Cooperation versus Competition

There can be no doubt that socialism has increased in popularity in the United States.  The young, in particular, have embraced it as a panacea.  Despite the fact that this political and economic arrangement has never worked anywhere it was tried, they regard it as a cure-all.

The question is why?  What is there about this system that makes it so attractive?  One of the explanations is the raft of free stuff promised to accompany it.  Complimentary health care and college tuition sound good to folks who do not have much money.

Another reason is so-called social justice.  A society in which everyone is theoretically equal is appealing to those who have little power.  Because the young are just starting out, they are at the bottom of the social pecking order and therefore welcome a quick upward ride.

But there is a third reason—an older reason—why socialism is thought desirable.  This goes back to the idea that if society became one huge loving family, we would assist, rather than hurt, each other.  We would unquestionably cooperate such that everyone benefited.

Socialism rose to prominence as a counterweight to capitalism.  With the advent of industrialization, the free market permitted a relatively small number of individuals to accumulate what seemed like an absurdly large share of the community’s wealth.  Worse still was the accompanying concentration of social power.

Since capitalists attributed their success to an ability to outcompete others, competition became suspect.  It was obviously based on a selfish desire to oppress the less greedy. Cooperation made more sense in that it asked everyone to work together for their mutual advantage.

It seemed obvious that if instead of trying to outdo one another, individuals funneled their energies into collaboration more could be accomplished. In addition, people would not need to be defensive, which would free them to participate in intricate projects. 

Furthermore, because they were less selfish, they would distribute the products of their work equitably.  No longer could anyone become obscenely wealthy or nauseatingly poor. All would live comfortably, without envy disrupting the community’s tranquility.

Except that this is not how things worked out.  Cooperation between millions of unrelated individuals does not arise spontaneously.  It has to be coordinated, which means that some people, i.e. leaders, acquire greater power.  Nor does selfishness disappear merely because it is defined as immoral.

Paradoxically, the abolition of competition has negative consequences. Less gets done.  When individuals contend for precedence, they accomplish more.  They work harder and smarter and hence produce surplus goods and services.

What is more, given that we are a hierarchical species, the impulse to be better than others is impossible to eradicate.  Our desire to win is so deeply ingrained that trying to eliminate it is even more problematic than inculcating universal magnanimity.

The good news, however, is that cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive.  Indeed, they can be complimentary.  We see this in athletic activities.  It is part of what makes these events so attractive.

Consider football.  How could a team be successful if the linemen and running backs did not cooperate?  If the tackles did not open a hole for the fullback, where would the latter find the space to spurt ahead?  We call this teamwork and every NFL coach stresses it.

On the other hand, if players did not strenuously compete against their opponents, victory would never be achieved.  If they did not put in the effort to beat their rivals, they would constantly be defeated.  Wanting to win—strongly wanting to win—is essential to doing so.

The critical mistake of socialists is assuming that cooperation and competition are either/or strategies.  In fact, both approaches are essential for our wellbeing.  Emphasizing cooperation at the complete expense of competition therefore does great harm.  It robs us of synergies not otherwise available.

Human societies are complicated.  Lots of contradictory things happen simultaneously.  Consequently, when we over-simplify matters by supposing there is only one way to interact, we gum up the works.  Rather than promote happiness, we introduce unforeseen difficulties.  

Socialism sounds good during stump speeches.  Nonetheless, it concerns fictional characters, not flesh and blood humans.  Real people want to be winners.  They fight hard to come out on top.  They cannot be deterred from competing—even while they promote cooperation. 

Look at the resist Trumpers.  Aren’t they doing the opposite of what they recommend?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University