>I disagree. Competition usually produces immense energies spent in
>going noplace --- as Dave Noble called it, our society is a dynamic
>one which goes nowhere.
>The critical issue here is to examine the ways in which competition is
>padded with subsidies while cooperation (outside of corporations) is
>left to its own devices, often horribly underfunded. When compared on
>equal footing, I think cooperation wins hands down.
How would that break down into marxist categories? How do you argue that the competition of capitals requires subsidy but that the sphere of social labour that is not capital is more - efficient? - is that what you mean? And if so in what sense?
How could a marxist analysis be compatible with an analysis that says capital requires subsidies?