Fifteen Eighty Four

We frequently engage in competition—whether as participants or facilitators—across various contexts, often without conscious awareness or even while denying its presence. While competition is traditionally associated with familiar arenas such as the job market, sports, and college admissions, its influence extends far beyond these settings. It is present in democratic elections, where voters indirectly drive political competition, in consumer markets, where buyers drive competition among businesses, and in ideological debates, where individuals and groups challenge prevailing systems and power structures. Throughout human history, numerous conflicts and wars have stemmed from competition, often revolving around securing desirable or profitable resources, such as territory, wealth, privileges, and dominant positions.   

Despite its pervasiveness, modern social and educational discourse—particularly in advanced democracies—often emphasizes its negative aspects. A widespread assumption persists that competition is a product of Western culture, individualism, and capitalism. Many social science disciplines that advocate for egalitarianism and critique the free-market system reinforce a simplistic, linear association between Westernism, individualism, capitalism, and inequality.

Psychology as a discipline often aligns with this trend, as many of its subfields collaborate with social sciences that emphasize these perspectives. Consequently, validated measures of competitive behaviors and attitudes remain relatively underdeveloped compared to those assessing other psychological phenomena. This is despite competition itself being a complex psychological construct deeply embedded in human cognition, motivation, and social behavior. Yet, the field of psychology has paid comparatively little attention to it.

This broader framing of competition as a negative force – reinforced by social science and psychological research trends – can lead to a subconscious rejection of competition as a fundamental human dynamic, even though we actively participate in it across various domains. As noted earlier, democratic elections exemplify political competition, where candidates and policies vie for voter support. Similarly, in market competition, consumers select products and services based on price and quality, influencing business strategies and economic outcomes. Even in academia, students and scholars are often encouraged to challenge existing systems and power structures to promote equality and social justice—yet this, too, is a form of competition for influence, resources, and ideological dominance.

A Critical Examination of Competition

This book challenges prevailing assumptions about competition by systematically analyzing literature from psychology, history, political science, and economics. It integrates empirical data from the World Values Survey, research on North Korean refugees and South Koreans, and firsthand narratives from the authors of two chapters, who migrated from North Korea. Below are the key arguments explored in the book:

• Competition is not exclusive to capitalist societies. While often associated with free-market economies, historical and contemporary evidence shows that competition thrives in planned economies as well. Socialist and communist regimes have exhibited intense competition—whether in access to basic goods, workplace promotions (as seen in the Soviet Union), or struggles for power and privileges within totalitarian systems.

• Political competition is understudied. While democratic elections are widely recognized as competitive, authoritarian regimes also engage in political competition through purges, factional struggles, and elite maneuvering. This book explores why scholars have largely overlooked this dimension of competition.
• Humans compete for survival and upward mobility. Across all societies, individuals strive for better status and opportunities. Emotions such as ambition, resentment toward inequality, and fear of losing privileges shape competition at both individual and societal levels. These emotions often arise from comparing oneself to others, a process known as social comparison. Those who feel oppressed push for systemic change, while privileged groups seek to preserve the status quo. A common assumption is that privileged groups always support neoliberalism or capitalism, but historical evidence shows system justification occurs in totalitarian socialist regimes as well. This suggests that conservatism can align with socialism just as it does with capitalism, depending on the founding ideological system of a given society.

• Why Resists Competition? Privileged Groups and Facilitators. Privileged groups seek to maintain their status and are reluctant to support systemic transformations that might threaten their advantages. At the micro level, they may avoid entering competition arenas that do not guarantee success but instead lead to mental and physical fatigue. Beyond privileged individuals, facilitators and institutional gatekeepers—such as educators, administrators, and decision-makers—may also discourage competition, not necessarily to protect their own status, but to avoid conflict or blame from those who do not achieve their desired outcomes. Ironically, many facilitators fail to recognize that competition is essential for selecting individuals, even as they act as gatekeepers in competitive processes based on their own criteria.

