"No appeasement will avoid necessary battles. It only makes them more costly and lengthy.” - Gustave Le Bon

 "No appeasement will avoid necessary battles. It only makes them more costly and lengthy.” - Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931). Aphorisms of Present Times, 4.8, 1913, tr. Alice Widener, 1979

- When is it appeasement, and when is it a stalling action? I think it depends on if you have a means or method of escape from the situation. When you are simply appeasing an enemy, then the day will come when he will want everything, and you will have nothing left to defend yourself with, because you will have given it all away, if the series of demands and appeasement is taken to its logical conclusion. So, you should not use appeasement because it will only make you weaker than you are now, for the inevitable battle. You cannot escape this battle because you are not the one trying to start it - they are. Yet, you are not helping, by appearing to be weaker than you are. You only appear more prey-like when you do so. On the other hand, appearing weaker than you are, or putting off a battle until such a time as you have gathered or concentrated your strength, is a valid means of fighting. It may well be that you are too young, too scattered, too involved in other fights, and so you need time where you are at least not fighting this particular battle, so that you can focus on it later. It might also be the case that over time your enemy grows weaker, because they are involved in the opposite way, by growing older, losing other battles, or becoming scattered. Waiting until the right time to fight is not a bad option, if you can take it. 

Of course, the correct application of both of these techniques looks the same - it is only in the future that they are revealed to be different, one option being better than another. The question of which to choose hinges on two pieces of information - will you win a battle now, or later? And - Is the battle inevitable, or not? If you will not win a battle now but might later, then paying them off is a good move, because fighting now is just the same as losing, so your choice is only between a certain loss now, or a possible loss later. If you will win a battle now but not later, then appeasement is never, ever a good option. You only choose to lose, when you could have won - putting off the cost of victory doesn't make victory any better, it only makes it worse and shifts the worst of the costs onto somebody else. If you will not win a battle now or later, then appeasement or surrender is your only option, but since we do not know what the future will hold, appeasement is better than surrender, because at least you have a hope of being saved in the future. This, however, is a dangerous game. If the battle is inevitable, then your choice is only between victory or defeat. If the battle is not inevitable, then your choice is still between victory or defeat, because a battle passed over and survived without great loss, where you did not have to fight, is even better than a victory. 

So, if you can answer those two questions, then you will be able to make a good choice. Of course, there are often disagreements, within a group or within a single person, about what the answer to each of those questions is. I don't have any specific advice on how to know what the answer is in each case, but I do want to mention that sometimes, our desire to avoid battles, on a literal, professional, or personal level, is due, not to rational choice, but to fear and the desire to stick our head In the sand. On the other hand, sometimes our need for fighting is due to bravado and vanity, or a weakness at home. The question of what to do is probably, most likely, found out by being clear about one thing - who is pushing for this fight, you, them, or both of you? 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

“The highest art…sets down its creations and trusts in their magic, without fear of not being understood.” - Herman Hesse

  “The highest art…sets down its creations and trusts in their magic, without fear of not being understood.” - Herman Hesse (1877-1962). Reflections, 516, ed. Volker Michels, 1974 It is a terribly frightening thing, to send your art out into the world. Who are you to have created something which is worthy of remembrance, worthy of care, worthy of immortality? We are always afraid of two things when we show somebody our art - We have the fear that it will seem unremarkable, and we have the fear that it will be totally misunderstood. As regards the fear of our art being unremarkable, there is no sure way to tell that it is remarkable for other people except by showing it to them. The only way we can even begin to guess whether it will be so is by trusting in ourselves, and in our own sense of good and bad. We constantly alternate between being the most brutal and the most forgiving of our critics, for we may look on a doodle we dew or a poem we wrote in the middle of a rainstorm, o...
Read more

"Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.” - H.L. Mencken

  "Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.” - H.L. Mencken (1806-1956). In Christopher Matthews, Hardball: How Politics Is Played - Told by One Who Knows the Game, 2, 1988 When is it worth trying to convince someone, and when is it not worth the effort? It is perhaps too simple to say that this always depends on the odds of them being convinced, because it may be very important that they be convinced - Important enough that the odds don't matter, you still have to try. However, in some cases, this will never work. That is, if the person you are trying to convince has a vested interest in not being convinced, then it is very likely that you should not waste your time trying to convince him. Instead, you should aim to change his mind by some other means than argument. You may want to try and convince him not that you are right and he is wrong, but that he actually has a vested interest in holding to your view. You may try and direct him to do what you ...
Read more

“An army, like a serpent, travels on its belly.” - Frederick II

  “An army, like a serpent, travels on its belly.” - Frederick II (1712-1786). Attributed See Statesmen: B.H. Liddell Hart (2) An army travels in its belly. It runs on food, on supplies, on oil and blood. It runs itself into the ground, it runs itself ragged, it runs itself into a state of dire need for repair, simply by the regular maintenance of its machines, the standard training it needs, and the slow drip of experience caused by the old and wise constantly leaving, while the young and foolish are always entering. Battles, battles are won by the courage of the people who fight them, the advantages in technology and Intel one side has over the other, and by clever and quick commanders. However, one of the most important lessons of War comes to us out of antiquity, by way of our phrase 'A Pyrrhic Victory' - This event is named after king Pyrrus, an ancient king of Epirus in Greece, who won a great victory - and lost a war, because he paid too terrible a price for his win, a...
Read more