Let us suppose that Obama really wants to ram socialism down America’s throat. Is this a bad thing?
It is generally assumed that socialism is bad because…well, because it is socialism. That is something that Europeans do, like eating quiche or losing wars. However, are there good arguments as to why socialism itself is inherently bad?
To keep the discussion focused narrowly, I’ll stick with the stock argument: socialism destroys incentive. If, the argument goes, the state owns everything then people have no incentive to strive and this will result in a wide variety of problems from individual laziness to a general economic decline. Interestingly, the same folks who make this argument also tend to be the same folks who argue against the minimum wage (or at least increasing it).
The argument is usually presented in the context of a form of socialism in which there is no difference in pay or rewards. That is, from each according to his ability and to each according to exact equality. However, this form of socialism is not the only form. State ownership of the economic system does not require that individuals cannot be paid more or less or rewarded more or less. All that state ownership requires is that the state owns the economic entities.
But, one might argue, if people cannot strive to own a company or corporation, then they would have no incentive at all. In reply, the truth is that the vast majority of people have no chance of ever owning a company or corporation. Rather, the odds are that they will be working for a business that is owned by someone else (and these owners are a small percentage of the population). Amazingly enough, these people still work even though they really have no chance of owning a company or corporation. Now, imagine that the state owns the company rather than Donald Trump or Bill Gates. From the employees’ standpoint, nothing has really changed. To use an analogy, claiming that state ownership will destroy incentive is a bit like saying that getting rid of pro sports would destroy the incentive to play sports or exercise. True, there would be some impact. But it would be much smaller than one might imagine.
In response, it could be argued that under socialism there would be no privately owned small businesses and this would destroy incentives. After all, while most people have no chance of owning a corporation (aside from a bit of stock, of course) a person can start his or her own business. Without such an incentive, disaster would ensue.
The same reply can be given as above: again, most folks do not own businesses and really have no realistic chance of doing so and hence most folks are not motivated by this. Rather, most folks are motivated to work because they need the money.
Aha, one might say, under socialism there will be no such needs. People will have all their needs taken care of and hence will have no incentive to work.
In reply, if this were true, then what would be the problem? This would be a “Star Trek” future of plenty and no want. This seems awesome.
But, one might say, this would not be an awesome world. Rather, it would be awful because everything would be crappy. When everyone’s basic needs would be met, the other needs would be left unfulfilled because people would lack any incentive to fill them because they could not make lots of money doing so.
While this has some appeal, it would seem that if people are suffering because their needs are left unfulfilled, then they would have an incentive to act to fulfill them-even if they could not make lots of money doing so. Also, people are often motivated by factors other than money. Think, for example, of all the free stuff on the web that people create and share without the hope of profit. Think, also, of community service and volunteer work. While profit does motivate, there are other strong motivators that would provide considerable incentives.
A final point to consider is the negative aspects of the profit motivation. Folks driven solely by greed tend to lead us into disasters. While a healthy desire for profit can be fine, it must be tempered by other motives as well or such a drive can become monstrous and damaging
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
All political/economic systems have myths and lies that are repeated as gospel by those in charge, those who have the most to gain. If someone says “socialism destroys incentive,” it’s almost always for one of two reasons: they have something to lose if society were to adopt the system they are demonizing, or they’ve simply believed the lie and are repeating it.
It’s not limited to socialism. As we all “know”, capitalism is the best economic system, or so we are told from the day we are born. Of course this is true…for those who benefit the most from capitalism, and those are the people that have grown wealthy and powerful under the system. The rest of us are exploited for our knowledge or our muscle. We are promised, though, that if we work hard, we will be rewarded with wealth. Of course, that rarely happens. But, it happens enough for people to be pointed to and the rest of us told “See, he did it, and you can, too.” Sadly, it’s not far from the lottery, which you have about the same chances of winning.
It’s no accident that we idolize the rich and famous. We even had television shows devoted to idolizing the lifestyles of those rich and famous. This is, of course, fostered by the rich and famous (mostly the rich) because if we continue to desire wealth, we’ll continue to dutifully line up to be exploited for 40 hours (at least) per week.
