Is Unrestricted Competition Anti-Democratic?

[metis]

I'm of the opinion it's the other-way round; the co-operation is normal, whereas the chaos of capitalism is specific to this era in history. Hence why we reach different conclusions; because you favor chaos, you think it will go back to chaos; because I think it's co-operation, it will go back to co-operation. that's what I was getting at.

I agree with you.

Up until roughly 10,000 or so years ago, humans throughout the world lived in hunting & gathering bands, most of which were probably under 100 people, going by studies of similar bands that have been observed in more recent centuries, plus what archaeology has told us.

If Joe was severely injured by trying to get into a wrestling match with a bear, the members of the band took care of him. Even as far back as when the Neanderthals roamed Europe, there's evidence of similar cooperative efforts whereas fossilized bones that have been found indicate that some had serious injuries whereas they would have had to be taken care of in order to survive.

Within these bands, one of the fears was internal competition, whereas it could pit one against another, thus breaking the bonds of mutual cooperation. Humans tend to be somewhat naturally competitive to begin with, so it makes no sense to encourage more.

Jane Goodall tried an experiment with her study of chimps, and she had a relatively large amount of bananas brought in that was excessive to the needs of the group. The end result was so disastrous that she had to cut the experiment short. The reason was greed took over with each chimp trying to hoard as many bananas as possible, and the filming of what happen was actually hilarious at times with chimps trying to carry and hide as many bananas as they could.

We are naked chimps, and much of our behavior parallels their behavior, and what we have seen with capitalism is a strong tendency to hoard and emphasize both greed and corruption. With a surplus of resources, a society can get by and maybe even prosper for a while, but the reality is that as resource levels decline, the opposite begins to take place: greed, disparity of wealth, hostility between the haves and have nots, disenfranchisement, loss of self-worth by many, increased crime and suicides, less compassion for others, more of a self-centered "what's in it for me" attitudes, etc.

IOW, we become much less the way "humans" have been for millions of years.

 

[Laika]

I agree with you.

Up until roughly 10,000 or so years ago, humans throughout the world lived in hunting & gathering bands, most of which were probably under 100 people, going by studies of similar bands that have been observed in more recent centuries, plus what archaeology has told us.

If Joe was severely injured by trying to get into a wrestling match with a bear, the members of the band took care of him. Even as far back as when the Neanderthals roamed Europe, there's evidence of similar cooperative efforts whereas fossilized bones that have been found indicate that some had serious injuries whereas they would have had to be taken care of in order to survive.

Within these bands, one of the fears was internal competition, whereas it could pit one against another, thus breaking the bonds of mutual cooperation. Humans tend to be somewhat naturally competitive to begin with, so it makes no sense to encourage more.

Jane Goodall tried an experiment with her study of chimps, and she had a relatively large amount of bananas brought in that was excessive to the needs of the group. The end result was so disastrous that she had to cut the experiment short. The reason was greed took over with each chimp trying to hoard as many bananas as possible, and the filming of what happen was actually hilarious at times with chimps trying to carry and hide as many bananas as they could.

We are naked chimps, and much of our behavior parallels their behavior, and what we have seen with capitalism is a strong tendency to hoard and emphasize both greed and corruption. With a surplus of resources, a society can get by and maybe even prosper for a while, but the reality is that as resource levels decline, the opposite begins to take place: greed, disparity of wealth, hostility between the haves and have nots, disenfranchisement, loss of self-worth by many, increased crime and suicides, less compassion for others, more of a self-centered "what's in it for me" attitudes, etc.

IOW, we become much less the way "humans" have been for millions of years.

the experiment with the chimps sounds amazing. We are still basically chimps in our animal terms and I suspect that our 'reason' doesn't elevate us much beyond our animal natures (at least on its own- economics and science create more favorable environments for us to be free and not need to be so cruel to one another). the problem in our society may not necessarily be the presence of more, but that we continue to expect more on top of what we already have; to all intents and purposes, the media (particularly advertising) celebrates the social status of the super-rich to promote consumption. The best example of "animal" behavior under capitalism I can think of is what happens on Black Friday in the US (and is starting to go on in the UK). For from being rational, capitalism makes us value our self-worth by what we have and even when we have enough to live on, by comparing our self-worth with others we feel we need more.

the issue is that humans are both individualistic and collectivistic; if you over-emphasize one or the other, you get problems. Neither extreme works as you need a healthy combination of the two in order for society to change and develop. This may not necessarily be down to our nature, but that our systems of reasoning breaks down when taken to absurd extremes; beyond a certain point they simply don't reflect reality at all. private property engenders greater individualism and competition- and so long as everyone has at least a basic amount, it's ok. inequality in itself is not a huge issue- but when people suffer and others don't the "system" can only defend itself from violence with violence; no-one wins in that situation.
Some forms of inequality and competition are supported by communists because it's a way of loosening things so society can change by a process of creative destruction; new ideas/technologies can grow up whilst the old stuff can die down.

