Capitalism Did This

[Purple Knight]

This is exactly why a system based on competition is unhealthy and only promotes destructive behaviour.

There's a Bible quote somewhere about he who gathers and he who scatters. In capitalism, if ruining something (in this example, science) gives you an edge, you not only may do it, you're forced to do it, because only the strategy with the best results wins. Capitalism is a small-picture, destructive ideology (not that socialism or communism is really any better).

[Ataraxia]

This is exactly why a system based on competition is unhealthy and only promotes destructive behaviour.

I think this is more about the institutionalized systems associated with modernity. Max Weber famously wrote a lot about this in the mid 19th century, describing the less personal and more bureaucratic "Iron Cage of Rationality" in which we all now live. While there is plenty to criticize about capitalism, it could be just another effect of this historical process rather than the singular cause of it.

[Purple Knight]

the less personal and more bureaucratic "Iron Cage of Rationality" in which we all now live

It's a pure product of competition, though. You must use the winning strategy that everyone else is using, even if that strategy is completely unsustainable and destructive. If you don't, you lose. If you lose, you starve, or at least don't get your American Dream of a house and a mate and offspring. Someone who competed better got that prize.

If you put people in a system where they must be destructive, they will be, even if they want to be better. There are plenty who will refuse, and do the right thing anyway, but competition takes care of them and gets rid of them.

No matter how precious something is, no matter how much value it has to everyone, if some advantage can be gained by destroying it, and you put it in front of people in a capitalist system, it's getting destroyed. Property rights don't solve this because things like science and its general integrity are (and can be) nobody's property.

Socialism is no better. It's just capitalism with forced sharing. When people discuss how terrible socialism is, they don't disentangle those two things.

The solution is to not have people compete. At least, not so much. In the wild, humans are evolved to compete only for mates, or against other tribes. That amounts to a rarity. Competition in every aspect of life is destructive, it's energy-wasting, and nature didn't intend it. Entangling that with forced sharing is only muddying the waters. I understand why forced sharing can be destructive too, but these are two completely separate issues.

[Ataraxia]

It's a pure product of competition, though. You must use the winning strategy that everyone else is using, even if that strategy is completely unsustainable and destructive. If you don't, you lose. If you lose, you starve, or at least don't get your American Dream of a house and a mate and offspring. Someone who competed better got that prize.

If you're saying that countries adopted capitalism out of an existing need to compete, then yes I'd agree. If you're saying that capitalism is the source of people's competitiveness then I would disagree. I'm only making this distinction because a common pitfall of discourse surrounding capitalism is that people are usually not precise about what it is. Economic competition is obviously not unique to capitalism. Some scientists have asserted that competitiveness is a deeply rooted human behavior. If so, the success of most modern ideologies could be explained through the lens of how they trigger people's existing competitive impulses: Capitalism (profit motive), socialism (class solidarity vs elites), nationalism (us vs them). But I do think you're right that there was a "winning strategy" imperative, and that modern finance capitalism and its corresponding state structures to support it are part of the modernity package that countries had to adopt.

[Purple Knight]

If you're saying that countries adopted capitalism out of an existing need to compete, then yes I'd agree. If you're saying that capitalism is the source of people's competitiveness then I would disagree.

I'm saying that capitalism forces people to compete in every single aspect of their lives, which not everyone wants. Some people are innately hypercompetitive. They aren't the majority, or at least, they wouldn't be in the wild. They're the only type of person that succeeds in a hypercompetitive system, however. Cavemen competed rarely. When people stopped being hunter-gatherers and settled down, they competed probably close to never. It would have been about helping the family. Someone who spends all his energy proving he is the best, instead of helping the family, is not the best, even if he is.

I'm only making this distinction because a common pitfall of discourse surrounding capitalism is that people are usually not precise about what it is. Economic competition is obviously not unique to capitalism.

No, you're right, which is why I consider any socialism or communism I've ever heard of to be capitalism with forced sharing, as far as the problem of hypercompetition goes.