Remember, “in this economy”, just be happy you have a job.
Spoken like a true cynic.Let me guess: You have a degree or are working on a degree in one of the “soft sciences”.
“we’ll continue to dutifully line up to be exploited for 40 hours”
How are you exploited? Does the guy employing you have some magical quality that allowed him to bypass all of the pain and suffering of work? Was he born rich? If he was, why does he run a business at all? Why not take the money and retire to an island instead of employing whiny, people such as yourself?
Do you have any better ideas? Who’s done better than America? Who does more than America? Please don’t mention some quasi-sociolist country in Scabndanavia. They only do well for themselves. We’ve made the world a better place.
“As we all “know”, capitalism is the best economic system, or so we are told from the day we are born”
You’re attempting to paralyze the opposition with this statement. But you give no proof otherwise. Where is the federally centralized economy that is even coming close? Need a who’s who of some of the most repressive regimes in history? Check out virtually all socialist and communist nations. Oh, but they’re not just socialist, they’re totalitarian, you say.
No kidding. How the hell else can you get people to give away all their stuff but to crush them?
The post-modern, cynical idea that the American dream is to be rich is horse shit. I actually think that most Americans know that people in Hollywood are some of the biggest dumb asses on the planet. But, as if we’re passing a car wreck, we can’t turn away.
I’m not rich. I’m in the US Army. I didn’t come in to get rich and I have no desire to be rich. Would I take more money? Sure, but it’s not my goal in life. My goal in life is to be a good person, and to do something that helps the greater good, as well as do things I generally enjoy. But the outrage against the rich merely because they’re rich is stupid and an excuse for giving up and blaming the system.
I don’t see anyone flocking to North Korea or Venezuela. It’s amazing to me that we can’t just look at the best places to live and what country’s help the most and say: That’s the best system.
While I am busy demonizing capitalism, I am not praising socialism or communism. You’re incorrect in that assumption. In fact, I said they all have their lies.
Mike,
Can you give me an example of a true socialist state that thrived? If not, why?
I think one way get a good view of how the world works is to watch how children work. I got many of my ideas on international diplomacy from remembering back to the school yard.
As for the economy, give a kid everything and see what happens. Sure he’ll be well fed. But not much else, and he sure won’t be able to ensure that his kids get well fed. He’ll be unmotivated, whiny and fat. Come ot think of it, just like many of today’s overparented kids.
We know that in biology, small amounts of stress modify organisms, either through natural selection or by activating inherent biological possibilities.
The same is also true psychologically and socially. Too much stress and you destroy someone. Not enough and they don’t thrive. Sure not all incentive is monetary. But taking away money is actually making work and many kinds of learning into negative incentive.
Strictly speaking, there have been no true socialist states (100% state ownership and control). After all, the state does not own or control all the criminal economic activities.
The Soviets tried to build a socialist state, but they failed. However, to simply infer that they failed because of socialism’s alleged defects would be an error. After all, even Marx argued that socialism requires a preceding capitalist stage to build up an economy adequate for socialism. Going to other socialist states, their problems can be explained largely in terms of factors other than socialism. For example, Venezuela is having problems because of their “leader” and his poor decision making. What would be needed to properly test socialism is to have a state that has a developed economy, is run by competent leaders, and so on. That is, we would need a controlled experiment in which socialism is the causal factor being tested.
Socialism does not require taking away money or even competition. After all, the state could own all economic entities, yet provide significant incentives for individual success (more pay for greater success, for example).
It’s amazing the Soviets did as well as they did.
Classic argument. It didn’t work because it really wasn’t Socialism.
If it’s really that hard to do, how much more difficult is it to maintain?
Socialism is a dangerous fantasy and all anyone can do to defend it is keep pointing to what might have been, not was ever was.
No, I am not saying that the failure of the Soviets was due to their not being really socialist. Rather, my point is that that even under Marxist theory, the Soviets would be expected to fail by trying to leap to socialism without going through capitalism.
It is not clear that socialism was the fatal illness of the USSR. Rather, I’d place the main blame on the other factors (including Stalin’s legacy).
Last time I repeat: All of those things were symptoms of socialism.
