What is the point of competition?

[Loony Le Fist]

If we all are living in the same society together, how does competing against one another accomplish anything. It seems pretty counterproductive and wasteful to always be against one another. Wouldn't mutual aid and cooperation be a heck of a lot smarter and more efficient? What are your thoughts capitalists?

[Baseball]

As always, the phrase "mutual aid and cooperation" needs to be explained.

[Loony Le Fist]

As always, the phrase "mutual aid and cooperation" needs to be explained.

Well if people always have to explain it to you, why haven't you figured out what it means by now?

However, since I'm a leftist that practices what he preaches, I'll help you out. Notice, that I am receiving no compensation for this, nor am I getting any benefit for this. This act in itself is an example of what I mean by mutual aid. See? I was even helpful enough to provide a concrete example for you.

cooperation: The process of working together to the same end.
mutual aid: a voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit.

Now you might think that sounds like capitalism. However, there is one big piece missing: competition.

competition: The activity or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others:

My argument is that competition is antithetical to efficiency because it works to undermine cooperation and mutual aid. It is obvious that working together is more efficient than working alone. Therefore competition leads to inefficiency.

NOTE: The definitions for competition and cooperation are from the Oxford Dictionary. The definition for mutual aid is pulled from the Wikipedia page on the topic.

[Rafiq]

I think the dichotomy of things so long lasting and integral to human behavior - between competition and mutual aid with regard to very specific social epochs like capitalism and a post-capitalist society (phenomena which is about a few centuries old) is rather ridiculous. The existence competition and "cooperation" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Capitalist society is not even close to being uniquely distinguished by competition in principle, to be honest.

[Loony Le Fist]

I think the dichotomy of things so long lasting and integral to human behavior - between competition and mutual aid with regard to very specific social epochs like capitalism and a post-capitalist society (phenomena which is about a few centuries old) is rather ridiculous. The existence competition and "cooperation" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Capitalist society is not even close to being uniquely distinguished by competition in principle, to be honest.

They aren't mutually exclusive, but that wasn't my argument. My argument was that they undercut one another. Cooperation leads to increased efficiency. Competition cannot lead to long term efficiency. Only fits and starts of efficiency. That is precisely why full employment or maximal efficiency can never be realized under capitalism. It is an absolutely dumb system. People say that communism only works in theory. Unfortunately capitalism fails in theory, meaning it fails worse in practice.

[Rafiq]

The typical liberal argument is that competition works off of the achievements of each competitor to create new forms of 'innovation' and perfects efficiency in the process of one business competing to make their product better than the other. The problem with this is that the entities (buisnesses) are not competing to make the most useful or efficient product from the perspective of the commons, but to cater to the wants of consumers that does not violate profit or the ability to reintroduce more products for consumers to buy, whether they are necessary or not. Another problem is that the desires of the consumer can be shaped and changed artificially - this has been shown through the use of psychology in advertising and so on.

Overall in principle there is nothing wrong with competition. If we imagine an abstract post capitalist society (which is not reflective of any reality by merit of simply being abstract, but for the sake of argument) we can imagine different entities competing to make the best goods in order to win a trophy or some other nonsense - there is nothing wrong with this in principle. The point is why things are produced in the first place, for what reason.

[Loony Le Fist]

The typical liberal argument is that competition works off of the achievements of each competitor to create new forms of 'innovation' and perfects efficiency in the process of one business competing to make their product better than the other. The problem with this is that the entities (buisnesses) are not competing to make the most useful or efficient product from the perspective of the commons, but to cater to the wants of consumers that does not violate profit or the ability to reintroduce more products for consumers to buy, whether they are necessary or not. Another problem is that the desires of the consumer can be shaped and changed artificially - this has been shown through the use of psychology in advertising and so on.

Precisely. This is the inefficiency part.

Overall in principle there is nothing wrong with competition. If we imagine an abstract post capitalist society (which is not reflective of any reality by merit of simply being abstract, but for the sake of argument) we can imagine different entities competing to make the best goods in order to win a trophy or some other nonsense - there is nothing wrong with this in principle. The point is why things are produced in the first place, for what reason.

Well competition where only one's pride is scarred is just fine by me. I just don't want someone's livelihood scarred. I completely agree. I'm just saying that the combination of mutual exchange in an economic system coupled with marketplace competition is the recipe for the disaster we observe.

[Slavic]

Precisely. This is the inefficiency part.



Well competition where only one's pride is scarred is just fine by me. I just don't want someone's livelihood scarred. I completely agree. I'm just saying that the combination of mutual exchange in an economic system coupled with marketplace competition is the recipe for the disaster we observe.

Competition isn't the issue; the issue is the profit margin race. The reason why it may seem that competition is not efficient is because the race for greater profits does not necessarily rely on efficiency. If you were to take the profit incentive out of the picture, then I'd imagine that competition would take on a wholly different form, possible one that is more conductive to innovation as opposed to cooperation.

[Loony Le Fist]

Competition isn't the issue; the issue is the profit margin race.

I think that competition that pits peoples livelihoods against one another is a huge problem. I'm only talking about that specific type of competition that exists under capitalism. Under communism, competition would take on a completely different character. Like I said before. The problem would be deflated egos, rather than deflated bank accounts.

The reason why it may seem that competition is not efficient is because the race for greater profits does not necessarily rely on efficiency. If you were to take the profit incentive out of the picture, then I'd imagine that competition would take on a wholly different form, possible one that is more conductive to innovation as opposed to cooperation.

