1al
re~
for

No

igle-


mob-


TO~-18-



oger


of
ati-2b-


the
etiree

~lal
"ms
rethe

‘mults

ove
ug-“his

‘he

OPPOSITION

129

critics of competition, who usually see only the factual results
 and advantages for the group and the formal antithetic
 aspect of the relation between the competitors.
A competitive system is therefore not identical with a
system that is purely individualistic. The competitor
works, of course, for his own interests. But, as the contest
is fought by means of objective values or social services and
is usually advantageous to the group, it may be in the interest
 of the group to foster competition. With reference
to the final aims of social life, the question of the advantage
 or disadvantage of competition is a problem of social
technique, not a question of ultimate ends. The question
has been answered in different ways. On the one side stands
the group that advocates unlimited competition because it
believes in the efficiency of the competitive system. On the
other side stands the group of socialists, who deny that the
waste of energy and duplication which result from competition
 are counterbalanced by the advantages of the
competitive system. They advocate a social technique
which is to operate with a system of co-ordinated and integrated
 services directed from a central point, instead of
a system of competing individual efforts. In between
stand different groups advocating restricted competition
in some fields and organized and co-ordinated services in
other fields. A comparison of these different systems is a
comparison of means, not of ends. A judgment and valuation
 of their comparative merit should therefore be based
on their efficiency as means. But the intellectual capacity
for a theoretic valuation is usually lacking, and the result
is that in the controversies of the different groups sentiments
 and subjective preferences play a more important
part than differences of opinion about actual efficiency.!

t Soz., pp. 282-97.