Re: competition/contradiction

[Eva Durant]

So when people were making and
improving on their stone-tools,
who were they competing exactly?
How come the chinese managed all
those inventions of theirs?

I think in capitalism the aim is to make profit,
and for that it not as necessary as in the 
old times when
 you just had to beat 
competitors with a cheaper (more mass
produced) product.

You can be very productive with
a large turnover and still not managing
to keep your share prices up,
or your market crumbles etc.

The motivation to innovate - and to do
that in a humanly useful fashion
is questionable even without  mentioning
multinational monopolies.
Finding someone who invest in your
however useful invention demands more
inventiveness, than the invention itself.

Eva

> 
> I enter this fray with some trepitation, but I have a point to make.  One of
> the myth's of capitalism is stated by Chris above.  The implication is that
> there would be no or limited innovation without the goad of competition and
> there is truth in that statement.  However, what may be good in moderation
> may not be good in excess and I would opine that improvements are in the
> excessive stage, creating a lack of durability as a design feature, vast
> misuse of resources, complications caused by obsolence and host of other
> negative features such as the great variety of parts and technical skills
> needed to keep up with the constant innovation.  Y2K may be one example of
> the effects of what might in one circumstance be a positive but because of
> the efficiencies of capitalism, a simple error in structure was never
> corrected and we may now pay the costs for all that neglect in the constant
> drive to build a new and better computer or software program.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Thomas Lunde
> 
> 
> 

Re: competition/contradiction

[Ed Weick]

>What exists now with huge TNC dominance of global mkts isn't increasing
>competition; it's decreasing it. Takeovers, mergers, secret price fixing,
and
>cases like sterile gentech seeds, are IMO classically monopolistic
>(anti-competitive). The smaller, local/regional businesses usually can't
compete
>on price (quality/safety is not always easily judged by consumers), & if
any
>small guys do compete pretty well, the big guys try to buy them ASAP. I've
seen
>my mouthwash - Viadent(vegetable base) get bought by Colgate Palmolive.
Next
>thing they did was come out with a totally different product, same name but
>called "better tasting formula". It was a totally different formula with no
>'sanguinaria'(sp.?). They still sell the original one, much better IMO, but
can
>stop anytime they choose.
>
>Competition is more players/products, not fewer. Myth is that increased
>competition is destroying product quality. Globalisation & monopolisation
look
>like the culprits to me.


I think this is valid.  A problem is that individual countries have
anti-combines or anti-monopoly legislation, but there are no international
counterparts.  The MAI was imperfect in many respects, but it at least began
the process of setting some rules around international corporate and
government behaviour.  However, the MAI is now dead, at least for the time
being.

Ed Weick

Re: competition/contradiction

[Christoph Reuss]

Thomas Lunde wrote:
> I enter this fray with some trepitation, but I have a point to make.

Have no fear, I don't bite. :-)  (Not even those who make wrong points, har
har)


> One of
> the myth's of capitalism is stated by Chris above.  The implication is that
> there would be no or limited innovation without the goad of competition and
> there is truth in that statement.  However, what may be good in moderation
> may not be good in excess

I think that was my point:  It takes both, cooperation and competition.
However, Eva seemed to advocate the _absence_ of competition.


> and I would opine that improvements are in the
> excessive stage, creating a lack of durability as a design feature, vast
> misuse of resources, complications caused by obsolence and host of other
> negative features such as the great variety of parts and technical skills
> needed to keep up with the constant innovation.  Y2K may be one example of
> the effects of what might in one circumstance be a positive but because of
> the efficiencies of capitalism, a simple error in structure was never
> corrected and we may now pay the costs for all that neglect in the constant
> drive to build a new and better computer or software program.

Let's compare Wintel PCs with Apple Macintosh.  The former historically is
a quasi-monopoly/cartel (weak competition), the latter was a small "David
against Goliath" company, very innovative, with strong competiton from
the PC cartel.  Now, WHERE do we find
> a lack of durability as a design feature,
> vast misuse of resources
> and host of other
> negative features such as the great variety of parts and technical skills
> needed to keep up with the constant innovation,
and
> Y2K
  ???

