Eva Durant's fellow socialist wrote:
> Now to answer the second question of how can there be successful production
> without competition? Of course under capitalism there cannot be. The
> Meriden co-operative in the Midlands and scores of other co-ops prove it
> that you cannot have a socialist island in a capitalist sea. That is only
> possible under socialism. I am assuming that your debater is saying that
> people would just laze around and do nothing if they didn't have to
> compete, or is he saying that the capitalists would not invest if it wasn't
> for competition? I am not quite clear what you mean here.
The point is that competition gives an incentive to build better products
than the competitors. If there's only one company that builds cars, they
have no incentive to improve the quality of their cars, because everyone
who buys a car has no choice but to buy _their_ car.
Your obsessive referral to capitalism is inappropriate. The above principle
applies to anything... science, sports, arts, medicine, political parties,
you name it.
> However, I
> would answer the age old (and extremely boring) argument of competition
> against co-operation first with some anthropology. It is now generally
> accepted that once we came out of the trees, stood up on the savannah and
> started congregating in groups it was labour (i.e. co-operation) that made
> us human.
Wrong. Actually it was the use of tools that discerned us (together with
some other primates, more precisely), anatomically possible thanks to our
opponable thumbs. Co-operative labour exists among various animal species
(e.g. bees, ants etc.).
> Language, which is the sole prerogative of humans
Wrong again. (Unless you're talking of written language, but there were
human cultures without that too.)
> Homo sapiens is basically
> co-operative, because without co-operation we would still be animals.
> ..... It is
> inherent in humans to co-operate at every stage and it is total bunkum to
> say that their initial instinct is to outdo each other.
Your black-and-white painting misses the most important thing (the shades):
The proponents of competition certainly don't want to abolish co-operation.
(Not even the free-marketeers would want that, because without co-operation,
no corporation could exist.) IT TAKES BOTH. But you seem to propose the
abolition of competition.
> I am positive
> that it is only the fact that you work 60/70 hours a week and you are dog
> tired, that your ideas would only be nicked by the boss, if you came up
> with them which creates the impression nowadays that workers are thick and
> lazy and have no ideas.
Well, the social programme I recently wrote about is a clear example of the
opposite: These individuals "worked" (err were sitting around) only 35 hours
a week and they were BEGGED FOR own ideas by their "boss" (me) -- not to nick
their ideas, of course, but for them to have some work -- but STILL, they
were lazy and had no (useful) ideas. So much so that MY ideas I gave them
did not work (what can you do if nobody works?). Unfortunately, such
real-life experiences are not reported in your favourite theory books, so
they're not part of your picture.
> Will all this do? Or do you need any other points? Having said that, I
> still can't see what is the point of arguing with hopeless morons on the
> Internet, you could spend your time much more profitably by starting to
> read the Marxist classics again and then get involved in the movement.
Yeah, that sounds like religious fanatism. "Read only the bible/koran/etc.
and get involved in the O[cto]pus Dei/Talibani/etc. ..." Right, stop
wasting your precious time arguing with us hopeless morons on the Internet.
"Ora et labora!"
Chris
P.S.: These attempts to support religion with science remind me of a funny
attempt I recently read on another list (funny because the writer
was deadly serious about it and was NOT intending a parody!!):
# Superb "peer reviewed" references attesting to the credentials and
# credibility of Jesus are found in the Old Testaments prophets who lived
# and prophesied at least 700 years before the birth of Jesus. The lives
# not merely the livelihood of these prophets depended on the accurate
# fulfillment of both short and long term prophesies. A false prophecy was
# punishable by death and several of these prophets lived to a ripe old
# age. Some 300 of these prophecies made by several prophets(the ultimate
# peer reviewers!) are said to apply to Jesus and at least 30 of them
# clearly describe occurrences in the life of Jesus and thus provide
# flawless peer reviews (note: the credibility of the O.T. is also superb
# since the books were faithfully and accurately copied and transcribed by
# generations of scribes and there is little doubt as to their accuracy or
# authenticity).
# Applying scientific logic, mathematics and statistics, the compound
# probability of 35 future events applying to one person is 1 in 2exp.+35
# or 1 in 34 billion. Any bookie would concede that such odds are highly
# significant considering the odds of winning the NY State lottery is a
# mere 1 in 10 million. Hence, Jesus can be statistically proven unique in
# the annals of humanity considering that the estimated number of person
# who lived on this globe to date is about 20 billion. No other religious
# leader can claim comparable credibility and thus credentials.
