Anti-Competitionist Books

People on the bottom want to keep others in their place. This phenomena has been well studied, hence why I said he is probably projecting. I'm more fortunate than most but I do not value "winning"--life is just way more than that and shouldn't be reduced to it. Competition leads to pain, anxiety, and suffering (hence why I called it toxic).
I think it's deeper than just capitalism. Capitalism is probably one of the worst systems when it comes to encouraging this social phenomena but we see it run through almost everything unfortunately. Humanity will only progress when we get rid of this concept (anti-hierarchical thinking is related as well and more general than just anti-capitalist thinking but it's still not far enough either).
??? I'm not b8ing. Do you think I'm b8ing just because I have a different viewpoint than you? This place is such a fucking echo-chamber.

>I can't help but feel that competition has lead to society privileging the best, the richest, the prettiest, the smartest, etc., etc. while ignoring everybody else and their own virtues.
> own virtues
Who decides virtue ? The slave ? The master ? Or should we just fight it out ? The latter is what competition is. It created 100% of everything of worth. It's unpleasant, but less so than the stone-age.

>No Contest stands as the definitive critique of competition. Contrary to accepted wisdom, competition is not basic to human nature; it poisons our relationships and holds us back from doing our best. In this new edition, Alfie Kohn argues that the race to win turns all of us into losers.
>goodreads.com/book/show/111217.No_Contest#

>Who decides virtue ?
We all do. No need for fighting.
Thank you so much! Going to have to give this one a read.

>rat race culture
There is a difference between this^ and healthy masculine competition. The capitalistic “rat-race” is more of a feminine type of competition where there is no large payoff at the end: it is a series of small bits of satisfaction and then it ends when you retire.
Actual competition is exemplified by war. Competition for land, or honor, or ideaology, and it is miserable, hard work and you either win or lose, live or die. It is the masculine climax of competition, which is healthy to avoid what we find ourselves in today

Fuck off psychopath. If you're so into war why don't you go fight in the Ukraine? War fucking sucks, asshole. There is nothing "manly" about it.

You are clearly showing feelings of inferiority compared to your environment, which you process as a negative feeling towards competition, when it is in reality your own shortcomings. You must embrace this feeling of inferiority and use it as a tool for development.

I don't care about competition. I don't need to prove anyone that I'm better than them, because I don't care what they think. I am the smartest sexiest guy ever lived and it's such a base level common knowledge to me that I laugh at the people who don't think of me like that. This is my world and you are just living in it

>There is a difference between this^ and healthy masculine competition. The capitalistic “rat-race” is more of a feminine type of competition where there is no large payoff at the end: it is a series of small bits of satisfaction and then it ends when you retire.
>Actual competition is exemplified by war. Competition for land, or honor, or ideaology, and it is miserable, hard work and you either win or lose, live or die. It is the masculine climax of competition, which is healthy to avoid what we find ourselves in today

Attached: 1647150549816.png (628x620, 359.51K)

>while ignoring everybody else and their own virtues
If someone had virtues wouldnt they be “the best” or at least “good” at something?
If virtue means worthyness in a particular category, wouldn’t that still be privileging “the best”?
If you call something virtuous, doesn’t that mean you consider it to have merit? If it doesnt, IDK if Virtue is the right word for it.

Seems more like you would like to expand competition into more feilds you find meritorious rather than doing away with competion all together. Otherwise there really isnt a reason to have “virtues” at all.

Attached: 0FF3A2B1-F203-4B49-ABBF-FF9503D55C85.jpg (619x704, 170.02K)

Some jealous fags are going to call a narcissist but you are baseder than Patrick baitman

I don't care about being "inferior". It doesn't bother me because I know it doesn't matter. Competition is the only context in which it would but I know it's bullshit. Like I said, I actually happen to be really privilege so whatever you're think about me is probably wrong.

>I never ever celebrate "wins". I think that's toxic.
You don't sound like a guy wit a lot of wins.

Virtues mean something good about a person. Virtue doesn't mean "the best". If I say that someone is kind it doesn't mean that he is the kindest person ever or even the kindest person I know, it means that his personality has the attribute of being kind. Saying that it is better to be good rather than to be bad has nothing to do with competition. I consider that kind of talk sophistical.

>books which are against competition?
Do you mean explicitly (the author comes out and says COMPETITION IS BAD AND HERE'S WHY) or implicitly (they either show competition being bad, or non-competition being good)?