You've guessed it:  In the former, not in the latter.
I and many others have been using the same Mac for 7+ years, while a PC
is usually outdated (or defective) after 1-3 years.  I never visited a
Mac course (superfluous), while PC users have to learn a new system
virtually every year (DOS 3,5,6, Win3.0, Win3.11fWg, Win95, WinNT, Win98,..).
Ask any company manager how much they spend for PC upgrades every year,
to pay for new options they never need and for bug-fixes of bugs that _they_
had to beta-test in the first place.  The hardware/software update "arms race"
in the Wintel world is NOT due to competition, but due to a lack of
(corporate) alternatives to the Wintel cartel.
Sure, the salesmen of software, hardware, courses, books etc. are fond of
the PC system!  It creates helluva lot of jobs for them (and the PR industry
-- Gates has 500 PR professionals and spent $200 million for the Win95 PR
campaign alone), so how can you oppose such a cartel ?  Hey, you're killing
jobs. 

--Chris

Re: competition/contradiction

[Steve Kurtz]

Thomas Lunde wrote:
> 
> Chris wrote:
> 
> The point is that competition gives an incentive to build better products
> >than the competitors.  

> Thomas:
> One of
> the myth's of capitalism is stated by Chris above.  The implication is that
> there would be no or limited innovation without the goad of competition and
> there is truth in that statement.  However, what may be good in moderation
> may not be good in excess and I would opine that improvements are in the
> excessive stage,

What exists now with huge TNC dominance of global mkts isn't increasing
competition; it's decreasing it. Takeovers, mergers, secret price fixing, and
cases like sterile gentech seeds, are IMO classically monopolistic
(anti-competitive). The smaller, local/regional businesses usually can't compete
on price (quality/safety is not always easily judged by consumers), & if any
small guys do compete pretty well, the big guys try to buy them ASAP. I've seen
my mouthwash - Viadent(vegetable base) get bought by Colgate Palmolive. Next
thing they did was come out with a totally different product, same name but
called "better tasting formula". It was a totally different formula with no
'sanguinaria'(sp.?). They still sell the original one, much better IMO, but can
stop anytime they choose. 

Competition is more players/products, not fewer. Myth is that increased
competition is destroying product quality. Globalisation & monopolisation look
like the culprits to me.

Steve
-- 

"To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being 
paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, 
in our age, can still do for those who study it."
Bertrand Russell,  "A History of Western Philosophy"

Re: competition/contradiction

[Thomas Lunde]

Chris wrote:

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.

Thomas:

I enter this fray with some trepitation, but I have a point to make.  One of
the myth's of capitalism is stated by Chris above.  The implication is that
there would be no or limited innovation without the goad of competition and
there is truth in that statement.  However, what may be good in moderation
may not be good in excess and I would opine that improvements are in the
excessive stage, creating a lack of durability as a design feature, vast
misuse of resources, complications caused by obsolence and host of other
negative features such as the great variety of parts and technical skills
needed to keep up with the constant innovation.  Y2K may be one example of
the effects of what might in one circumstance be a positive but because of
the efficiencies of capitalism, a simple error in structure was never
corrected and we may now pay the costs for all that neglect in the constant
drive to build a new and better computer or software program.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lunde

Re: competition/contradiction

[Christoph Reuss]

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 

Re: competition/contradiction

[Thomas Lunde]

Dear Eva and friend:

A very good argument and one in which I find more hope and possibilities
than "the survival of the fittest" mentality of the capitalist model.  I
especially liked the comments re language developing because we are
basically a cooperating species.  It makes sense to me.  In the realm of
personal experience, I can say that if I was to analyze my day, both
familial, working, and various relationships, the majority of my time is
spent in cooperative ventures, raising children, working with co-workers,
and even in my business dealings with the world, are much more cooperative
than competitive.  It is only when the accumulation of wealth enters the
picture that a small percentage of the population becomes totally neurotic
and puts their own desires and wants above others, even to the point of
actually causing others pain, hardship, deprivation so that they can have
more jelly beans in their jar.  Personally, it would seem to me a
predilection for the capitalistic model is either the result of propaganda
and cultural programming or outright mental deviance.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lunde