See my previous comment about ripples in a pond.
New Lanark and New Harmony were both very successful socialist communes. So successful, in fact, that one was built in the United States and people came from all over the world to see them work. These were pure socialist (utopian societies) economies and they flourished. Because of their prosperity, other 15 communes sprung.
New Harmony fell when Robert Owen’s partner left and took all the profits. Acted like a true capitalist.
New Lanark and New harmony were not states. “Socialism” can work in small groups. Families have socialist aspects, but this doesn’t tell the whole story. You fall victim to the usual Leftist thinking on the issue: “Socialism means being nice to each other…”
Let’s start here: “… most folks do not own businesses and really have no realistic chance of doing so and hence most folks are not motivated by this.”
This is nonsense–millions of ordinary people own businesses. You need to get out more, Mike.
Your Ivory Tower does not seem to have any windows Mike.
That is still not most. 🙂
“All that state ownership requires is that the state owns the economic entities.”
This means the state owns and control all news outlets such as newspapers, television channels, etc. This is a recipe for massive corruption.
State ownership of the media does create problems, probably more than the near monopolies that we have today (and the government manipulation of the media). However, a socialist state could still have independent media centers. It depends on how economic entities are defined.
That’s another thing: Corruption. Centrally controlled, socialism opens up government for massive theft. Sure we’re cynical about our system, but that’s because we don’t look closely at what happened in the others.
All communist systems were massively corrupt and always will be. Too much power in a central location.
True, centralization without an effective system of checks & balances or competent and honest administrators will tend to lead to problems. We saw this in the recent meltdown and the “too big to fail” bailouts.
We can’t find a single and true socialist state, but heck–let’s just expiriment with the greatest country in history by implementing a method we know has failed over and over.
Sounds like a great idea.
Boredom is the enemy of man so they come up with bad ideas to fill idle time. Marx in the library basement for example.
In your first sentence your focus is on a “true socialist state”. In the second sentence you’re implying, unless I’m mistaken, that health care reform, social security, temporary but arguably necessary measures to deal with the possible fiscal collapse of the “greatest country in history” , and all such adjustments to a pure capitalist state, because they can be associated with socialism, though they do not in themselves, or even together, constitute a “true socialist state”, would bring about the failure of “the greatest country in history [for 220 years]”. I don’t buy it.
“Boredom [may be] the enemy of man” but there’s also “foolish consistency”–the result of being so fearful for the fragility one’s position that one of necessity assumes its perfection, ignoring the need for improving change.
Pardon/that was me: P.E.N.Name.
“unless I’m mistaken”
You are.
I’m arguing against those who think true socialism is a good thing.
As far as those other things bringing about America’s failure: Failure may be too strong a word. And since you find it necessary to encapsulate greatest country on earth, do you have another candidate?
To quote William F Buckley: “Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.”
I don’t need to provide another candidate. I never implied America isn’t “the greatest country on earth” up to this point. My hope was to make it clear that other nations in the past felt they were “the greatest countr[ies] on earth.” Until, that is, [an]other countr[ies] with better ideas came along. You remember those old westerns. The fastest gun is always the fastest until someone faster comes along.
I’m just not willing to assume that we’ve reached the pinnacle of societal evolution and that nothing can be done to make us better(even perhaps some social and fiscal adaptations?–which you so derisively refer to as tinkering. Don’t pooh-pooh tinkering. Some of the greatest advancements in science and technology have been the result of an individual or a group tinkering with someone else’s idea.
It could be pretty effectively argued, also, that the industrial revolution and major scientific “advances” have “disrupted” major portions of our environment, resulting in “very long lasting and serious effects”. But perhaps we should ignore that possibility because it doesn’t fit neatly into a particular ideological view.
So many of the arguments I see seem to indicate that nothing effects anything else. Like the result of 9-11 was only the two towers falling and the resultant death in NY City.
You can’t disrupt major portions of economies and culture without very long lasting and serious effects.
Experiment away, oh great tinkerers. But please do it in another country.
Yes, in fact everything effects every else. The causes and effects, for example, run in both positive and negative directions,to a greater or lesser degree, from any given ideological undertaking.
