Notices by STⒶRFLEET (psybernetic@kolektiva.social)

@neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname that's more collaborative than competitive, yeah? You're working together toward a common goal and seeing what works best rather than trying to be the last one standing. An employer I once had would set offices against each other, then have them cooperate, and alternate between the two every few years as the presidents changed. Fucked with our heads a lot and made it hard to work with some offices that never got out of the competitive mindset.

Become ungovernable

@AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname hold up, a case study in how this claim is false is Sears. Sears brought in an executive who believes this absurd idea that competition always produces the best results and incorporated it into the internal structure of the company. Departments within a single store now had to compete with each other.

Where is Sears now? Gone. Cooperation and collaboration produce much better results.

@neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname I suppose you could look at it that way, although Sears is more an example of how competition rotted an otherwise successful business from within. An organization divided against itself will fail, and can be extrapolated to class society as a whole.

@neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
"Genuine competition" is better handled as a collaborative effort with the benefit of all as the goal. Competition breeds protectionism. Competing governments, businesses, even toxic family members seek to win at the expense of others. Competition is hostility. Its end is ruthless efficency, not greatest benefit.

Sears was operating on the assumption that internal competition would cause the creme to rise to the top. It didn't. Departments fought for resources, cooked their books, bought the cheapest goods they could to sell and it caused one of the biggest and oldest retailers in the US to spectacularly implode. It exacerbated the already tenuous position department stores have been in since the advent of online shopping.

@AlexanderKingsbury @neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname

No. Competition on any economic or societal level is damaging over time. Even meaningless "friendly" competitions are prone to fostering hostility. Competition creates an "other," which at its worst devolves into genocidal behavior, at its best into domineering hierarchies. Opposition to competition in favor of cooperation isn't seeking protection, it's pursuing liberation.

I pointed to Sears specifically because it refuted your claim that competition always produces the best results. There are other examples, but Sears is the clearest and most obvious.

@AlexanderKingsbury @neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname

Semantics. Competition doesn't engender excellence. More often than not it forms perverse incentives. Sears wasn't outcompeted by other similar businesses. It was sabotaged by a market ideologue who introduced competition into the internal workings of the organization. Previously friendly sections of the stores turned on each other. Professional athletes turn to harmful drugs to increase their performance and therefore income.

The goal of capitalism isn't to make the best products or provide the best services. It's to make the most profits. The methods for doing so are varied, yet it always boils down to profits and and finding the floor at which people will grumble without revolting. Competition in socioeconomy is a race to the bottom.