 

[metis]

the experiment with the chimps sounds amazing. We are still basically chimps in our animal terms and I suspect that our 'reason' doesn't elevate us much beyond our animal natures (at least on its own- economics and science create more favorable environments for us to be free and not need to be so cruel to one another). the problem in our society may not necessarily be the presence of more, but that we continue to expect more on top of what we already have; to all intents and purposes, the media (particularly advertising) celebrates the social status of the super-rich to promote consumption. The best example of "animal" behavior under capitalism I can think of is what happens on Black Friday in the US (and is starting to go on in the UK). For from being rational, capitalism makes us value our self-worth by what we have and even when we have enough to live on, by comparing our self-worth with others we feel we need more.

the issue is that humans are both individualistic and collectivistic; if you over-emphasize one or the other, you get problems. Neither extreme works as you need a healthy combination of the two in order for society to change and develop. This may not necessarily be down to our nature, but that our systems of reasoning breaks down when taken to absurd extremes; beyond a certain point they simply don't reflect reality at all. private property engenders greater individualism and competition- and so long as everyone has at least a basic amount, it's ok. inequality in itself is not a huge issue- but when people suffer and others don't the "system" can only defend itself from violence with violence; no-one wins in that situation.
Some forms of inequality and competition are supported by communists because it's a way of loosening things so society can change by a process of creative destruction; new ideas/technologies can grow up whilst the old stuff can die down.

Well said, my friend.

Gee, what would RF be like if we all ended up agreeing with each other?

 

[Laika]

Well said, my friend.

Gee, what would RF be like if we all ended up agreeing with each other?

Maybe everyone will be nice to each other...

how disgusting.

It must be stopped.

look...

...Nazis!

 

[Ultimatum]

Competition creates a decentralization of economic power which makes it easier for people to be free as individuals; but only in so far as they own property and therefore have the means to exercise those rights. Being legally free and actually free are two difference things.

Of course, but the question asked was very direct and had no context of economic stratagem. I agree with your further expanded point, however I would put it differently.
I am one who is against the welfare state--insomuch as giving away freely to the able, as, evolutionarily and naturally, no one has a higher entitlement to another human being. If one is without property, he has lost the race for success and power--usually in his own fault.
Therefore, I have no sympathy for such people and, actually, they have wasted their freedom to exercise innovation and successful thinking.

if you don't have the money, capitalism is as oppressive as any totalitarian system because it denies you the means to live on your own terms (and sometimes at all).

Societarily, yes. Realistically? One has the freedom to exercise innovative and successful thinking, anyway.

 

[Laika]

Of course, but the question asked was very direct and had no context of economic stratagem. I agree with your further expanded point, however I would put it differently.
I am one who is against the welfare state--insomuch as giving away freely to the able, as, evolutionarily and naturally, no one has a higher entitlement to another human being. If one is without property, he has lost the race for success and power--usually in his own fault.
Therefore, I have no sympathy for such people and, actually, they have wasted their freedom to exercise innovation and successful thinking.

It's kind of ironic that you talk about how people on welfare have a "higher entitlement" than other people, whilst at the same time defending a system based on inequality because you believe "if one is without property, he has lost the race for success and power- usually in his own fault." I'll make a leap and guess you think that those who have property have 'earned' it, whereas those who haven't don't have any entitlement to do so because it's "there own fault".

I agree that people have a 'duty' to work and to make a contribution to society but the problem is that this isn't always possible for people with mental or physical disabilities, people who are sick, or dependent on working people because they are too young and too old. These people have a legitimate need to welfare support because they are not able to provide for themselves. I hope that we can agree that is reasonable.

I suspect where we would clash is over those who may or may not have become voluntarily dependent on welfare. Overwhelmingly, it is not voluntary as it is rarely a choice whether someone loses their job, whether they are made homeless, or are condemned to crippling low levels of income because the jobs are not available for them to improve their situation or are discriminated against for some reason.

To be blunt, the quickest way to create the social conditions in which extreme political opinions hostile to private property and liberal systems of government can flourish is by denying people welfare. The Nazi's simply bought votes in Germany by setting up soup kitchens and exchanging votes for bread. So it becomes utterly self-defeating in terms of the preservation of capitalism and of private property itself. If you want a stable capitalist system, you need welfare so people aren't forced on the road to a system that makes promises to provide for them.

Societarily, yes. Realistically? One has the freedom to exercise innovative and successful thinking, anyway.

The problem here is the definition of 'freedom'. Liberalism rests on an assumption of 'free will' in which the freedom of the individual is abstractly separated from the actual ability of people to be free. So this still only holds true if you have the money or property which determines a person's ability to be 'free' to exchange goods (and our own labour) in a capitalist system. In this sense freedom under capitalism is only freedom for the property-owning class, not the working classes who are dependent on the capitalists to obtain property by selling their labour.

