Skip to main content

Bourgeois socialist thoughts on competition

By
Competition is also an evolutionary trait that all species share. From the sperms seeking to fertilize ova to the day we die, the process of life and death reflects competition in biological, social, economic, and cultural contexts. What then does it mean then to abolish competition? What are we really doing away with when we do away with competition? What are the social and economic consequences of abolishing competition whether by struggle, decree, or legislation?

I frequently find myself hearing and using the words competition and innovation together and in context. Innovation refers to doing something new or introducing newness to something or the doing of something with the implicit assumption being that the new will lead to something better. For an industry, innovation usually refers to the process of converting ideas into services and products that generate value for the consumer and thus help the organization become profitable (amass capital). It seems evident that not everyone can engage in innovation. If everyone spent their time and effort innovating who would worry with the mundane and the routine that is not new? Yet, we value innovation as a prize that can do more than generate capital for the innovators. The US government wants to transform the economy of this country to one based on innovation. The more skilled workers, the greater the chances for innovation and all the better for the economy. Competition is said to be the juice that drives innovation. As we compete with others we innovate harder, stronger, faster or so the argument goes. What are the consequences of an unbridled thirst for innovation that defines innovation as a desirable phenomenon, that views innovation as necessarily making our lives better? Does competition always lead to betterment of the conditions of our existence? Is better always good? When we say something is better is it a qualitative or a quantitative appraisal? What does it mean to make things better?

I look forward to hearing your views on these questions at our next meeting. I know Vicky will have some thoughts to share :)

Comments

Raihan Jamil said…
I wanted to write something similar and on similar thoughts. So I felt it would be better to write it here not only as a follow up and comment wise on Prashant's post.

I am certainly confused with this introduction of new concepts in my life. I read about the proletarians and the bourgeois class. And just when I thought I was getting some idea of what all this is about I read more into them and got myself even more confused I think.

Industrial revolution. Key to all the foundation of Marxism. Is it not? My impression is that industrial revolution is blamed to a high extent for many of the problems in today's world. But was there an alternative to the industrial revolution? Similar to what HalfLife wrote above, is (was) innovation or competition unavoidable?

For the need of the people, innovation was necessary. it may have come in terms of more productive looms for individuals, or industry defining looms for the world. Steam engines made way for the world we stand in today. I find it hard to imagine a world where we do not have fast trains, or airlines, or a computer or mobile phones. Did they not all stem from the industrial revolution directly or indirectly?

Then the next confusion came about the ownership of land. I may not have gotten it at all. Is land symbolic of all the modes of production? Or is land only land? Even the Marx Archive says it is not possible to go to a point where all land will have public ownership. A revolution will be necessary to achieve that. And even then, it may be hard to accomplish.

But even if that happens, wouldn't it be necessary to have a selected group(s) to organize and manage them? Are we not creating a similar system as we have today with private ownership? In my opinion this would again eventually become the cash relationship situation theorists are trying to abolish.

Then the next clarification I seek is in terms of intellectual skills. The way big organizations treat employees (even if it is for their intellectual/academic skills) is nothing short of how a proletarian is treated and demanded. I felt if we substitute (or even imagine) the term 'physical labor' with 'intellectual labor/skills' it may work in a very similar way. But the reading seems to imply that intellectual labor is a 'higher' commodity.

So yes, I am confused to a good extent. It would be nice to get to listen to you all, and clarify and strengthen my grasp of the content matter that I have just dipped my toe into.

As I wrote in my first posting in this blog, let the fun begin!
January 24, 2010 at 9:32 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...
2 comments
Read more