John Bunzl wrote:
>
> This describes one of the classic consequences of competition often called
> 'the hidden pay-off'. In continuing competition, both sides can continue to
> serve their own short-sighted self-interest and each is buttressed in that
> conclusion by the other's on-going behaviour. In other words, competition is
> destroying us and, at the same time, both compels us and gives us the excuse
> to continue doing so. It's therefore a kind of dictatorship over which no
> one has control. And that, I believe, is a dictatorship we are all subject
> to on all levels of society and in all parts of the world - call it
> 'globalization' if you will.
> In such circumstances, failure to compete is tantamount to suicidal because
> you are positively punished for doing so. That applies to individuals,
> corporations, politicians, nations - i.e. to all of us in one way or
> another.
John, I think you are right and I like the way you have framed the
dilemma. I would describe the dilemma as a fallacy of composition (a
logical fallacy) in line with the Marxist theory of ideology where
understanding of the whole is according to the logic of the part. It is
a fallacy of composition to believe that what is true for one member of
a set can be true for all members of the set simultaneously. Failing to
perceive this fallacy leads oppressed and exploited people to believe
that the social order that oppresses or exploits them is just and/or
necessary. As it is, I would be worse off without a master (i.e.
employer) so a society without masters would be intolerable because then
there would be noone to provide employment and protection. In this
manner, the poor and working class view social causality in a way that
does not benefit them but rather serves the interests of their masters.
The situation you describe is a Nash equilibrium i.e. it is optimal for
each individual (person or country) to subordinate themselves to
competition in the capitalist market provided everyone else acts
similarly. An example would be a mafia don who justifies his protection
racket by pointing to the threats of other mafia dons. However, is is
also pareto optimal to insubordinate. If all mafiosi refuse to protect
their dons then there is no threat from other dons. Likewise,
insubordination to market competition is optimal provided everyone
insubordinates. If noone competes, there is no threat to me from other
competitors. And as with all collective action problems (which is what
socialism or any other social order based on co-operation is) you run
into
a free-rider problem. I can reap the benefits of other insubordination
and co-operation even if I don't insubordinate or co-operate. The
solution to collective action/free-rider problem is the
institutionalization of social norms against being a free rider.
> So if there is a way out of this global dilemma, that solution must allow us
> to continue competing whilst, at the same time, negotiating - on the
> appropriate basis - for a cessation of competition and commencement of
> cooperation. If we can do that, we can then start to solve China's problems,
> our own and the rest of the world's.
Right.
If that rings any bells with you, you
> might care to take a look at the Simultaneous Policy website at
> www.simpol.org.
I will.
Competition is something that is deeply ingrained into capitalist
culture and perhaps even human biology, rooting it out is difficult but
can be done. It is all the more difficult when the ideological managers
and engineers of this society argue that competition is a good thing
because it creates efficiency, minimizes waste and makes for creative
entrepreneurs without which we would have economic stagnation. "Getting
ahead" or "keeping up with the Smiths" are cultural expressions of this
fact.
Sam Pawlett
>
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