Subject: competition/contradiction


I asked for a contribution in the above themes from a friend of
mine who happens to be Hungarian, married to an
English chap and a socialist, quite like me...
Be sure - there are more useful work-related information
here that in a lot of other posts!
For some reason she started in Hungarian, my english summary
follows these first paragraphs. Eva

...
Termeszetesen semmi koze az erkolcsi normaknak ehhez.  Az
ellentmondas az abbol adodik, hogy a munkasosztaly termeli a javakat, de a
munkaadok csak annyit adnak vissza ebbol amennyire feltetlenul a munkasnak
szuksege van ahhoz, hogy eletben maradjon. Ez a munkaber, ami megfizeti nem
a munkat hanem a munkaerot.  (Not labour but labour power!!)  Hogy mennyit
fizetnek egy munkasnak az fugg sok mindentol, peldaul, hogy milyenek a
piaci viszonyok, a termelekenyseg, mennyire erosek a szakszervezetek,
milyen merteku a munkanelkuliseg stb., stb.  Soha, de soha nem fugg attol,
hogy mennyi erteket termelt a munkas, mert azt soha nem kapja vissza.  Ha
kapna, akkor a munkaadonak nem lenne haszna es bezarna a gyarat.

(Ofcourse there is no link with moral norms. The contradiction is
based on the working class producing the goods, but the employers
only paying back as much as the workers need to survive.
This is the wage; only pays for the worker, not for the work done.
The amount of the wage depends from the markets, from the strength of
the unions, from the level of unemployment, etc, etc, but never from
the value produced. This is never returned, as then the employer
would have no profit and would have to close the workplace.)

Egyike a legalapvetobb ellentmondasnak az, hogy ha a munkas csak egy egesz
kis hanyadat kapja vissza annak az erteknek amit megtermelt, akkor nincs
eleg penze, hogy megvegye azokat a termekeket, amit o keszitett, de a
gyartulajdonos ad el.  Igy a tulajdonos nem tudja bezsebelni a hasznot, es
igy is bezarja a gyarat.

(One of the most basic contradiction is, that if the worker only gets
back a very small portion of the value he produced, than he has not
enough money to buy the necessities to live, sold by the owners of
the factories etc, so these owners cannot make the profits and have
to close down.)


Egy masik ellentmondas az, hogy az evtizedek soran ahogy a kapitalista
rendszer kezdett hanyatlani, a tendencia arra mutatott, hogy mindig tobbet
kellett befektetni ahhoz, hogy egyre kevesebbet kapjon vissza haszonkent.
"The tendency for the rate of profit to fall"  Ez azert van, mert a toke
ket reszre oszlik:

(An other contradiction is that the system started to collapse,
because there is a tendency, that more and more investment was
necessary for  less and less profit, thus "The tendency for the rate
of profit to fall". This happens, because:  )

the means of production (e.g. tools, land etc.)
and labour.  It is the interaction of  these two that create
new goods and the capitalist's profit.
However, because it is only labour that creates profit, only
labour that adds surplus value, in the modern epoch when more and more has
to be spent on modernising the means of production, less and less will be
produced in terms of profit for the same amount of investment.  Crudely
put: if every year you have to spend more and more on throwing away
perfectly good machinery and buy new one, because that is the only way you
can
keep ahead of your competition, and therefore you pay less and less to your
workforce, the organic composition of capital will shift in favour of the
means of production, of capital goods and away from labour.  However, it is
only labour that produces the pofit, so you will rake in less and less.

I know that this is a very difficult concept to grasp, but if you look
around that is what is happening to British Industry.  They have not
invested and they are bei

Re: competition/contradiction

[Ray E. Harrell]

Durant wrote:

> I asked for a contribution in the above themes from a friend of
> mine who happens to be hungarian, married to an
> English chap and a socialist, quite like me...
> Be sure - there are more useful work-related information
> here that in a lot of other posts!
> For some reason she started in Hungarian, my english summary
> follows these first paragraphs. Eva
>
> (snip the Hungarian but it was fun to say)

Öszi délben, öszi délben,Oh be nehéz kacagni a leá nyokra.REH:
Just a point about the way that I write since there is always an issue of whether
you got the "gist" of it or not.   I am an oral person so my words are more easily
understood if you say them out loud. I never have appreciated the simplicity of
literacy.This was quite a journey.   I thank you both and for anyone who has a
short attention span just delete.As for me  I enjoyed the thinking.

