Crapgame: Then make a DEAL! Big Joe: What kind of deal? Crapgame: A DEAL, deal! Maybe the guy’s a Republican. “Business is business,” right? [Famous scene from 1970 movie Kelly’s Heroes] Invictus
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Based on the title, I expected this post to be about our irrational desire to compromise... I was quite surprised when it seems to imply we don't compromise often enough!
For example (and with a strong hope that the conversation doesn't get sidetracked on the specifics of one arbitrary example): if I think the minimum wage ought to be at least $X, and you think it should be no more than $Y (assuming Y<X), we&#039ve got a problem. We could "compromise" by setting it as (X+Y)/2 or some other intermediate point, but all we&#039ve done is ensure that no one is satisfied with the result! If I truly think it should be at least $X, how can I agree to something which sets it below $X?
The only reason I can think of is that I have no intention of leaving it at (X+Y)/2, but rather waiting a little while so everyone will become accustomed to that as a new "floor" (replacing your $Y maximum tolerable rate), so that next year we can again "split the difference" and eventually I&#039ll get what I want. But even then I&#039m a fool if I think you&#039re not playing the same game - and, rationally speaking, I&#039m as likely to lose as I am to win at this, so all it does is drag out the disagreement, it doesn&#039t really solve anything!
Seems to me that aiming for compromise in negotiation is like aiming for efficiency (rather than growth) in business.
To be a valid case of an agent promoting its values, ANY suggestion of "compromise" should be met with a broadening of the context in search of a positive-sum solution.
Are you talking about what Marx thought, or about how things actually worked out in the real world? If it's the former, I don't think that Marx thought that the workers were stuck in a non-uniting equilibrium; he seems to have expected that they would unite, rise against the capitalists, seize the means of production, and institute a socialist state. If it's the latter, I wouldn't look for the answer in Marxist theory, but in Mancur Olson's "logic of collective action," with a side helping of Robert Michels's "iron law of oligarchy," maybe.
That's almost the reverse of what I understand Marx to have said. As I understand him, he definitely does think that the workers have "a common interest in ending the exploitation." But it's the exploitation that gives them that common interest and unites them. That is, the socialist movement and the united working class that will build a socialist society are created by . . . capitalism, the common enemy of the working class. If there were no common enemy, the workers would remain divided.
Why do the capitalists have a common interest in exploiting the workers and so can unite, but the workers don't have a common interest in ending the exploitation and so can't unite? Why the asymmetry?
Well, you know, Marx said that the working class were naturally diverse and had no common interests, but that capitalist oppression and exploitation would unite them by giving them a common class enemy. . . .
You can't eliminate the human need for an Us/Them division --- that's one of the benefit of sports -- channels that desire into a rather harmless medium. Better to have a common enemy be a sport team, then your fellow man.
There is no visceral response for compromise -- well there is definitely a a significant visceral response for any us/them conflict.
If you're trying sell people on the virtues of compromise, races relations in South Africa are probably not your best bet. Especially given the current conditions in that country.
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Forward! ” —Walt Kelly, June 1953
Based on the title, I expected this post to be about our irrational desire to compromise... I was quite surprised when it seems to imply we don't compromise often enough!
For example (and with a strong hope that the conversation doesn't get sidetracked on the specifics of one arbitrary example): if I think the minimum wage ought to be at least $X, and you think it should be no more than $Y (assuming Y<X), we&#039ve got a problem. We could "compromise" by setting it as (X+Y)/2 or some other intermediate point, but all we&#039ve done is ensure that no one is satisfied with the result! If I truly think it should be at least $X, how can I agree to something which sets it below $X?
The only reason I can think of is that I have no intention of leaving it at (X+Y)/2, but rather waiting a little while so everyone will become accustomed to that as a new "floor" (replacing your $Y maximum tolerable rate), so that next year we can again "split the difference" and eventually I&#039ll get what I want. But even then I&#039m a fool if I think you&#039re not playing the same game - and, rationally speaking, I&#039m as likely to lose as I am to win at this, so all it does is drag out the disagreement, it doesn&#039t really solve anything!
Seems to me that aiming for compromise in negotiation is like aiming for efficiency (rather than growth) in business.
To be a valid case of an agent promoting its values, ANY suggestion of "compromise" should be met with a broadening of the context in search of a positive-sum solution.
Are you talking about what Marx thought, or about how things actually worked out in the real world? If it's the former, I don't think that Marx thought that the workers were stuck in a non-uniting equilibrium; he seems to have expected that they would unite, rise against the capitalists, seize the means of production, and institute a socialist state. If it's the latter, I wouldn't look for the answer in Marxist theory, but in Mancur Olson's "logic of collective action," with a side helping of Robert Michels's "iron law of oligarchy," maybe.
As I understand him, he definitely does think that the workers have “a common interest in ending the exploitation.
My point was, if that is the case, why do they seem to be stuck in a non-uniting equilibrium?
That's almost the reverse of what I understand Marx to have said. As I understand him, he definitely does think that the workers have "a common interest in ending the exploitation." But it's the exploitation that gives them that common interest and unites them. That is, the socialist movement and the united working class that will build a socialist society are created by . . . capitalism, the common enemy of the working class. If there were no common enemy, the workers would remain divided.
Why do the capitalists have a common interest in exploiting the workers and so can unite, but the workers don't have a common interest in ending the exploitation and so can't unite? Why the asymmetry?
You can’t eliminate the human need for an Us/Them division
Perhaps not, but you can help people make changes on the margin. You could do worse then showing people this video.
The movie failed to impress Daryl Lorrimer.
Timothy McVeigh was fond of the same poem.
Well, you know, Marx said that the working class were naturally diverse and had no common interests, but that capitalist oppression and exploitation would unite them by giving them a common class enemy. . . .
Not now. But check back in 15 years.
Just for the record, I'd like to note that "compromise" is not listed among the nine Principles of War. See http://www.wpi.edu/Academic...
You can't eliminate the human need for an Us/Them division --- that's one of the benefit of sports -- channels that desire into a rather harmless medium. Better to have a common enemy be a sport team, then your fellow man.
There is no visceral response for compromise -- well there is definitely a a significant visceral response for any us/them conflict.
You really think things would be better there now if they'd had a race war when Mandela took office?
"peace and compromise can help you crush your enemies into smoldering ruins."
I like it. I shall add this to my philosophy.
If you're trying sell people on the virtues of compromise, races relations in South Africa are probably not your best bet. Especially given the current conditions in that country.