Through discussion of Karl Marx and his “The Communist Manifesto,” issues rise about the practical ordinance of his proposition. For example, through debate of reasons against the class system containing proletarians, Marx brings up the topic of competition. He writes, “This organization of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves” (46). Basically, Marx argues that the dividing of workers into both a class system and contradicting political parties effects productivity by creating competition. Perhaps competition, rather than provide incentive to work harder, is discouraging and scares underprivileged workers right out of a job.
Where Marx may devise a solid point, I believe that his logic is wrong. Firstly, competition has been part of society for years, and is not only a part of human nature, but all animal nature, as well. For example, in the wild, competing tribes of similar (if not the same) species will compete in battle over territory, offspring, and food. If animals were not equipped with the ability to battle, no tribe or group would ever be successful, because in the wild, there are simply not enough resources for every animal ever born to live it’s full lifespan. Secondly, competition fuels excellence. This can be explored in the world of athletics. Wherever the highest competition lies exists the best athletes among the world for any particular sport. For most sports, the emphasis on winning starts in junior high to high school. It is here where the concept of winning becomes more important than equal playing time. This reasoning is simple. With more emphasis on victory, it becomes more important to have the best possible players on the field. This can be directly related to economics; it is most efficient to have the best possible workers doing the tasks that need to be accomplished. After the world of high school athletics, the best of the athletes who excelled at their level have to compete against hundreds of competitors who were just as great, if not greater than they were. The final step is similar to the last, when few college players ever have the opportunity of entering a professional draft, where the players are picked from best to worst. It is at the professional level where competition is so great that players are actually paid to perform their abilities, with millions willing to watch their excellence. In the end, it is simple. Competition is necessary in not only matters of athletics, but also all aspects of life. It is the key to survival in the wild, and economic success in the world of people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You say, "Marx argues that the dividing of workers into both a class system and contradicting political parties effects productivity by creating competition. Perhaps competition, rather than provide incentive to work harder, is discouraging and scares underprivileged workers right out of a job."
Perhaps you could clarify "discouraging" and scaring people out of a job" a little more fully.
I also wonder if he was saying these divisions get people to compete against each other in a negative way ie. they do things that might be against their "own interests" as a working class. For example, the last batch of tax cuts were supported by the bulk of American society even though they really only benefited a very few.
Your analogy is extremely thought provoking. My wife is an animal lover, was the eduaction director at the Baton Rouge Zoo, and she pointed me to this:
"In contemporary science, biologist Alan Dugatkin’s work in animal cooperation "Cooperation Among Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective" offers numerous examples of friendship among nonhumans.
The social activities of birds, for instance, illustrate the great degree of cooperation found in the nonhuman world. Birds regularly hunt together and provide information to one another about where food can be found. In addition, many species of birds provide warnings about predators, thereby establishing a means by which they can survive and thrive through cooperation. In fact, many other animal species both hunt cooperatively and work together to warn others as to the whereabouts of predators."
She said this was just one example of literally dozens where species and interspecies work together for the benefit of all. Likewise, I think if we explored anthropolgy we may find societies built upon and deloped with the sence of community rather than individual competition. This does not mean competition does not have it's place, but can we argue all or nothing in these scenerios?
Also, if we look at athletics, I think it is important to note that competition does indeed push athletes to better their opponents. Although in some sports, teams must work together to achieve a goal. This could be looked at in other areas as well.
Competition is "good" and necessary, but cooperation and not "exploiting" others' weakness is also desirable (think it is only through cooperation taht we agree to abide by laws).
Thoughts?
I agree competition is very important in our society. But I also agree teamwork and cooperation is greatly needed. Using the athlete example, I played three sports myself and my goal was to beat everyone in sprints and whatever else we were doing at practices. However, when it came to game day I knew the only way to succeed or win was to work with my teammates. So, yes, I would say competition is in our nature but I do believe there is a way to get along and be able to be treat other as equals even if one is being competitive.
Post a Comment