I don’t know why this has only now occured to me, but liberals seek to downplay the importance of money as a progress-driving incentive.
And yet…
They argue that by legalizing drugs we would destroy the monetary incentive of drug lords south of our border.
Hmmm.
Me thinks self-serving shannanigans are taking place.
One can hold both views, provided that it is assumed that the drug lords are primarily motivated by money. In my own case, money is not my primary motivator (I’d have gone to med school or law school instead). Yet, I can consistently claim that some people are so motivated and argue that money can be a motivating factor.
Dear Magnus, what is your problem with “soft sciences”? Think about that while you are living in a country that is suppose to motivate people to follow their careers.
Id like to add to michaels statement about socialism needing capitalism to thrive because a socialistic country also cant thrive if it could only trade with only capitalistic nations.
Stunning, Mike. Simply stunning. This was written before my time here, adrew’s comment caught my attention. The logic and thinking throughout this piece shows a fundamental inability to understand economics or history. At times you claim to be a “fiscal conservative” or moderate, but I don’t see how that could be if you are so willing to swallow socialist BS hook, line, and sinker. I suppose at the most base level, it’s your failure to understand the responsibility of ownership. Or even the underlying principles of freedom. Stunning for a philosopher.
I’ve tried for years. Now I’ve accepted the facts.
WTP, you’re throwing around some big terms here — economics, history, responsibility of ownership, underlying principles of freedom — but you substantiate none of your claims; are these points, then, not reasoned conclusions but simply your opinions?
For example, given that I don’t disagree with Mike’s post, perhaps I fail to understand the responsibility of ownership. You identify this Mike’s fundamental mistake; clearly, it’s important. But, what is it? What does Mike fail to understand about the “responsibility of ownership”?
You “don’t disagree”. Does that mean you agree? If so with what? This post is so full of “some might say” and “it could be argued” that aside from it being so one-sided in its perspective, there is no one thing you could really disagree with. Some might say George Washington wasn’t the first President. It could be argued that if pigs had wings they could fly.
But what you fail to understand about the responsibility of ownership is that when you own something you will take care of it. All things require care and maintenance, and FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, some degree of love. Stuff that is owned by “everybody” is owned by no one. No one will take care of it, or see to it that someone else takes care of it, because it doesn’t belong to them. The responsibility for maintenance and care falls to that other guy, not the guy who uses it.
No crewmember of a Naval vessel owns the ship or any part thereof, yet it’s still taken care of. Hell, there are people who literally love the ship or the area of it that they’re assigned to.
That example alone tells me that your analysis is off target; how can you explain it from your perspective?
I can explain it easily: A sense of community translates into a sense of ownership over communal property.
A quarter mile away from where I live, there’s a public park. When I take my dog there, I see people throwing away trash that isn’t theirs. Why? Because they use the park, they feel a sense of ownership for it and work to maintain it.
Q.E.D.
Ownership does not entail that someone will take good care of things. Surely you have seen poorly maintained vehicles, cars, computers and so on that people do, in fact, own. Also, public property is often well taken care of by people who care about it. As in Asur’s example, I regularly pick up trash in the park-as do several other people I see on my morning runs. I also take care of things at my university, even though I do not own it.
A naval vessel is run by military personnel who have significantly different incentives. They are trained, broken down even, in boot camps. That’s a big part of what makes this work. That and the very real understanding that they depend on the vessel and each other for their very lives. Failure to perform their jobs properly by not following orders will put them in the brig. In regular life, you just get fired and are free to look for a job more in line with your perceptions.
Do you propose to do this to society? Socialism has tried, see Mao and Stalin as the more extreme examples, and failed miserably. Hence the history reference.
As for your park example, it’s not exactly a complicated entity, but still you’re cherry picking. I could point out that there are also parks where prostitution runs rampant, but that doesn’t prove my point either. Do you really think your park is kept in its (assumedly) clean condition by people picking up paper? Or possibly is there a business that is contracted out to maintain it? And yet that is mostly done to the barest minimum standards. Which is generally cleaner, the restroom at the park or the restroom at the mall?