I would say that pitting people's livelihoods against one another in a profit driven marketplace would certainly aggravate things.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yeah but if I make physically addictive bread and sell more bread than you then objectively I make better bread. Right?

[Baseball]

My argument is that competition is antithetical to efficiency because it works to undermine cooperation and mutual aid. It is obvious that working together is more efficient than working alone. Therefore competition leads to inefficiency.

I probably should have asked "describe cooperation and mutual aid in the context of a socialist community"

[Baseball]

I think that competition that pits peoples livelihoods against one another is a huge problem.

Why would a socialist community view all "livelihoods" as equal or equivalent?

[Baseball]

The typical liberal argument is that competition works off of the achievements of each competitor to create new forms of 'innovation' and perfects efficiency in the process of one business competing to make their product better than the other. The problem with this is that the entities (buisnesses) are not competing to make the most useful or efficient product from the perspective of the commons, but to cater to the wants of consumers

The consumers who wish and desire that product. Why shouldn't production be geared to them specifically, as opposed to some generic "commons"?

that does not violate profit or the ability to reintroduce more products for consumers to buy,

Well, yes-- profit is a measurement as to whether the production is worth it. Also help determine if it is being produced in the most efficient way possible.

whether they are necessary or not.

Should not people, as consumers, make this decision?
If not, how does the socialist community solve this problem?

Another problem is that the desires of the consumer can be shaped and changed artificially - this has been shown through the use of psychology in advertising and so on.

Or people discover needs and wants they previously did not know they had.

Overall in principle there is nothing wrong with competition. If we imagine an abstract post capitalist society (which is not reflective of any reality by merit of simply being abstract, but for the sake of argument) we can imagine different entities competing to make the best goods in order to win a trophy or some other nonsense - there is nothing wrong with this in principle.

However, the "principle" is not new-- it was practiced in the USSR.

[liberlict]

Competition is great. Men need to fight each other so females can choose the best mate.

[exeexe]

It kind of goes like this
bad -> good
monopoly -> competition -> cooperation.

So we are now in the economic theory of competition.
But before that there was monarchy which had the economic theory of monopoly. One town one bakery or something like that. It constrained production and economic life so much.
Today the state represents monopoly, which is why economic life should be distanced as much as possible from the state.

So we can go back to monopoly or forward to cooperation. We can align ourself with anarchists who wants to aim for cooperation or we can align ourselves with state socialism who wants to aim for monopoly and thus put a huge and unnecessary constraint on economic life.

For American socialists, USA did not experience a substantial period of monopoly so to them it may seem counterintuitive that there should be any positive element in competition.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Competition is great. Men need to fight each other so females can choose the best mate.

Would you be so kind to fuck off.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It kind of goes like this
bad -> good
monopoly -> competition -> cooperation.

So we are now in the economic theory of competition.
But before that there was monarchy which had the economic theory of monopoly. One town one bakery or something like that. It constrained production and economic life so much.
Today the state represents monopoly, which is why economic life should be distanced as much as possible from the state.

So we can go back to monopoly or forward to cooperation. We can align ourself with anarchists who wants to aim for cooperation or we can align ourselves with state socialism who wants to aim for monopoly and thus put a huge and unnecessary constraint on economic life.

For American socialists, USA did not experience a substantial period of monopoly so to them it may seem counterintuitive that there should be any positive element in competition.

Bro, do you even history?

[Loony Le Fist]

Competition is great. Men need to fight each other so females can choose the best mate.

Yea, right? Fuck it, turn the world into a UFC ring and we'll all duke it out. Real macho stuff.

[Loony Le Fist]

Why would a socialist community view all "livelihoods" as equal or equivalent?

Because following the train of logic of not doing so allows you to eventually justify throwing people into ovens. Egalitarianism is fundamental. I don't even know how paying some people 300x more than others is justified. Maybe you can offer some insight.

[Loony Le Fist]

The consumers who wish and desire that product. Why shouldn't production be geared to them specifically, as opposed to some generic "commons"?

Because those customers aren't the only ones affected by the production of that product.

Well, yes-- profit is a measurement as to whether the production is worth it. Also help determine if it is being produced in the most efficient way possible.

How exactly does profit measure these things? Sounds to me like you are pulling rabbits out of hats.

Should not people, as consumers, make this decision?
If not, how does the socialist community solve this problem?

That's a bit of a sleight of hand. You say people, then you shrewdly attempt to switch it with consumers. Consumers are a subset of all people party to transactions. The number of groups affected by these interactions exceeds one. Socialism solves this problem by involving all groups in that decision process.

Or people discover needs and wants they previously did not know they had.

This sounds like the bullshit you hear in a marketing class. How does one discover needs and wants they did not previously have? Products are created to solve certain problems--real or imagined. A consumer will will either be convinced that a particular product will solve these problems or they are not. It has nothing to do with discovering anything. I was in sales for 15 years. You prey on their insecurities and weaknesses to get them to buy things. You either convince them to sign on the dotted line or you don't eat. This embellishment and euphemism of discovering needs and wants is not only untrue it is nauseating.

However, the "principle" is not new-- it was practiced in the USSR.

What is your point? It sounds like your trying to imply that since you disagree with certain aspects of the USSRs politics, everything they did is wrong. Speak plainly--there is no need to disguise your disagreement. Hitler spoke out strongly against the perils of cigarette smoking. I suppose because he was a fascist we should all light up. Wouldn't want to copy the leader of the Nazis. The criteria for judging ideas are their merits not their source, regardless of whether some sources are more likely to give meritorious ideas.