Julianna said and Eva translated:.

> (Ofcourse there is no link with moral norms. The contradiction is
> based on the working class producing the goods, but the employers
> only paying back as much as the workers need to survive.

REHThe workers transformed the material into something that may or may not have
been good and useful.I don't find that separation into "exploiters" and
"exploited" serves much purpose in our situation, unless the exploited are artists
but everyone exploits us. Such thoughts in economics considers orchestras to be
"workers" and from there they go to being the same as plumbers.This is a grim
situation:

Hallotátok  már?
Öszszel,  amikor  kavarog  a  köd,
Az éjszakában  valami  nyöszörög.

Julianna continued:

> This is the wage; only pays for the worker, not for the work done.
> The amount of the wage depends from the markets, from the strength of
> the unions, from the level of unemployment, etc, etc, but never from
> the value produced.

REHDefine "value."  Value according to most economists is money.According
to many of the Scots it was "usefulness." What is it according to your system
of thought?  Value of course to an artist is quite another thing and has to do with
truth and beauty.

Valami dobban.
Valaki minden jajt öszszelopott,

Julianna continued:

> This is never returned, as then the employer
> would have no profit and would have to close the workplace.)

REHAre you saying that the employer deserves no pay for his/her investment as well
as her/his labor?

==

more long lovely Hungarian phrases but with no umlauts or accents? Very few
words that are familiar to me
but does Hungarian not use the (e) following a letter that has an umlaut that
cannot be written on your computer?For example in English Krüger would be
written Krueger but pronounced the same.  For example would özszelopott be written
on the computer as oeszelopott?

==

> (snip)  perhaps you might translate for us these lovely phrases:

Valaki korhadt, vén deszkákon kopog.

> Julianna via Eva:

> (One of the most basic contradiction is, that if the worker only gets
> back a very small portion of the value he produced, than he has not
> enough money to buy the necessities to live, sold by the owners of
> the factories etc, so these owners cannot make the profits and have
> to close down.)

REHSounds like a dumb owner and herd like workers. Now I like the New York
Philharmonic as a group of workers.   They can scare the b'geezis out of anyone who
would take advantage of them.   And 802 the Musician's Union is formidable.   They
can even get a producer to hire musicians based not upon the orchestration but how
many musicians the pit will hold.   So if they only need eight musicians to play in
a sixteen piece pit, the other eight musicians are hired to stand in the wings and
watch.Then there is the Stage Workers contract for the Kennedy Center in
Washington.   Your poor dumb beasts are nothing like these smart workers.   But the
best of all is the movies. Julianna,  you should come to the big city and see
how the Screen Actors Guild negotiates with producers.   The modern "virtual
company" founded upon the movie company model is really a "Model T" flexible
contract when compared to movie salaries.   What I see is incompetence all around.
Your statements are hopelessly old fashioned and most of the companies of the world
are as well.   For many years America's greatest exports have been in the Arts
and Entertainments areas primarily the movies. They can fake a Nike plant in
Hong Kong or Thailand but not a movie.That is the biggest area of battle these
days between the UK and the American Unions. The UK salaries are inadequate but
the U.S. is restraining trade through their labor practices.  On the other hand
where America will hire a "British accent" easily due to the multi-ethnic society,
the UK will only cast Americans in American parts which means that there are few
jobs for Americans in the

competition/contradiction

[Durant]

I asked for a contribution in the above themes from a friend of
mine who happens to be hungarian, married to an
English chap and a socialist, quite like me...
Be sure - there are more useful work-related information
here that in a lot of other posts!
For some reason she started in Hungarian, my english summary
follows these first paragraphs. Eva