As for how people maintain the things THEY own. They maintain them to the standards that THEY see fit. I would not want to use a car, computer, etc. that was maintained to the standards of the average Joe. Yes, such would work fine for lazy people. They get the advantages of the work of those who care.
Q.E.D? Do you even understand what that phrase means?
“Q.E.D.” means qoud erat demonstrandum, literally “what was to be shown”.
You seem to have forgotten the point you made, so I’ll remind you: “Stuff that is owned by “everybody” is owned by no one. No one will take care of it, or see to it that someone else takes care of it, because it doesn’t belong to them.”
Your position here excludes the possibility of the examples I gave you; hence, since those examples are real, they refute your position as given. Since my point was to show that your position was false, which I did, I simply indicated that I had finished doing so.
Whoops, that was clearly posted by me.
Anyway, what really interests me is this comment you make to Mike, that: “Again, you fail to understand the underlying principles that make freedom a good thing. Your only concept of freedom appears to be the freedom of experiencing something that feels good.”
Freedom is very important to me; what are the underlying principles that make freedom a good thing, as you see them?
You want to play Gotcha with semantics? “A sense of community”. Define community. Do all members of a community feel that same sense of ownership? Or do you only define the community by those who feel that sense of ownership?
You seem to have forgotten the point of this discussion. “Let us suppose that Obama really wants to ram socialism down America’s throat. Is this a bad thing?” Yes it is. First and foremost because it restricts our freedoms to freely engage in activities of our choosing in association with those who choose to engage with us, so long as we do no harm to others. It has failed miserably time and time again. What is net immigration to/from socialist countries vs. economically free ones? Why is it that way?
I define a ‘community’ as a group with a shared interest in some end. That basic pattern should be true of any community, though the actual interaction can get complex; for example, Group A could have a shared interest with Group B, who in turn have such an interest with Group C, forming the larger community A-B-C even though A and C don’t have a shared interest between them.
The members of a community will feel ownership for whatever falls within their shared interest; hence, from the above example you can see that some members of a community might feel ownership for a park whereas others would not, even though they are all members of the same community. This should answer the questions you asked me in your first paragraph.
For the second, you say that: “First and foremost because [socialism] restricts our freedoms to freely engage in activities of our choosing in association with those who choose to engage with us, so long as we do no harm to others.”
I don’t understand how it does this; are you talking about choice of job? I don’t see how the socialist model places a necessary restriction on association between people.
If I choose to work for someone for a wage at which we both agree is fair for the work involved, socialism does not allow this.
If I invent a new widget and I wish to sell that widget for a price that other people are willing to pay for it, socialism decides what is “fair” not us.
Socialism tells me what I can and cannot do with my own property. Which effectively ceases to be my own property because I no longer have the freedom to control it as I see fit.
Socialism is opposed to freedom.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&w=480&h=390]
WTP, none of these are essential features of socialism, and all forms of government restrict how you can use your property — show me one that doesn’t and I’ll show you how it does.
The kind of socialism I’m interested in defending does this and only this: It provides for all of the essential needs of each citizen through public control of the industries involved in meeting those needs; the market still exists, but it only deals in luxury goods and services.
That’s it…nothing scary, no hidden strings, all of your civil liberties intact.
“It provides for all of the essential needs of each citizen through public control of the industries involved in meeting those needs; the market still exists, but it only deals in luxury goods and services.”
So this would mean nationalizing:
1) the food industry
2) the housing industry
3) the healthcare industry
4) the education industry
5) utilities such as electricity, water, gas
6) the auto industry until such time as people can get to work without a car
7) the financial industry
This scares the hell out of me. Just as a country like China is waking up from its nightmare, Asur wants us to go back to sleep.
Not #6 or #7, TJ.
The focus would shift to public transportation, with vehicles being a luxury commodity. I don’t know if you’re familiar with how its transit works, but Japan is a good model for this.
Likewise, public control of the financial industry isn’t needed, either — you’re probably thinking about the role it currently plays in securing transportation and housing through loans and mortgages, but it would only keep that role in terms of luxury goods.
The comparison to China is a non sequitor, as it has centralized rather than public control of its industry.
I’m curious if you can actually think of a civil liberty threatened by this.