• Competition does not necessarily lead to inequality; rather it can foster equality or drive a redistribution of privilege. After China and Vietnam joined the World Trade Organization (WTO)—entering the global market competition arena—both transitioned from low-income to emerging middle- and high-income countries. This example demonstrates how competition has contributed to reducing global inequality. Furthermore, the success of socialist movements, exemplified by the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, illustrates how competition—whether economic or ideological—reshapes power and privilege. In this case, socialist revolutionaries who had once opposed the privileged class ultimately gained power and privilege themselves. While this shift was framed as achieving equality from a socialist perspective, it primarily resulted in a redistribution of privilege rather than eliminating hierarchy altogether.

• Competition and cooperation are not opposites. While competition is often framed as the antithesis of cooperation, the two frequently coexist. Cooperation often functions as a strategy to enhance competitive standing, as seen in alliances such as BRICS vs. NATO in global geopolitics. Similarly, in various contexts – including business, international relations, and even non-profit sectors – collaboration is rarely driven by pure altruism but rather as a means to strengthen competitive advantages or secure resources. Non-profit organizations, like other entities, often prioritize causes or specific groups in ways that align with their strategic goals, missions, or external influences. This reflects how collaboration and altruism can be shaped by the need to secure resources or sustain organizational objectives.

• Ideological competition is often obscured by new terminology. The long-standing conflict between capitalism and socialism persists, though it is frequently reframed using terms such as economic freedom vs. egalitarianismor efficiency vs. social justice. While these terms may carry strong emotional appeal, they often serve to repackage enduring ideological debates. I argue that ideological shifts are less about genuine innovation and more about rebranding established economic and political conflicts.

• The Unintended Consequences of Discouraging Competition. Discouraging competition in pursuit of equality or social justice does not necessarily result in greater equality or justice for the vulnerable groups that scholars often focus on. When framed in ideological terms, these goals frequently align with older concepts such as socialism or increased government control. Historically, such systems have given rise to alternative forms of competition –such as competition for essential goods and services – and have led to economic consequences like hyperinflation, particularly in societies where governments exert greater control over resources through high taxation and central planning.

• Survival instincts underlie ideological conflicts. People tend to support systems that benefit their own socioeconomic mobility. However, ideological arguments are often framed in morally persuasive language—such as equality, justice, or freedom—masking the underlying competition for power and resources. The book explores how ideological positions are shaped by survival instincts rather than purely intellectual or moral reasoning.

Why You Should Read This Book

The arguments in this book are grounded in empirical literature and data, inviting readers to critically reevaluate their preexisting beliefs about competition, individualism, capitalism, and socialism. However, I acknowledge that questioning deeply held beliefs can be challenging. Personal experiences, education, and societal influences—including media narratives—shape neural pathways that influence how we consciously and unconsciously understand and navigate the world, making it difficult to step outside our worldview comfort zones.

Nevertheless, I encourage you to engage with this book— not to impose a particular viewpoint, but to foster genuine academic inquiry. Academia should be a space for intellectual freedom, where diverse perspectives are explored and debated, rather than a political arena reinforcing only prevailing assumptions. By examining competition through an evolutionary, historical, and empirical lens, this book offers a fresh perspective on a fundamental aspect of human society.

Because this book is interdisciplinary, some readers may think, “I don’t know much about economics or politics, and I’m not particularly interested in them.” I have heard similar sentiments from many people. However, understanding human psychology is not simply a matter of preference—whether one “likes” or “dislikes” economics and politics is irrelevant, as these domains are deeply intertwined with psychological processes. If you aspire to be a psychologist who minimizes bias, studying other disciplines that psychology has traditionally overlooked— such as economics and politics—is essential for developing a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior.

Curiosity, skepticism (distinct from cynicism), and humility are fundamental components of the scientific mindset that we continually strive to uphold. I welcome your critiques and feedback, as they offer an opportunity to revisit and refine my arguments – an essential process in advancing knowledge.

Title: Questioning Conventional Assumptions of Competition Dynamics

ISBN: 9781009348096

Author: Ahlam Lee