A mixture of the two is Howard's End by E. M. Forster. There are two factions basically; the artistic, non-commercial side and the competitive, tough, businessman side. Forster's conclusion is you need some sort of compromise, but he was a limp-wristed faggot.

Andre Agassi's autobiography "Open" (much better than the average sports biography) ends up with an anti-competitive message but mostly implicitly. It shows a hyper-competitive world (professional tennis) from the perspective of a guy who didn't enjoy it much.
Lots of people have looked to Eastern philosophy to escape what they see as counterproductive Western competitiveness. Try Alan Watts "The Way Of Zen" for example. Or in a lighter vein, "The Tao Of Pooh".

Thats a very feminine gay ass meta-narritve. Like when a hypster psychoanalyzes why men manspread or something.
No it doesnt. war just is. You actually see quite a variance in the effect of conflict. Some of the more hush hush ones are actually that many people really find the rush and the immediacy highly fulfilling, but feel like they shouldnt express it on pains of seeming like an ideologue. Big highs and lows. Look at any non ideologically driven memiore and you usually see ups and downs in various places rather than a concreate narritive. And this is a widely aplicable trend, look at a 17th century soldiers memiores, or an Athenian soldiers writtings, or some non die hard ideologue in the 20th century. Or hell some Mujahadeen.
I think of all the war fiction, I think The things We Carried actually expressed the veriety of sensations you can apreciate in soldiers lives specifically because it doesnt push some reductive thesis, but gives a veriety of very evocative experiences.

try to reason out the absence of competition in a reply here
how do you reconcile people's different needs and wants with the capacity to provide it for them?
if all people work together without competition, how do you encourage or reward someone for doing a lot more work than a predetermined quota would require of them?
how do you do you solve the problem that logistically (and as far as ability to compensate those involved) there are finite positions for every type of job?
a problem like that arises the moment you start looking at anything in particular - if I'm a physicist, not every university (hell not even every country) has a "gravitational physics" department; those that do can teach, support and help grow a finite number of people, so what do I do in that case if I want to do gravity research but I also can't compete with others for the available spots?
the more you think about it, the more you'll see that you have to get rid of every possible metric that could potentially place two people at odds (you have more followers than me, you have more money than me, you are better educated, you have access to better resources where you live, etc.)

You're obviously privileged. It is already observable in your unhealthy aversion to competition. You are obviously a lower form of personality who cannot assert himself in competitive situations. You turn yourself away because you're a little bitch with no self-cognizance. You will likely continue to misattribute your feelings this way, and in many other instances, because you have a low capacity for self-assessment, and have been too comfortable for too long, stunting your development.

yes, and good is an expression of degree. Someone is a good person means that they posses more “goodness” than a non good person.
Its comparative ability. And thus compition can, and does, occure.

If you think of things in terms of degrees its a compitition. You would prefer a more honest lawyer than a less honest lawyer. THe more honest lawyer “won” in the compitition of honesty. Unless you would like honesty to not be a factor in determining lawyerhood.

I dont see that as sophestry in the least. ethos is often an important thing that people compete to have. Maybe there should be more compitition in that sector in many cases rather than non virtuous men having the same standing as virtuous men all other things being equal.

>this

You don’t need to read any books that will entrench you in this thinking. What you need is to ponder your own question, and you’ll see why it won’t work ever.

First of all it isn’t something you can do anything about. At best you can create a society that competes in the appearance of cooperation, and you’re going to kill the genuine cooperation that is there, because cooperation is now a prison.

It's not relative. If you do good acts, you are good. But even if it were, it would be incorrect to think of these facts in terms of a competition rather than simply as just facts. It would be like saying that "Philadelphia is beating Beijing in the competition of being closest to New York City". It's so stupid and insane to think in this way. However, I think you know what I mean by competition so I find this line of argument to be disingenuous.

You don't know shit about me, so don't pretend like you do.
War sucks. Reading accounts of soldiers does not give the full picture. War is wrong. Simple as.
You don't know who I am but good job psycho-analyzing me anyway. Funny how If I say my opinion I'm automatically a loser, but once I tell you that I'm actually privileged all of a sudden the explanation for why I must have the opinion that I do is that it's because I'm a spoilt pampered rich boy. Whatever. I don't really care what you think. You are a lost cause.