Also, I should point out that this doesn’t prevent a capitalist market from existing for any commodity, even in a nationalized industry as you put it: If people wanted those goods more than the free version, they would just be considered luxuries, that’s all. As I said, there’s no need to regulate the luxuries market, aside from basic concerns for safety and the like.
Asur,
“That’s it…nothing scary, no hidden strings, all of your civil liberties intact.”
“Not #6 or #7, TJ.”
OK, now it’s getting personal. If you advocate government control of housing, healthcare, electricity, etc. you are advocating confiscation of my personal property. I own tiny pieces of each of these industries. Those are things that belong to me. I worked for the money that I used to invest in them. I have plans for my future, based on financial understandings with those who work in these industries. You have no right to my property. I am entitled to all of my liberties, civil and otherwise.
You think government can run these businesses better than private industry? Again, see AmTrak. Did you watch the video I posted above? Where will you find these angels?
Discussing economic issues with socialists such as yourself is like discussing women with a 15 year old boy. The boy thinks because he knows women, he “knows” women. Any man who’s made a study of women and knows anything, knows how much there is he doesn’t know and most certainly couldn’t know at 15. I’m afraid economics is simply a thing beyond your ken.
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: civil liberty
Function: noun
: freedom from arbitrary interference in one’s pursuits (as in expressing thoughts, practicing a religion, or pursuing a living) by individuals or esp. by the government and esp. as constitutionally guaranteed —usually used in pl. —see also CIVIL RIGHT
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source
WTP, it seems that your concern isn’t so much with socialist economics per se as it is with the transition to them, which you see as threatening the value of your prior investments made under a capitalist economy.
Is that correct?
“Transition” is theft.
I have concerns with socialism. Period. It’s not only about me or the value of my investments, it’s about wealth, who creates it, who watches over it, and who decides where new investments are to be made. It’s about getting new ideas off the ground and funding of them by those who know and care about those ideas. It’s about being able to hire the best talent for the job, if that is what is needed. It’s about being free to do what I want with the capital I have at my disposal. It’s about being able to borrow money, if and when I need it, at the best rate I can get. It’s about being able to loan money to whomever I choose at the best rate I can get. These are just items off the top of my head. Volumes have been written about what is wrong with socialism.
Millions of people have moved to this country for the economic freedom that it provides. There are still a few countries clinging to socialism. If it’s such a good idea, why don’t they have millions flocking to their shores?
“Millions of people have moved to this country for the economic freedom that it provides. There are still a few countries clinging to socialism. If it’s such a good idea, why don’t they have millions flocking to their shores?”
Well, that’s easy; take the current economic debate between liberals and conservatives in America today. It’s between two versions of capitalism, a social market economy and a free market economy.
Despite both being forms of capitalism, they’re quite different, and everyone on either side of the current debate is clearly aware of that — which is why they get so worked up over which direction our public policy is trending towards.
The point is that just because they’re both capitalist systems, that doesn’t mean they function the same. It’s a mistake to treat them as if they do.
The same is true of the various kinds of socialist systems out there, and it makes just as little sense to treat them collectively.
You ask why people aren’t flocking to the existing socialist states, and my guess is that most or all of the ones you’re thinking of are planned economies with centralized ownership of industry. I wouldn’t support such an economy, for similar reasons to those Friedman gives in that clip — these models quickly become dominated by corruption and inefficiency.
The version I explained is radically different, and I wish you would stop conflating it with what it is decidedly not. From what you’ve articulated, we share a lot of the same concerns; I’d love to work out whether or not they actually apply, but it’s impossible to do that when we’re using the same terms but debating about different things.
George McGovern, 1972 Democratic Presidential candidate on government involvement in business:
“My perspective on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is informed by life experience. After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with — the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.?“
Competition = greatness. Where is the competition in Mike’s model? Where is the drive to be great? The reason we still read Greek tragedies today is that they were produced by competition. Human excellence is produced by competition.
Socialism is a herd animal philosophy.
TJ, you’ve arrived at half the truth, but haven’t taken the final step: you haven’t answered why “competition = greatness”.
