[QatzelOk]

For me, China is an interesting country with a long history, and many traditions and customs that might be useful or interesting for our culture to imitate.

But for our leaders, they are competitors for our working class.

For most of history, older people were considered a useful and interestijng reservoir of experience and wisdom. But for our leaders, they are just competitors for working class positions.

For millenia, the genders lead complimentary lives that intersected every night in a cold, damp cave. But in our day, our leaders would like us to consider them competitors for jobs.

Virtually every nuance of the human experience has been distorted by capitalism and competition.

Why must everything be reduced to competitive advantage or disadvantage? Is it really human nature to fight everyone to the death for table scraps?

Or has capitalism destroyed civil society in order to squeeze more money from places they shouldn't even be allowed to enter into?

[Zyx]

Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers.

The very simple axiom of "Divide and Conquer" sheds light on your philosophy. The prestigious WEB DuBois had made note on how the unions of the 1920s racially segregated and this flaw of theirs weakened their efforts towards gaining real demands from their corporations. Today, we can see that 'immigrants' are demonized so to delude the native proletariat into being in competition with 'foreigners' and this leads to an adaptation to this public sentiment that weakens a classless cause. Is competition a strategic fore for capitalism? Of course, because a unified class conscious class would surely become irked of its abuses and, likely, revolt.

[amanamuse]

Is everything competition?

No, as someone may have pointed out to you, some things are the key to the doors of hell.

[QatzelOk]

the unions of the 1920s racially segregated and this flaw of theirs weakened their efforts towards gaining real demands from their corporations

Exactly. So racial segragation actually benefited the ruling class who were able to play one subordinate class against another, just like the same group do by manufacturing wars and civil wars.

They set up everyone to believe in "competition" and then they sit back and watch the groups they want to control fight each other.

In reality, there is far more strength in cooperation for the working class. But when they try to cooperate, the people who want to own them will do anything to destroy their freedom of assembly.

And in rich countries, instead of paid goons with baseball bats, we have a media-tranquilized society who's ability to organize has been dampered with commercial mythology that stresses how much better everyone is when we compete with each other.

That's why professional sports are so important on media. That and because they give people a symbol of recreation (winning teams, sports events) that helps them deal with their lack of free time.

[President-Obama]

Well, it all comes down to evolution - so, yes, everything is competition...

[QatzelOk]

Well, it all comes down to evolution - so, yes, everything is competition...

So dinoasaurs were competing with mosquitoes for survival?

I guess the mosquitoes learned to recycle faster than those less competitive dinos.

---

What I am saying is that you can't just throw the word "evolution" on a page and think you've made a point. What is the relationship between evolution and competing with China for auto-sector jobs?

[Ash Faulkner]

His point was quite clear: that all organisms, man included, are competitive. Thus, politics reflects nature.

In any case, I disagree with your assertion in the first place. Everything is not competitive. My relationships, friendships, and cultural interests are not competitive. They are as important a part of my life as my labour - more so, in fact (sorry Marxists!) Either you live in a horrifically political world, or you're politically obsessed and try to mould your entire life to those principles. It's the sign of an insecure mind, desperate to find a theory to define them for fear of having to define themselves. Personally, I think it's the latter.

[QatzelOk]

that all organisms, man included, are competitive.

So cancer cells and ants compete with each other?

I thought they cooperated?

[NYYS]

Actually (and this is based off my extremely limited knowledge of anything medical, so take it with a grain of salt) my understanding is that frequently when tumors are removed benign ones down(blood)stream will begin to grow and become malignant. The one that was removed was cutting off the other one, competing for space or blood or whatever it is cancer cells need to grow.

So yes, cancer does compete with itself.

[QatzelOk]

Cancer competes with its own cancer, or with other cancers?

And what about ants? Do they compete or cooperate?

Do cancer cells also cooperate with each other?

And lions, do they compete to see who gets to have sex with the female, or do they play this game cooperatively in order to ensure good hunters? It seems to be that it can only work - this game of Who's strongest - if all the lions agree to play by the same rules... which is cooperation.

----------

See, the question this thread is asking is: Is everything competition?

Obviously, competition exists.

[pikachu]

Is everything competition?

No, you'll learn that when a multi-national military assembled from all distant parts of the world comes together to crack down on some motherfucker whose actions they think have violated their "collective interest". See China, 1900.

Our primary collective interest is survival. If it is threatened by anything, from environmental collapse to nuclear war or alien invasion, we will cooperate rather than compete. See the two duck families near my house who hate each other and compete, but immidiately put aside their differences and form a united military formation upon the approach of a dog.

[QatzelOk]

the two duck families near my house who hate each other and compete

The fact that these ducks live near a house might explain why they are forced to hate each other: their resources are extremely limited because of human encroachment on every parcel of land.

The need for a "dog" to get them to cooperate demonstrates how these ducks are avoiding their real survival-threatening enemy: human sprawl.

[Dave]

Are you seriously rooting for ducks against people?

Ducks look kind of cool but overall are annoying. Back when I lived around Chicago ducks always shat on the docks at the Yacht Club, so we kept BB guns at the marina to shoot ducks whenever they showed up. Good riddance.

[QatzelOk]

Are you seriously rooting for ducks against people?

No, and it's not a competition.

Humans are abusing land-use in a way that imperils both ducks and humans. Ducks - like most other species - have a function that humans cannot comprehend, but that is NOT an excuse to eradicate them or their natural sanctuaries.

If mankind can't learn this, he deserves to die of stupidity and arrogance.

[Dave]

What function do ducks have?

Don't get me wrong I don't want to wipe out ducks or nature

But really what is the essential function of the duck? I'd like to know, perhaps you're more up to date about quackery than I am.

[QatzelOk]

What function do ducks have?

I don't know, and neither do you.

There a lot of things you and I don't know about nature, which is why it is so stupid to be constantly assaulting it in the name of greed.

[pikachu]

The fact that these ducks live near a house might explain why they are forced to hate each other: their resources are extremely limited because of human encroachment on every parcel of land.

False. The humans, including myself, but far from limited to myself, are actually providing a substantial portion of the food supply of these ducks. The ducks also have plenty of territory away from the humans to live on, but they consistently try to get closer and closer until we find them living right on the walkway.

[Dave]

I don't know, and neither do you.

There a lot of things you and I don't know about nature, which is why it is so stupid to be constantly assaulting it in the name of greed.

So with zero evidence whatsoever you're assuming ducks have some sort of irreplaceable function?

Do we have any waterfowl experts?

[QatzelOk]

with zero evidence whatsoever you're assuming ducks have some sort of irreplaceable function?

Okay, so I just read that a survey says that Danes are the happiest people on earth.

But is this survey really useful in a competitive world?

What if the Danes are particularly competitive, and they want to win "happiest people" awards? Everyone would feel a social pressure to answer in a positive way in order to win. Win! Win!

So Lars is asked, "Are you happy?" and he pulls the rusty nail out of his forehead and yells, "You bet I am!" But he's just being competitive.