-operation. If you read Capital you find that Marx speaks of the large amount of co-operation that must take place in capitalism. Co-operation in the sense that the capitalist understands that many labourers in one place will produce more than if they were to work separately in smaller workshops. In capitalism the owner of capital decides the conditions of work, in socialism the workers with the the means of production in common decide how they will put their labour to work.

And when we see it is in our interests to link up production in all spheres of the economy the guiding principle would again be co-operation and how can we link up in such a way as to benefit everybody not just our factory, or other place where things are made.

[mountainfire]

Also, it is a complete mistake to think that the growth of monopolistic capitalsm means the termination or even reduction in the level of competition.

I agree, which was exactly why I wrote in my last post that "[the transition to monopoly capitalism gives] rise to geopolitical competition between states in place of the market competition characteristic of early capitalism".

Marx's point about capitalism involving tendencies towards centralization is highly important, though, because it demonstrates one of the most important features of his thought, not least because it's a feature that enabled him to distinguish himself from the utopians and other early socialists who failed to analyze the history of capitalism from a materialist standpoint - namely his recognition that socialism is only made possible by the advances and changes that take place within capitalism and that capitalism is therefore progressive, considered in terms of the whole length of human history, and the requirements of the socialist society. The advance of centralization is one of the processes that prepares the ground for socialism because it raises the possibility of democratic planning and, by leading to proletarians being concentrated together in large units of production, produces a social force with the ability and will to overthrow capitalist relations of production.

[Queercommie Girl]

Your point about monopolisation is factually true, but nonetheless irrelevant to this thread.

This thread is on the topic of the comparison between socialist and capitalist competition. I thought you were saying that monopolisation under late capitalism was reduced the level of competition, which is objectively false. But if you are not making such a point, then the point about monopolisation is largely irrelevant to the purpose of this thread.