Progress Is Better Achieved by Competition Than Cooperation
Summary:
Competition exists when two or more vie for the same thing. Cooperation, on the other hand, involves the formation of alliances to accomplish, or compete for, a shared objective. Therefore, cooperation and competition are often perceived as contrasting terms.
Pains Taken For Progress
Webster defines progress as the onward movement or advance; the gradual steady improvement of human life in a direction that and affects the very fabric of existence, ultimately impacting the social, religious, cultural, economic geopolitical aspects of life. Progress, as a whole, can be seen as a reactive force - a reaction of comparisons to that which previously existed. Progressive, according to Webster, is descriptive of forward movement or advance. Humanity's journey has been that of continuous progression, although subtle at times and not entirely without resistance and opposition. Humanity's progression has been a result of competition and cooperation, either acting independently of the other or in conjunction with one another. When progress is achieved through competition, it is achieved more effectively when cooperation is also present.
Competition exists when two or more vie for the same thing. Cooperation, on the other hand, involves the formation of alliances to accomplish, or compete for, a shared objective. Therefore, cooperation and competition are often perceived as contrasting terms, a common ploy in public debate - to present a choice between two apparent opposites and then challenge people to choose between them (Webster 200). The choice can be stacked in at least two ways. First, it can be made to seem impossible, morally and practically, to choose one of the alternatives, as in war over peace, or wrong over right. The other, more subtle approach to presenting choice between opposites, is to load the question by presenting alternatives that need not necessarily be so, since in reality we can have both. In fact, with both, one may even enhance the other. These more subtle contrasts include self-interest versus benevolence, and individualism versus community.
The contrived contrast between competition and cooperation is at least as old as the industrial revolution. John Ruskin, for instance, who knew something about art but little about economics and government, once declared "government and cooperation are in all things the laws of life; anarchy and competition the laws of death." (Wikipedia)
Ruskin's argument and those of his modern counterparts is seductive because of the emotional overtones that his words carry. Competition invites images of conflict, selfishness, individualism, dog-eat-dog behavior and survival of the fittest. Cooperation, on the other hand, suggests the opposite, namely harmony, benevolence, community, caring, and everything uplifting. But in reality, the contrast between competition and cooperation is another case of an unnecessary alternative, if for no other reason than the single shared element - people.
Even if we labor over the mistaken impression that competition is bad per se, it would still be difficult to imagine a society devoid of competition. Competition has even worked itself into the definition of our most basic social sciences. We formally refer to economics as the study of "the efficient allocation of scarce resources among competing uses." (Casler 3) Politics is referred to as the "relations between special interest groups competing for limited resources." (Schattschneifer 8) War is a violent competition for resources - especially land - hence Karl von Clausewitz' famous remark that "war is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means." (Gordon 400) In saying this, he is implying, competitions are won by those with the most power. Political science is defined as "an academic discipline which studies power and the distribution of power in different types of political systems." (Webster 912) All life is ultimately competitive.
Even when competition is not supposed to exist, it nonetheless functions. In the former communist Soviet Union, a system in which the state owned production and goods in order to eliminate competition, competition flourished in the face of efforts to crush it. Communist party members competed for favors from party bosses and to acquire consumer goods that were unavailable in the shops without bribes or blackmail (Friedman 125). The United States, on the other hand, takes great strides to protect competition.
An example of the U.S.'s commitment to maintaining competition was in the passage of legislation insuring competition among members of the same industry. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, "captains of industry" created giant business complexes that controlled entire industries, thus creating monopolies. Economic power was concentrated in large corporations and in combinations of business concerns. They regulated the supply of goods and set high prices for their products. Without competition between companies to distribute the same product, there was massive inflation of prices, leaving consumers at an economic disadvantage. The public's outcry resulted in passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. This act authorized the federal government to institute proceedings against monopolies in order to dissolve them. Its first enforcement was in the "trust-busting" days of President Theodore Roosevelt. (Coleman 609) History is interwoven with overzealous competition for power, especially through use of war. The wars of King Louis XIV of France are examples of such wars.
The wars of Louis XIV brought on the Treaty of Pyrenees and the Peace of Utrecht. The Treaty of Pyrenees ended the Thirty Years War between France and Spain in 1659, which itself was caused by a gradual increase in intoelrance, religious sectionalism, increased diversity, as well as the need of Louis XIV to maintian his influence in the region.. The treaty also arranged for a marriage between Louis XIV of France and Maria Theresa of Austria, the daughter of Philip IV of Spain. Maria Theresa was forced to renounce her claim to the Spanish throne, in return for a monetary settlement as part of her dowry. This settlement was never paid, a factor that led to the War of the Spanish Succession in 1702. (McKay 543) Competitiveness was a great danger for Louis XIV because of his aggressive nature. He is considered power hungry and generally does as he wishes. As a result, he lost consisideralble respect as King of France.
