The dynamic of competition encompasses three concepts. Firstly, the existence of a multiplicity of powers and forces, secondly, the existence of a goal or target and thirdly, in their striving in respect of that goal, an opposition (not necessarily of a destructive nature) between these powers or forces. Further, the existence of the goal or target proceeds from the existence of the multiplicity of powers or forces. These forces need not be personal. For example, man may strive against the elements, each competing for the mastery of the other. The elements may indeed strive against each other.
Where there is no multiplicity of forces there are no targets or goals, because all things are already within the power of the one force. If there is only one producer of blue hats, he does not have a goal of gaining a 100% share of the blue hat production market because he already has a 100% share. If there are several producers, each has the goal of maintaining or increasing his share of the market. Thus, there is competition.
Therefore, the existence of competition (be it only against inanimate forces) means the existence of targets. The existence of targets requires the maintenance of standards, such as efficiency, hard work, innovation, integrity and relevance. New technologies are developed, and improved goods and services are produced, entirely in response to the stimulus of competition.
Competition is the factor which makes the maintenance of standards necessary, rather than merely desirable. It is therefore a critical preserver of standards.
Another beneficial aspect of competition is the principle of alternatives, not only because they generate targets which require the maintenance of standards, but because the very existence of alternatives is a decentralisation of power. It allows scope for many individuals to act independently, bringing their different skills, views, preferences and ideas to the matters at hand. Furthermore, the existence of alternatives allows for that personal mobility which insulates the individual from particular forces or circumstances which he does not regard as conducive to his personal welfare.
It is clear then, that competition can be enormously constructive, although it can also be destructive if it turns to the mutual destruction of competitors. That, however, is merely to say that, like most good things, it is capable of being turned to abuse.
The only alternatives to competition are monopoly and oligopoly (which is the darker side of co-operation). These systems are incapable of fostering the maintenance of standards (since this is not necessary under monopoly and oligopoly) and they operate against the principle of personal independence. Co-operation can be beneficial, but so often it is beneficial only for the erstwhile competitors and harmful for the market. The dark side of co-operation is the collusive "deal" where the co-operators lose their independence and market standards drop. Co-operation should not be elevated to the level of the market. It needs the external discipline of competition in order to realise its full potential. Therefore, co-operation is appropriate only within competitive units.
The contrast in attitudes towards competition in sport and competition in the economy or education is one of the strange features of modern society. It sometimes appears that competition in sport has grown in intensity (with standards of sporting behaviour in decline), while competition in the marketplace and in the classroom has become frowned upon.
This has happened, in part, because "progressive" social planners struggle against others in the struggle to meet standards.
The "new class" of social engineers has trained its artillery on areas of power and influence. Sport is not yet one of those areas, but education certainly is. In their efforts to cramp competition in the marketplace, they have willing allies in the firms who are already established because their interests are served by any restrictions on the entry of new competitors.
Attitudes to competition are confused by misplaced analogies and false ideas about the nature of competition in Darwinian evolution and in economic systems. Darwin's theory was widely interpreted as a picture of nature "red in tooth and claw", a "knock down drag out" contest leaving only the strongest and fittest standing. But the notion of "each against all" in nature is false. Lions depend on the survival of the species that they prey upon and they do not in any immediate sense compete with each other. Within the extended family of the pride of lions there is a high degree of co-operation in catching and sharing the prey. Groups of lions may compete with each other, and with other predators who are "in the market" for the same prey but success in this competition depends on skill and efficiency in hunting, not on a physical clash of the rivals, like a battle. Occasions where two starving animals compete for the same piece of food (and hence survival) are not typical, though they can occur under conditions of severe scarcity. Similarly, some kinds of needless competition can be created in economic and social systems where state controls frustrate the market mechanisms that balance supply and demand. This is described next in education.