Some scientists have asserted that competitiveness is a deeply rooted human behavior.

I'm sure it is, but it's been intensified beyond imagining in a system where nothing you do gets you a single bloody thing unless you compete. Most successful employees spend most of their effort aggrandizing themselves and none or little of their effort actually working. They're highly productive, but their product is sizzle, not steak. Probably 95% of our energy is spent competing, and only about 5% of our energy is spent doing anything else.

If so, the success of most modern ideologies could be explained through the lens of how they trigger people's existing competitive impulses: Capitalism (profit motive), socialism (class solidarity vs elites), nationalism (us vs them). But I do think you're right that there was a "winning strategy" imperative, and that modern finance capitalism and its corresponding state structures to support it are part of the modernity package that countries had to adopt.

I don't think they had to, at least, not until after the industrial revolution had taken over. Even then there were options, especially the option to simply not adopt policies actively preventing people from being self-sufficient. But of course, when people get smart and realise that having basically nothing on a farm but at least staying alive is better than risking it all to play boom-or-bust until you or your family does lose everything, they choose self-sufficiency and that's not good for GDP.

[Ataraxia]

I'm saying that capitalism forces people to compete in every single aspect of their lives, which not everyone wants. Some people are innately hypercompetitive.
...
Probably 95% of our energy is spent competing, and only about 5% of our energy is spent doing anything else.

Well I mean is that true for your life?
My sleeping is not competitive.
My eating and drinking is not competitive.
When I go to the bathroom it's not very competitive.
A few debates here and there on the internet is about as competitive as I get.
I suppose at work I do have some petty rivalries with some colleagues, but not really, and I don't see how those are about capitalism. Although my place of employment is community owned rather than for-profit.
Did I miss something? I suppose in very subtle ways like White Privilege, or being Middle Class and how these heirarchies afford me greater resources and opportunities than others. Those are systems I exist in though and they don't particularly feel competitive like when I'm drinking clean water, or sitting on my couch in a neighborhood that experiences almost no crime.

[Athetotheist]

Socialism is no better. It's just capitalism with forced sharing.

Capitalism is production carried out to satisfy the desires of the individual. Socialism is production carried out to meet the needs of society as a whole. Thus, socialism is more cooperative than competitive.

[Tcg]

Socialism is no better. It's just capitalism with forced sharing.

Capitalism is production carried out to satisfy the desires of the individual. Socialism is production carried out to meet the needs of society as a whole. Thus, socialism is more cooperative than competitive.

You are of course forgetting that in socialism there is competition amongst those who claim to know the needs of society as a whole. Socialism becomes cooperative only when those in control force others to follow their command.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

My sleeping is not competitive.
My eating and drinking is not competitive.
When I go to the bathroom it's not very competitive.

You don't think? If you didn't have to sleep, you could make more money. Sleep is incredibly competitive, that's just masked by overtime and exploitation laws. If we had pure capitalism you'd be trying to cut down on your sleep, because the guy over there would be, and you'd then have to do that to keep up with him. Same for eating. You'd be getting two hours of sleep and eating half a pack of ramen a day so you could offer just that little bit more to outbid the guy who eats a whole pack of ramen and sleeps three hours for a place to live.

You are of course forgetting that in socialism there is competition amongst those who claim to know the needs of society as a whole. Socialism becomes cooperative only when those in control force others to follow their command.

Which is how a business works. The organisation is supposed to work together because it has an interest in doing so. In practice this doesn't work out, and neither businesses nor socialist societies get very much done without a lot of waste and lost energy on infighting and competition.

[Athetotheist]

You are of course forgetting that in socialism there is competition amongst those who claim to know the needs of society as a whole. Socialism becomes cooperative only when those in control force others to follow their command.

Society makes its needs known. Without a management class in the way, society can communicate its needs directly to socialist producers and those producers can supply what's needed. There's no need to try to create an artificial market for any more than that since no one is out to get rich.