A few thoughts about #competition.
1. Competition could be seen as the defining value of our times. It is the touchstone of conservative/radical right politics. Even formerly left parties now treat it as a holy virtue. But ...
Thread/
2. ... when you look at what conservatives do, rather than what they say, you discover that competition is strictly bounded. Competition is good – as long as *we* win.
3. If they really believed in competition, they would immediately abolish both private education and inheritance. Everyone would start from the same position, and the people who are most adept at particular tasks would win.
4. Far from it. They ensure their children begin the race after an expensive education, with economic security and, often, with a $0,000s in seed money to start their first business. In other words, the 100m race commences only when their offspring are 10m from the finish line.
5. Even then, the game is rigged. Look at the sourcing of vital health equipment and services in the UK. Contracts were neither advertised nor subject to competitive tender. Instead, a VIP channel was set up for chums. theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
6. Specialist companies with a long track record of delivery were passed over in favour of companies with no record, no experience, and, in some cases, no prior activity of any kind, owned by court favourites. The money was kept within the gilded circle.
7. The sums the government has given to these companies – sometimes for contracts that have either not been fulfilled at all or have delivered substandard equipment or services – are sufficient to set up the families of the “winners” for generations.
8. It's happened before. Some of the families given vast and corrupt military procurement contracts by George I (1714-1727) remain stupendously wealthy today.
9. In fact, so averse to competition is established wealth and power that many families have sustained their social position since the 12th century.
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
10. Any attempt to bring down the barriers to competition (through taxes sufficient to break the spiral of patrimonial wealth accumulation) is dismissed as “communism”. But without such resetting, competition, which is supposed to sit at the heart of capitalism, is a fraud.
11. The hereditary “winners” must then produce spurious arguments to reconcile their inherited wealth and power with their professed belief in competition. As Sir Humphrey Wakefield does: thenational.scot/news/18483684.…
12. It’s one of the unfunny ironies of our age that, amid all the grand talk of competition, anti-trust laws have been ripped down, enabling a massive increase in mergers and acquisitions and the consolidation of corporate and financial power.
13. And guess what? They've been ripped down by the very people who claim to prize competition above all other values. The result is a suite of anti-competitive practices, enabling powerful conglomerates to strangle smaller enterprises.
14. Even as they rig the game to ensure they always win, the economic elites insist that people at the bottom of the ladder are subject to ever greater competitive pressure. This is why the Hunger Games is a good satire of our times.
15. Of course, competition is a terrible value to fetishise in the first place. By definition, only one or a few people can win. The great majority will lose.
16. Yet those who lose keep voting for those who rig the game. Why? Perhaps because of our fatal tendency to see ourselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. One day it could be me! It’s the triumph of hope over experience.
17. This improbable dream is reinforced by celebrity culture, influencers, advertisers and thousands of aspirational programmes and articles. The media and marketing, even when they don't take an overtly political position, are powerful political forces.
18. It would be better to choose a universal value that delivers universal benefits. Such as #cooperation. Our belief in the virtue of competition and our frantic efforts to win harm the lives of most, and wreck the living world on which we all depend. Nobody wins the human race.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with George Monbiot

George Monbiot Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgeMonbiot

30 Nov
This might sound strange, but I think we can judge the health of a public culture by what I call the Actor Index. This measures the proportion of featured interviews in the newspapers that are devoted to actors. The higher the proportion, the greater the trouble we’re in
Thread/
Now I have nothing against actors. But, by definition, we value them for their ability to adopt someone else’s persona and speak someone else’s words. Fetishising actors reveals an obsession with images, rather than with the realities they obscure.
Guy Debord argued that “the spectacle” (the domination of social relationships by images) is used to justify the “dictatorship of modern economic production”. It disguises and supplants the realities of capitalism, changing our perceptions until we become “consumers of illusion”.
Read 9 tweets
25 Nov
Brexit is the outcome of a civil war within capitalism. The stuff about foreigners and sovereignty and blue passports was just a smokescreen for some extremely determined economic interests. And we are mere collateral damage. My column:
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
"We will get out there and we will become incredibly successful because we will be insecure again. And insecurity is fantastic."
Peter Hargreaves (a billionaire who donated £3.2m to the Leave campaign).
The Pollution Paradox explains a lot about the state we're in:

The more damaging the enterprise, the more money it must spend on politics to ensure it’s not regulated out of existence. As a result, politics comes to be dominated by the most harmful companies and oligarchs.
Read 4 tweets
23 Nov
A few thoughts about vaccination.
1. Once a vaccine against Covid-19 which has received regulatory approval is offered to you, please accept it. It will help protect you and other people. Getting vaccinated is a pro-social act.
Thread/
2. There could be some risks associated with it. But once it has received full approval, we can be pretty confident that any risks of vaccination will be much lower than the risks of not vaccinating: namely allowing a pandemic that kills people and ruins lives to keep raging.
3. Everything we do is risky to some extent. Even doing nothing (sitting at home all day without exercise is really bad for your health). But you will almost certainly face higher risks travelling to the clinic to get your injection then you will face from the injection itself.
Read 7 tweets
20 Nov
1. As another deadline for a deal with the EU sails by, there is still no sense of urgency from the UK government. It’s letting the clock run down towards the no-deal Brexit it wants. But why?
Because Brexit can best be understood as a civil war within capitalism.
Thread/
2. The point of it was best summarised by Steve Bannon: “the deconstruction of the administrative state.” If you create enough chaos, regulations cannot be enforced, tax evaders go unpunished, and the restraints on the most brutal and exploitative forms of capitalism fall away.
3. Broadly speaking, there are two main types of capitalist enterprise. One seeks an accommodation with the administrative state, and benefits from stability, predictability and regulations that exclude dirtier and rougher competitors. It can live with a thin form of democracy.
Read 18 tweets
19 Nov
Having come to the party 6 months late, @BBCNews now claims to have "revealed" the PPE scandal. No acknowledgement of those (@GoodLawProject, @openDemocracy, @BylineTimes, some of us at @guardian) who've spent all this time banging our heads against the wall of media indifference
In reality, the PPE scandal reveals a massive failure of journalism, by the BBC and other mainstream outlets. They ignored it until it became unignorable.
And they STILL aren't covering a equally outrageous (and probably more lethal) parallel scandal: the replacement of trained clinicians with call centre workers, and the wastage of £12bn, caused by the government's outsourcing of contact tracing.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Read 5 tweets
18 Nov
A few words about what led to today’s column.
I’m writing a book about feeding the world without destroying the planet.
Some of the shocking things I’ve discovered prompted me to think about strategic food reserves. So I thought I’d asked the government about ours.
Thread/
I was startled to discover that we don’t have any. This made me think about January 1. Then it occurred to me to look into warehouse capacity.
In other words, it came from a deep dive into an issue that's not in the news, as most of my columns do.
I know this might sound strange, but I feel it’s essential that at least some journalists have as little to do with the media as possible. If you’re embedded in the media’s world, it is hard to see past it to the gigantic issues it doesn’t cover.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!