Or rather, you have, but you haven’t noticed: “Where is the drive to be great?”
Exactly! Competition breeds greatness because it supplies a drive to achieve. In other words, it motivates. This is true. Your mistake is that you treat competition between people as the greatest or even the only source of motivation — neither of which is true.
A single instance of someone laying down their life — now that is a yardstick for motivation — for an idea (honor? Justice? The “Good”?) kills your thesis. And there are plenty of instances of that throughout every era of recorded history, and plenty of instances of other motivations (philia? Eros? Agape?) as well.
You say that we still read the Greek the tragedies. We still read Plato, who is even from a literary perspective one of the greatest Greek authors: Plato says he writes out of love — love for wisdom, love for his mentor. Precisely who is ‘love of wisdom’ in competition with?
The notion that competition between people is the only drive to achieve greatness is not only depressing, it’s patently false.
Plato was in bitter competition with the poets, whom he thought were false prophets.
You’re thinking of the Sophists. He liked the poets a bit more than them, just not by much: In the Phaedrus, Plato lists nine professions in descending order of worth; poets come in at #6, and sophists at #8 (prophets, incidentally, were #5). And what, you ask, did Plato dislike the most — what weighed in at #9? Tyrants, of course.
In any event, Plato’s disputes with all of these groups were ideological — he was not in competition with people except insofar as they represented ideas he felt were false. We’re talking about the man who felt that only Ideas were ultimately real.
What was the nature of that ideological dispute? Plato loved truth; his criticisms of these other things hinge on how they pervert what is true.
His motivation was clearly agape.
On reflection, you could make the metaphysical claim that ideas don’t exist apart from their instantiations — for example, that sophistry doesn’t exist apart from people who are sophists — which would then let you claim that Plato’s contentions were not with ideas but with the people who held them.
That would allow you to say that it was not love of an ideal but rather rivalry (and thus competition) with people he disagreed with that motivated Plato.
The problem with this would be that your original criticism of socialism was that it removed economic competition; though the above would be competition (specifically, ideological competition), it would still not be economic competition.
This has the further problem of then allowing socialism to claim access to competitive motivation, which would seem to further weaken the original argument against it.
I still don’t see a way to frame greatness motivated by the love of one person for another as a form of competition, though.
The rivalry between poets and philosophers predates Plato.
Heraclitus: “Homer deserves to be thrown out of the contests and whipped, and Archilochus, too.” “The most popular teacher is Hesiod. People think he knew most–he who did not even know day and night: they are one.”
Plato attacks poets and poetry in the Republic 376 to 403. “…most of the stories now in use must be discarded.” “We must beg Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we strike out these and similar passages, not because they are unpoetical, or unattractive to the popular ear, but because the greater poetical charm of them, the less they are meet for the ears of boys and men who are meant to be free, and who should fear slavery more than death.”
I’ll certainly grant that there is a history of conflict between members of both groups.
The classic example of the poets’ critique of the philosophers is in Aristophanes’ The Clouds.
I’m fine with competition. I compete in sports and see the value in competition. However, I also see the value in cooperation. Greatness sometimes comes from working with others rather than against them. Presumably friendships and marriages, for example, are not made great by people competing with each other in all things.
Cooperation works when people freely choose to associate with each other and work for a common goal. Not by having something rammed down your throat, which is your first paragraph and the only fitting aspect of socialism addressed here, since socialism requires it. How much cooperation would you expect if someone else was choosing who you must marry or who your friends must be? Again, you fail to understand the underlying principles that make freedom a good thing. Your only concept of freedom appears to be the freedom of experiencing something that feels good.
Yup. And herd animals get eaten by predators. Better to be predator than prey. Better to have power and use it rightly than no power at all.
Without competition, we have little to compare our work to. If I am the only artist, than sudenly painting Cambell soup cans becomes high art.
Oh wait…..
Did you ever wonder why everyone knows the name of the guy who painted (copied) Campbell’s Soup cans but nobody knows the name of the guy who designed the original? Which one was the true artist?
Though to some degree that was Warhol’s point.
Because media and pop culture adore gay people. Same reason everyone raves about Truman Capote’s, In Cold Blood.