>It's not relative. If you do good acts, you are good.
If you do smart acts, you are smart
But even if it were, it would be incorrect to think of these facts in terms of a competition rather than simply as just facts.
Its a fact that you are smart.
> "Philadelphia is beating Beijing in the competition of being closest to New York City"
If thats the criteria you want thats a perfectly legitament competition, or I guess comparision, to have. If you are having a dinner party for a number of people, and most of them live in new york, and some of them live in atlanta, Philly seems like a better choice then Beijing.
> I think you know what I mean by competition so I find this line of argument to be disingenuous.
Is the problem here that you deliniate capacity and action? Or maybe that you are specifically against head to head jockying for positions rather than quantifying the relitive appropriateness of thigs and people to the specifc purposes in general?

> War sucks. Reading accounts of soldiers does not give the full picture.
…OK but war is a gestalt “thing” so unilateral statements are kinda bogus.
> War is wrong. Simple as.
why? If you feel strongly enough about something why should you not enforce it?

It is you that is the lost cause. Unable to psychoanalyze yourself. Is it any wonder why everyone sees the error in your logic but you? You are a loser because you are privileged. Your lifestyle thus far has obviously left you stunted, unable to differentiate the objective from the subjective, and unable to differentiate internal and external feelings.

Just like perfect meritocracy is impossible so is perfect non-competition, but we can work towards deleting all competition by getting rid of a lot of institutions.
Science, for example, is unfortunately dominated by egocentric competition for resources and for money, for prizes and for positions, for papers and for citations, for "eminence" and for "legacies". It's awful and we should change that.
Science should be about science--which is a human endeavor, not one of "great men". We have seen how this turned out countless times throughout history in the many scientific disputes between scientists like Newton and Leibniz (which not only was a dispute of personalities but became also one between nations (viz. Germany and Britain) and which had consequences for the development of British science thereafter). It's stupid and a waste of time and resources.
Perhaps where competition cannot be avoided we should prefer methods of resource allocation which are not so toxic (e.g. handing food to the hungriest instead of to the strongest or whatever; or using a lottery system to allocate jobs and positions to people).
Sure, I haven't thought it completely all out but that's why I'm asking for books ;). Thanks again to this guy and a thank you to this user for his suggestions. All suggestions are appreciated.

Any tranny commie book
>Seriously, why can't we all just work together?
Why the fuck would I work together with a loser like you?

> If you do smart acts, you are smart
Correct
> Its a fact that you are smart.
True, it is not a competition (in the sense that I'm using).
> If thats the criteria you want thats a perfectly legitament competition, or I guess comparision, to have.
Comparison is the right word here, competition is not. Even if Philly "wins" as the city where the dinner party is held, that doesn't really make it a competition. Or rather, the definition of competition that I'm using doesn't admit that use of the word. I think you know what I mean by competition so I don't see the point in this line of argument.
> Or maybe that you are specifically against head to head jockying for positions rather than quantifying the relitive appropriateness of thigs and people to the specifc purposes in general?
Essentially, yeah.

> I think you know what I mean by competition so I don't see the point in this line of argument.
>Essentially, yeah.
Ok, well I think thats just a differentiation in framing and semantics more than any tangible change then really, which I think is my confussion

Its the difference between comparing a number of options against a singular goal (and therefore indirectly each other) and comparing a number of options against each other. AN open selection and a closed selection. Which society goes back and forth between depending on context. A teacher sometimes says the class average but I rarely see them telling everyone everyones results.
And when there is no set goal, often times a compition is best. In contract work, without competition people and groups get lazy, because they dont need to try to do better then another, they dont have anything to push them beyond.
And without a challanger people often do not get better at what they do. And some activities are explicitely opposition irl. laywering for example again. or whenever there is partisanship.

so it doesnt make sense to just focus on one or the other, because they are both fundamental operations of selection.

In fact if the options themselves change in reaction to the knowledge of other options, and this is benificial, why not do it.

A compition for who gets to host the olympics, city a just built a new park which could make them more fitting, in reaction city b increased the development of a stadium so that their option is more enticing. Open selection, in other words, compitition, can increase the quality of the options themselves if their goal is to be selected. THis doesnt mean that everything needs to be an open selection, but some things can very much benifit.