Another example of Louis VIX's competitiveness are the circumstances that brought about the War of Spanish Succession. The Spanish King Charles II, brother of the wife of Louis XIV, had been an invalid from a young age and was unable to produce an heir. Because of the nature of the Spanish empire, it was a much sought after prize. Since Louis XIV and the Holy Roman Emperor were closely related to the Spanish Royal Family, both vied for the Spanish Crown. Many European powers feared that if either came to control Spain, the balance of power in Europe would be threatened. Prior to the death of Charles II, several agreements were reached among the European powers settling the dissue of who would succeed him. But in 1700, as he lay dying, Charles II unexpectedly interfered with the final succession treaty and bequeathed the Spanish Empire to Philip, Duc d'Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV, and who was crowned king as Philip V. With his grandon crowned King of Spain, Louis VIX backed out of the final treaty of succession in which he had entered. But his over-reaching competitive nature did not stop there.
Louis also overplayed his hand. He threatened a mercantile policy in the Spanish/French dominions, thus cutting England off from Spanish trade. He also recognized Philip's place in French succession, alienating much of the European region.. Furthmore, after the death of King James II of England, instead of acknowledging William III as King, he recognized James Francis Edward Stuart, the "Ole Pretender," as King, thus alienating even further the English. The War of Spannish Succession was a result.
Since we live in a world of limited resources, and there are always rival claims for their use, there must inevitably be some type of competition. The only question is what form that competition takes. Thus far, the lesson is that there are are civilised and uncivilised, and efficient an inefficient, forms of competition. And just as you cannot eliminate competition from society, you cannot eliminate cooperation. Society is permiated with cooperation.
Cooperation is generally divided into two categories: voluntary and hostile. Voluntary cooperation can be described as an alliance of two or more who come together to accomplish a single objective. Hostile cooperation, on the other hand, can be best described as cooperation among competitors to improve the quality and quantity of the rewards for achievement of a goal.
Consider the tale of the ordinary lead pencil as illustrative of successful voluntary cooperation in a competitive environment. This everyday object can truthfully say of itself that "not a single person knows hot to make me." A vast number of separate and distinct materials go into making the pencil, involving far more knowledge than any one person could contribute. It is all brought together by the process of people cooperating.
The wood for the pencil comes from a cedar of straight brain from northern Californuie or Oregon. Forestry workers cut the trees down using saws, ropes and other gear. The trees are then transported by railroad or trucks. For the equipment needed, a number of other industries are needed - the minong or ore; the making of steel, tools and vehicles; the growing of hemp and its transfortmation into rope. Once the tree is at the mill, it is processed into slats and then transported to the factory where the pencil is made. The lead is mined and delivered. Then, of course, there is the zinc for the ferrule and the rubber for the eraser. Finally there is the design and production of the pencil, and its transportation to retail outlets to be sold.
Each of the links in this chain involves voluntary cooperation of two or more parties. There is an exchange in the parties elect to give up something - their time, labor, raw material, goods and services - in order to receive something in return. This network is not necessarily planned by anyone: it happens naturally as people follow self-interest, and possess enough trust in the other in order to successfully produce a pencil. (Friedman 27)
A party will contest culminating in an agreement among the potential recipients of a large estate is illustrative of hostile cooperation at work. If the parties persist in their contest too diligently, there may not be any assets remaining to devide among the parties to the contest, because attorney fees, court costs and litigation expenses may consume a most of the estate's assets.
Also illustrative of hostile cooperation is The Peace of Utrecht, which brought an the end to the War of Spanish Succession and created international cooperation to sustain peace. It represented the balance-of-power principle in operation, setting limits on the extent to which any one power could expand. The treaty completed the decline of Spain as a great power and vastly expanded the British Empire. (McKay 545-546) The cooperation that developed with this treaty brought about the downfall of France, as it was practically bankrupt as a result of so many wars.
As with competition, the desire to cooperate is natural and healthy. Those with non-cooperative natures would have very low survival rates, as would those who cooperate so much that they refrained from protecting their own self-interests in a competitive world.