...
Termeszetesen semmi koze az erkolcsi normaknak ehhez.  Az
ellentmondas az abbol adodik, hogy a munkasosztaly termeli a javakat, de a
munkaadok csak annyit adnak vissza ebbol amennyire feltetlenul a munkasnak
szuksege van ahhoz, hogy eletben maradjon. Ez a munkaber, ami megfizeti nem
a munkat hanem a munkaerot.  (Not labour but labour power!!)  Hogy mennyit
fizetnek egy munkasnak az fugg sok mindentol, peldaul, hogy milyenek a
piaci viszonyok, a termelekenyseg, mennyire erosek a szakszervezetek,
milyen merteku a munkanelkuliseg stb., stb.  Soha, de soha nem fugg attol,
hogy mennyi erteket termelt a munkas, mert azt soha nem kapja vissza.  Ha
kapna, akkor a munkaadonak nem lenne haszna es bezarna a gyarat.

(Ofcourse there is no link with moral norms. The contradiction is 
based on the working class producing the goods, but the employers 
only paying back as much as the workers need to survive.
This is the wage; only pays for the worker, not for the work done.
The amount of the wage depends from the markets, from the strength of 
the unions, from the level of unemployment, etc, etc, but never from 
the value produced. This is never returned, as then the employer 
would have no profit and would have to close the workplace.)

Egyike a legalapvetobb ellentmondasnak az, hogy ha a munkas csak egy egesz
kis hanyadat kapja vissza annak az erteknek amit megtermelt, akkor nincs
eleg penze, hogy megvegye azokat a termekeket, amit o keszitett, de a
gyartulajdonos ad el.  Igy a tulajdonos nem tudja bezsebelni a hasznot, es
igy is bezarja a gyarat.

(One of the most basic contradiction is, that if the worker only gets 
back a very small portion of the value he produced, than he has not
enough money to buy the necessities to live, sold by the owners of
the factories etc, so these owners cannot make the profits and have 
to close down.)


Egy masik ellentmondas az, hogy az evtizedek soran ahogy a kapitalista
rendszer kezdett hanyatlani, a tendencia arra mutatott, hogy mindig tobbet
kellett befektetni ahhoz, hogy egyre kevesebbet kapjon vissza haszonkent. 
"The tendency for the rate of profit to fall"  Ez azert van, mert a toke
ket reszre oszlik:  

(An other contradiction is that the system started to collapse, 
because there is a tendency, that more and more investment was 
necessary for  less and less profit, thus "The tendency for the rate 
of profit to fall". This happens, because:  )

the means of production (e.g. tools, land etc.)
and labour.  It is the interaction of  these two that create 
new goods and the capitalist's profit.  
However, because it is only labour that creates profit, only
labour that adds surplus value, in the modern epoch when more and more has
to be spent on modernising the means of production, less and less will be
produced in terms of profit for the same amount of investment.  Crudely
put: if every year you have to spend more and more on throwing away
perfectly good machinery and buy new one, because that is the only way you can
keep ahead of your competition, and therefore you pay less and less to your
workforce, the organic composition of capital will shift in favour of the
means of production, of capital goods and away from labour.  However, it is
only labour that produces the pofit, so you will rake in less and less.

I know that this is a very difficult concept to grasp, but if you look
around that is what is happening to British Industry.  They have not
invested and they are being left behind.  But if you look at Japan, which
has invested heavily, they are still in crisis, because they were tied to
the US dollar and their major market was in the Tigers which collapsed, but
the other reason is that the rate of profit has been falling precisely
because the organic composition of capital in Japan was shifted a long way
towards capital goods and the means of production.

Talking of the Far East, you know we always said that the fundamental cause
of capitalist crisis, the ultimate inherent contradiction is that because
the capitalists produce for profit, not for need, there will always be
crises of overproduction.  When the goods are sitting there, and even if
they are badly needed, the populus cannot afford to buy them and therefore
there will be wholescale destruction of the productive forces, until it
picks up again etc.,etc. and the concomitant human misery that goes with
all that.  Well, if you look at the Far East tdoay, the real underlying
reason for all their problems is overproduction.  They all went for the quick
buck and overreached themselves.  I know that the crisis as such is masked
by all the rh