Consequently only the capitalist class is really free to innovate and become successful in monetary terms as the working class in not in the position to do so. It is possible that people can rise from working class to capitalist class by setting up their own business, but the need for start up capital is a barrier to entry and the risks involved mean that most small businesses go bankrupt in the first year (2 out of 3 I believe). I think it's better than playing the lottery, but the odds are still pretty small.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ultimatum]

It's kind of ironic that you talk about how people on welfare have a "higher entitlement" than other people, whilst at the same time defending a system based on inequality because you believe "if one is without property, he has lost the race for success and power- usually in his own fault." I'll make a leap and guess you think that those who have property have 'earned' it, whereas those who haven't don't have any entitlement to do so because it's "there own fault".

Usually, it certainly tends to be.
I've, as an example, worked very hard and am now fortunate to live a successful life--I never inherited a vast amount of money to get to said position. Those who are able but are not successful have ruined their societarily successful life, which is ideal, for themselves.
If one works harder than another then, societarily and even evolutionarily, should become more successful--a wonderful trait of capitalism: the survival of the fittest; the survival of those who greater further man kinds progression.

I agree that people have a 'duty' to work and to make a contribution to society but the problem is that this isn't always possible for people with mental or physical disabilities, people who are sick, or dependent on working people because they are too young and too old. These people have a legitimate need to welfare support because they are not able to provide for themselves. I hope that we can agree that is reasonable.

This is what my previously used word, "usually", does not include.
So, yes, we agree.

I suspect where we would clash is over those who may or may not have become voluntarily dependent on welfare. Overwhelmingly, it is not voluntary as it is rarely a choice whether someone loses their job, whether they are made homeless, or are condemned to crippling low levels of income because the jobs are not available for them to improve their situation or are discriminated against for some reason.

And this is the fault of whom?
If one loses their job: then they studied and worked for the wrong employer. They obviously did not study that particular job's security and necessity. This principle is what decided my future job: of which I know will be safe.
It's all about well-judged and informed life decisions.

If one loses their home, then this is the fault of whom? Of course, the person who made uncalculated, over-ambitious financial decisions.


.

]

 

[Laika]

Usually, it certainly tends to be.
I've, as an example, worked very hard and am now fortunate to live a successful life--I never inherited a vast amount of money to get to said position. Those who are able but are not successful have ruined their societarily successful life, which is ideal, for themselves.
If one works harder than another then, societarily and even evolutionarily, should become more successful--a wonderful trait of capitalism: the survival of the fittest; the survival of those who greater further man kinds progression.

That's good to know. Congrats. it's pretty tough now days.

As you probably realise success is not solely down to hard work. On the way up, you've probably seen alot of people fall down the ladder, so I can assume you know this first hand. You need to have the oppurtunities to demonstrate those abilities. Our society is getting more stratified, so it is becoming harder for people to find open doors to walk through. In the US, the proportion of National Income going to the middle class has declined within the past few decades as income inequalities have grown. I think the same is true for the UK but I haven't seen the statistics for it. Therefore the rewards have gone to a smaller group of people as oppurtunities are being denied to more and more. success requires people to have the oppurtunity to demonstrate their talents and social mobility is in decline.

If one loses their job: then they studied and worked for the wrong employer. They obviously did not study that particular job's security and necessity. This principle is what decided my future job: of which I know will be safe.
It's all about well-judged and informed life decisions.

If one loses their home, then this is the fault of whom? Of course, the person who made uncalculated, over-ambitious financial decisions.

Financially I'm pretty conservative but this is not true for most people. Levels of consumer debt have risen exponentially as our economic system has become moved away from a social democratic towards a neoliberal system. Whilst you could argue this debt is down to individual decisions, it is also manufactured and encouraged by the mass media who promote consumption as a way of life through advertising and messages contained in the media itself. This is not simply just product placement (which applies more to the US than the UK), but also in the way the media depicits how people live; in order to make it as attractive as possible- they generally depicit the lives of the wealthy and therefore people are conditioned to want these things (it's a big of a chicken and eggs but I think you get my meaning).
It takes someone who is very sceptical of the system and of consumerism to know the benifits of saving and investment, which is both true in bussiness and in personal finances. More often, today people want instant gratification as it's what they think is normal, acceptable and will make them happy (it rarely does of course). They therefore take on unacceptably high-levels of risk.
But it takes two to make an exchange; whilst alot of people may be 'sub-prime', the banks still have to lend them the mortgages knowing they can't pay. If I'm not mistaken this is because the incentives in the financial sector are geared towards maximising sales and therefore bank employees are encouraged to lend money to people who can't afford to re-pay. Whilst a bank can afford to asset stip a handful of people; it cannot be said of a whole economy (Greece would be a good example of irresponsible lending if ever there was one).

Nor are we ever wholly in control of an environment; whilst people can have the usual 'acts of god', the free market also create additional problems precisely because of competition. control is largely an illusion, even for those at the top, as there is always someone else willing to compete with you. The "winner's curse" is that they only win to have to fight on rather than win out-right. So we are forced to behave in a way which respond to the threat of that competition and thereby perpetuate the system whether we like it or not, as capitalism exist objecitvely of our wishes. The house always wins, even if the people who run it change.