What creates better stuff, a competitive environment or a cooperative environment?
How does socialism facilitate either one of them better than capitalism?
Is the whole cooperation/competition thing a false dichotomy? Can you have both at once?
Is it human nature to be cooperative or competitive or both?
Can we banish the myth of socialism not working because of human competitiveness once and for all?
This is exactly the type of bullshit I was hoping to avoid.
t. retard who doesn't know what darwinism is
socialist cooperation is competition in solidarity
we got the best of both and beyond
you don't know the true power of Marxist Leninist science
Yes and yes.
In socialism, people still compete economically as collectives: successful cooperatives will get more welfare and power. In both socialism and communism, people will compete against each other, except not for claiming upper caste of society, but for social Capital, which would represent true value of a human individual to society. In other words, utility of a person for society would translate to his privilege directly, by combined accessment of the others.
In a darwinian society, subhumans like you would be the first to get killed lmao.
Scientific competition is what we should aim for. For example, Stalin held competitions among architects for the designs to major Soviet buildings. It was a competition to see who had the best blueprint, not to see who could exploit the most. With open source, we can apply this idea to all blueprints. People will naturally choose the best blueprints for their local factories, and obsolete blueprints get phased out.
Now user…
That's not the definition of Darwinian although you're right he would probably die.
There exists a unifying category of both competitiveness and cooperation: for example, competition over who can cooperate with others the most.
Is that just syndicalist mutalism/capitalism though.
Was there a competition for who picks the best competitors?
Not really. Cooperating with others does not mean keeping class society because there are inherent antagonisms between classes for which there would be no need if we were in post-scarcity or whatever.
The entire point is that we do NOT live in a post-scarcity society. The real world is not post-scarcity. We do not live in Star Trek universe where you have unlimited anti-matter energy and can just shove a tree or something into a matter replicator and pop out a steak dinner.
There is currently a minimum required effort to survive, even if that effort is "plant seeds, wait, harvest food."
What is the incentive for the farmer with ten cows to collect the milk and give it to people in his community for free? You could theoretically say something like "mutual protection from other communities," but then you need to ask "what happens when even a single person in this proposed community doesn't bear their own weight/responsibility for community protection/prosperity?"
For reference, look up what happened to the original Jamestown colony in America. I'll give you the run down: colonists had communal food storage. Colonists didnt contribute to communal food storage because lol everyone else will provide the food. 90% of them starved to death the first winter. Captain James Smith (of Pocahontas fame) shows up the next spring and says "ok, fuck this shit, you don't work, you don't eat," and lo and behold, they all work to provide food and goods, and have a basis for barter/trade (you give me milk, I'll give you this table I made, i.e. capitalism), and shit improves.
Socialism instantly and irrevocably fails if even a single person doesn't bear their own weight, and if your basic survival necessities are provided for, you have zero incentive to contribute to the well-being of your community.
Socialism sounds great until you realize that other people are dicks and don't have your best interests at heart; it is literally hard-wired into our biology to compete for resources since resources will always be limited in our current reality.
When scientists invent a way to turn a pile of dirt into a steak dinner in five seconds at the push of a button, then I'll support socialism. Until then, you're a potential competitor to my resources, and you can fug off unless you can provide me equal or greater resources in exchange for mine.
Nobody who says we live in a post-scarcity world makes this argument. Everyone realizes resources are finite but in the relative scale of how we exist on our subsistence, we produce much more than we consume and have the means to provide for every person on Earth all their living necessities and then some. We waste so much of our resources and let people die because of the inefficiencies of capitalism.
The USSR didn't exist: the post
I think it was pretty normal for OKBs to compete on developing the same tech. Also what mentioned.
Take a random guess who also said this
Spoiler: Socialism isn't Gibmedats
Communism 101:
We give everyone basic food and shelter, but if they want comforts they gotta work a couple of hours every day. More work means more comforts. Better work means occasional privileges. As simple as that.
What you described has nothing to do with barter/trade. It's mutual aid. You work for other people, other people will work for you. No specific items are exchanged, there's a long term relation of reciprocity between the individual and the rest of the community.
You don't "have" any resources until we protect your right to them. The only thing you have is your ability to labor. We will gladly compensate you for it, in the same way we compensate any other worker.
This is good stuff. Something I've been thinking of that could be a lot of fun: Place real-time leader-boards in workplaces tracking the activities of every enterprise in the industry. Teams can put in an effort to climb the rankings. They could also see who are doing the best and worst work, to immediately exchange advice with each other on how to improve. This kind of friendly competition should be endlessly more effective and fun than what we have now.
It ties in with my general idea to digitalize society. Central to my vision of communism is a free software social media platform, that connects consumers, workers, political activists, students all with one another to have their voices heard, and importantly exchange ideas. All educational materials produced by society would be available on there, along with all economic data, designs, computer programs, collective policy, and so on (of course without disrespecting people's privacy or creating a risk to public safety). Basically we should have an integrated system realizing everything the internet could and should be. It would be heavily modular, so that people can pick-and-choose whatever elements they like.
On this platform, people with needs and ideas could post their specific problem, and have the community work out an optimal solution. We'd pay people to engage in such activity full-time. This way, new designs can be crowd-sourced by hundreds of engineers. Economic and social policy would be similarly crowd-sourced, and then be voted on by the whole of society through delegative democracy. This can happen all the time, with incredible detail. People simply have to choose another person (or group of people) to oversee their political interests for them, who in turn choose people they know are competent in specific areas to further represent them. This should give the best possible solution for everything.
Unironically Google Bookchin. The role of mutualism in nature is firmly established as fact. Symbiosis plays a major role in the upkeep of natural environments. Early human communities were profoundly egalitarian and mutualistic, forming the basis of human social fabric for thousands of years before the emergence of capitalism. Notions that human beings or nature are inherently competitive exude a personal bais rather than statement of facts
So nice of you to dictate what the masses are to do
Now what if not enough people are productive to support this system?
You are thinking too metaphysically. These two things really aren't seperate. Cooperation is the most effective way to do anything, and competition is what drives people to do things. They are two sides of the same coin, so yes, I believe this is a false dichotomy. It is human nature to want, and thusly it is human nature to compete and to cooperate.
When people are in control of their industries, which they come closer to every day, they will be able to decide when and where they will cooperate and when and where they will compete. This is superior because it allows people to think critically and decide their own destinies instead of leaving things to chance. It is clear to me that people have repeatedly proven themselves to be st their absolute greatest when they are in control of their lives, and when they see a path before themselves to something greater. They are rare moments and Socialism will undoubtedly increase the amount of them.
Absolutely, people will realize this.
...
t. Lenin
What if not enough people are productive under capitalism?
What is this supposed to mean? Am I not allowed to have any political opinion? People aren't supposed to do this shit because I tell them to, they're supposed to do it because it's the rational expression of their interests.
Then we decrease the share of resources going to unproductive members of society and get them a job.
...