>…OK but war is a gestalt “thing” so unilateral statements are kinda bogus.
We all know what war is. War is always the same, and it always has the same result (it's result, in fact, is mainly how we know it's a war). The result sucks, therefore war sucks.
>why? If you feel strongly enough about something why should you not enforce it?
War is just another form of competition, except this time it results in loss of life. And why? so that psycopaths can legally steal, kill, and rape? and so that the wealthy can get wealthier and advance their political aims? It's fucking bullshit.

Kropotkin maybe? His mutual aid book

There is no "we" here. I disagree with you and you can't stop me from pushing to achieve my own goals. That's called competition.

Remember there's nothing you can do about it.

We can stop it.

> We all know what war is. War is always the same, and it always has the same result (it's result, in fact, is mainly how we know it's a war). The result sucks, therefore war sucks.
you talk about it like its some metaphysical thing rather than a category of action.
Always the same? always the same result?
I guess if you twist your words enough to be as vague and unuseful as possible. What if the brits were kicked out of india in the late 1700s before full on colonialism? what if Britian didnt fight germany in wwii? What if ROme didnt conquer the mediteranian? I think a more useful conclusion is that things in war can suck. just like anything categorical, unilateral statements are usually dismally unrepresentative. And its costs and benifits should be weighed in context.
> War is just another form of competition, except this time it results in loss of life. And why? so that psycopaths can legally steal, kill, and rape?
No, War is when one party disputes the authoritative power of another party on some grounds and thus attempts to enforce its own outside of the consent of the former.

If one believes that it is abhorent to allow x to exist by the tennents of their faith or that they deserve y or that z is just enough, and those motives outweigh the potential consequences of this war, it makes sense why they would engage in it.

>Yes we can!
Do you think or just type?
To even try and stop me would be competition, pursuing your own goals in exclusion of mine.
Thus you aren't anti-competition. You've implicitly admitted that it's a worthy cause to prioritize yourself over others in your efforts.

The only "anti-competition" response would be to lie down and take it whenever someone wants to walk over you.

If we is I. Virtue by consensus can potentially be virtue, but not necessarily. Ring of Gyges and all.

there is also competition by pathos.
Which is still competition mind you, but trying to get stepped on as much as possible and making sure there is a camera there to see it to win the pitty competition has also been somewhat successful.

Lol, that's true.

read lacan. everything is built upon the phallus or lackthereof

So there was this guy named Karl Marx

Anti-competition means the reduction of competition. see Thank you! Will check it out. Haven't read him yet but I've been meaning to.

No. anti compition would be against all compitition, but you would like to redirect it. I think being axiomatic only leads to queer results. Treating compitition like some overarching baddie I think is scapegoating at best.

Anyways, non competition would necessitate universal agreement on things besides. And anyways, I like copitition in many ways since you actually try to test your limits against someone else trying to test their own. Also, why would you give a lotery for a position unless you are a representitive body like a jury? This seems actively anti-fitness. both reducing ones pride and ability.

>mfw disliking competition = creates competition

Attached: 1647295076441.gif (600x900, 861.4K)

This one time I saw a lad do something and I thought, "Well I wonder if I could do that," so I had a cheeky go at it. Competition's alright in moy book.

Attached: 1577476436237.png (297x250, 149.7K)

>Reading accounts of soldiers does not give the full picture.
And your argument against the anecdotes of the people who participated in war and speak highly of their affinity towards it is....

>Competition leads to pain, anxiety, and suffering (hence why I called it toxic).
Competition also leads to bettering yourself, your family, and society

without competition, how do you regulate incompetence?

this is what crashed soviet union
this is what wrecked yugoslavia
t. got parents from both
if you are not competing, you just become a stagnant decaying unproductive incompetent bureocracy that just gets wrecked by outside forces who do compete

No it fucking didn’t. Learn actual history.

>how do you regulate incompetence?
You don't. That's why all socialist theories rely on post-scarcity. You have so much plenty that even the most gross incompetence won't cause serious problems. And then you let the dumbest and most vile breed like rabbits.

>post scarcity economy
ahh yes the leftist intellectualism take on economy
that's like discussing post gravity flight
or fuel efficiency of an infinite fuel engine

leftists got wrecked so fucking hard in the 20th century with communism that i dont understand how the fuck is anyone still taking any of their shit seriously
communists need to make another communist country, and fast! no one else seems interested to starve them to death