Anwar Shaikh RIP

The doyen of Marxist economists, Anwar Shaikh, has passed away. In his magnum opus, he wrote

the theory of real competition … is the theoretical foundation for the analysis in this book. The profit motive is inherently expansionary: investors try to recoup more money than they put in,

Also true of gambling or games of skill where you back yourself. One may say, if a prize for an essay or statue or picture is announced, talented people may expend some resources on entering the competition in the hope of getting a much bigger prize. 

More generally, in relationships, we hope to get more out of it than we put in. This is why girls don't want to sleep with me.  

At a more basic level, we seek to eat stuff which generates more calories than is consumed in getting that stuff. We spread seeds whose input output ratio is more than one. 

and if successful, can do it again and again on a larger scale, colliding with others doing the same.

sounds like a crowd of shopper grabbing bargains on Black Friday 

Some succeed, some just survive, and some fail altogether. This is real competition, antagonistic by nature and turbulent in operation.

Profit can be gained purely through affectionate cooperation without any competition or antagonism whatsoever.  

Sadly, lots of people like to indulge in antagonistic competition- e.g. a boxing match- where both parties are likely to suffer injury. They may do this even if there is no reward. 

I suppose, competiton arises in zero-sum game or where the payoff is reputational or to establish an objective hierarchy. 

Profit, by contrast, arises where factors of production are combined by an entrepreneur whose reward, ceteris paribus, is proportionate to risk. This militates for cooperation, not competition. However, the formation of a cartel, or other restrictive trade practice, may be per se illegal. 

It is the central regulating mechanism of capitalism

No such thing exists. On the other hand, all the mean girls are coordinated by mind-rays emitted by shape-shifting moggies such that they all pretend my dress is ugly and that Beyonce isn't really my bff.  

and is as different from so-called perfect competition as war is from ballet.

Under perfect competiton, everybody is a price taker. They aren't competing with each other. It makes no difference if all of them are best friends or if they hate each other. 

As a matter of fact, on open markets, you are likely to get producer and consumer cooperatives. Consider the cotton grower who is part of a district cooperative. If there is a negative supply shock, he makes a big profit. But so do all his neighbours.  If there is a positive supply shock, assuming demand inelasticity, then all the cotton famers may incurr a loss. 

Competition within an industry compels individual producers to set prices that keep them in the game,

Shaikh is talking about monopolistic competiton- e.g. the local pizza guy having to compete with the local burger bag (because pizza and burger are substitutes. There is likely to be both excess capacity and product differentiation. Those who can raise quality while conttrolling costs, stay in the game. Others exit and, by and large, that is a good thing. 

just as it forces them to lower costs so that they can cut prices to compete effectively. Costs can be lowered by cutting wages

nominal wages are downwardly sticky, just like rent, interest, property taxes, etc.  

and increasing the length or intensity of the working day, or at least by reducing wage growth relative to that of productivity.

This is true of public sector or charitable enterprises. 

But these must contend with the reaction of labour, which is why technical change becomes the central means over the long run. In this context, individual capitals make their decisions based on judgements about an intrinsically indeterminate future. Competition pits seller against seller, seller against buyer, buyer against buyer, capital against capital, capital against labour, and labour against labour. Bellum omnium contra omnes'‘

Rubbish! Most agents are price takers. Where there is market power, there will be attempts at cartelization & ghe gaining of countervailing power.  Economic activity is almost always a matter of cooperation. There may be a certain amount of drama when contracts are renegotiated, but that is the exception not the rule.

To be fair, one may say that conflict in a sophisticated society is likely to be masked. On the surface everyone seems so nice, polite & obliging. But, deep down, they are all seething with anger.  

Alternatively, one could speak of gradual changes which ordinary people are not aware of but which economics professors study. I think it was for this reason that, as, Michael Roberts has explained, Shaikh enjoyed the esteem of his peers.