For the sake of the comsumers, there is a need for competition between companies to provide necessaties for everyday living for the consumers. Competition provides the catalyst for the development of new and improved products and technologies. This gives consumers greater selection and higher quality. The greater selection typically causes lower prices for the products compared to what the price would be if there was no competition (monopoly) or little competition (oligioly). (Wikipedia) The consumer can compare and contrast the other types of similar products available. Competition, therefore, provides a progression of ideas and technology into a better distrubution of products to the comsumer. In this sense, competition also provides an environemt friendly to cooperation as those within the competing organizations participate in creating ideas and technologies to improve the organization's competitive edge.
Another example of competition and cooperation at work simultaneously is a team of cooperating individuals competing with another team of cooperating individuals, each team working toward the collective goal of achieving victory over the other. This assigns the presence of both competition and cooperation. In a recent basketball game between The University of Alabama and Ole Miss, for instance, the players on each of the two teams cooperated with each other in the competition to score more points than the other and to otherwise be declared victorious in the competition. The cooperation among the team members from the University of Alabama resulted in a victory over Ole Miss, sixty-six to fifty-eight. (Irvine) Certainly, there are leaders in such a team effort who keep the game going and score the most points. For Alabama these leaders were Kennedy Winston and Earnest Shelton, even though members of the Ole Miss team tried vigorously to keep the ball away from them. Alabama pulled themselves together after the end of the first half when the score was tied. Their cooperation with each other led to the six-point lead at halftime, leaving "things poised at halftime." Alabama pulled it together again with twenty-nine seconds left when Winston shot two free throws giving the final score a nice touch of sixty-six to fifty-eight. (Irvine) This example shows how a team can work together and achieve what they have set out to do within a competitive environment. Progress is represented here as victory. Victory was achieved more effectively through cooperation of the team members in the competition.
Competition has always been present whenever there has been self-interest or insufficiency of resources. For many centuries, biologists have known that the natural tendency of the animal kingdom is to explode, but the limited supply of food and space keep it in check. (Gilpin 23) In the animal world, competition is necessary to survive, but their competition is based for food. This creates conflict with weaker members of a species as the stronger members are able to compete and succeed in obtaining food for themselves. Predators are considered the stronger species or a stronger member of a species, while the weaker species or weaker member of a species are considered prey. The weaker members starve and sometimes die from disease and parasites, or killed by predators. (Hornocker 28d and 28e) The stronger units, predators, prosper as a result of others weakness through competition for living.
Some species of animals such as vampire bats, share their blood meals with fellow bats. A vampire bat has to consume between fifty and one hundred percent of its body weight in blood every night. It will die if it fails to feed for two nights in a row. A bat on the edge of starvation can gain twelve hours of life and another chance to feed if it is given regurgitated blood meal by a roost mate. If these bats did not practice food sharing, their annual mortality rate would be eighty-two percent. But with blood sharing the rates drops significantly to twenty-four percent. (Bas 65) As these bats share blood, their lives are progressing allowing each other to live longer. The cooperation seen here eliminates the need for competition to progress themselves further.
Food sharing among unrelated individuals is also practiced with chimpanzees and occasionally human beings. There is also the cooperation with black hamley fish, which take turns fertilizing each other's eggs. (Bas 66) These animals are all examples of cooperation in a species to help each other survive in their present environment. This cooperation the animals mentioned partake in keeps their species alive and without it the animals as we know them would die out and become extinct; therefore it allows progression within the species with cooperation instead of competition with each other.
Charles Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" directly describes competition within our world of evolution for a progression to an ultimate species. He correctly thought that the variation between species existed and that nature just selected for the most suitable body type and against less useful ones. (Bas 65) This evolutionary game is to pass along your genes and your best chance of surviving by competing for food and other resources for yourself and your progeny. Animals with unselfish, generous impulses would seem ill-equipped to compete and likely candidates for quick death. (Bas 65)
As one considers the possible data given, one must conclude that competition cannot set alone without cooperation and vise versa. Whether it is involving human beings or animals, one would not exist without the other. Our world is ultimately competitive. Although, if one desires to progress from its current state of being. One must compete and succeed through competition in order to progress significantly into another stage of success.
2. Bas, Thomas. "Evolution, In Our Dog-Eat-Dog World, Should Have Made Short Work of Unselfish Behavior. Yet Such Behavior Exists and Mathematical Games
Suggest How It Got Started." Discover. May 1993.
Casler, Stephen. Indroduction to Economics. New York: HarperCollins. 1992.
Friedman, Milton and Rose. Free to Choose. Harcourt 1990.
Gilpin, Michail. "Population Dynamics." The 1995 Golier Encyclopedia.
Gordan, Martial. "Politcal Science." The Consice Oxford Dictionary of Sociology
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994
6. Hornocker, Maurice G. "Balance of Nature." The World Book Encyclopedia
