I haven't read the book, obviously, but there seems to be glaring hole in your argument and I'm pretty sure this has come up before
Communism and Socialism share the ideal of removal of competition in favor of social management by the government. Empirical evidence demonstrates that they have not led to the same kind of technological advances. The few I can think of off the top of my head are all militaristic (which could be argued stems from a competition in arms).
Communism and socialism are different beasts, and neither has been practiced in any meaningful way. I think of all the political ideologies I've thought about, George Orwell had it right when he argued for
Democratic SocialismThe problem is that as long as there are competitive people, particularly in power, it's not going to work. It's the tragedy of the commons -- one person taking advantage of it can destroy it. So the sad reality is that it may never work in practice.
That being said, I think it's a goal that's worth striving for.
I'm sure there are many books arguing both sides. A friend of mine who's much more adept in economics than I may or may not be keen on this particular issue, but I'd imagine he's seen or read some literature on the issue.
I know you said this isn't just an economical issue and that the book is trying to convince you that competition should be reduced in general. However, I'm sure it's applying what it says to economics and I'm sure you agree it's an appropriate area to examine under the conditions it suggests.
also, lol at this going pretty far off topic in the third post.
I don't think that economics is the best place to look at the issue. The first place I'd look, which I guess is related to economics, is at the way food, pharmaceuticals, and other similar things are processed. It is in the best interest of a corporation to harm people up to a point (whether it's by using harmful chemicals in the production, dump waste into the environment, etc.) in order to make more money than other companies. From the technological side, it's in the best interest of companies to use the cheapest possible parts that they can sell. I may not be explaining it in the best way possible, but that's what sort of got me thinking of how competition in the business world actually works.
In general, I probably shouldn't be arguing this. I probably end up doing more harm than good to the argument, since I've only really started exploring this ideology. But it's something that appeals to me a lot, even if the end is nearly (if not completely) impossible.
@ being offtopic -- nobody marked it as "strict", so I figured I didn't have to be strict.