How to Persuade Counterparts into Considering Rational Socialism in a Capitalistic Bureaucracy
The United States has Capitalism deeply ingrained in its bureaucracy. Ever since the Cold War, the US has felt that its ideological ideas could not be challenged. Capitalism, the way the modern West does it, for all intents and purposes has gone unquestioned by the state’s citizens. Citizens of the United States defend capitalism to no end. Nevertheless, when studying fundamental laws of systems particularly in this case political ones, it is well known that all systems are flawed. Without constant tweaking and retweaking, systems can become quickly outdated. Capitalism in the United States could use some retweaking. At this point in time, it is clear that the capitalistic mindset and become so ingrained in American’s everyday life and routine. Many aspects of community, equality and association with other citizens of the state have taken a back seat to more egocentric, capitalistic goals and constructs. That is why it is paramount that the United States keeps an open mind and attempts to search for possible counter-balances to its Capitalism. Henceforth, the United States needs to be persuaded into more rational socialistic constructs and ideologies.
However, it can be harder than it sounds to convince others to try an adapt and/or listen to foreign ideas. So I am going to suggest a couple of simple ways to try and reason with someone when regarding information that can be argumentative.
Firstly, I looked at Fisher and Urry’s article Getting to Yes. This article warns those who bargain over positions. Fisher and Urry think that arguing over positions is a strategy that in negotiations will hardly ever end up in real progress that alters the other side's opinion. They believe that this can danger ongoing relationships. Instead, they suggest focussing on principled negotiation. This negotiation style focuses negotiations on the person you are negotiating with, their interests, their opinions, and being objective when considering the result. This negotiation strategy, when applied to our desired outcome, would help us perhaps convince, or at the very least inspire critical thinking, about integrating socialistic ideologies into American’s everyday lives.
When further researching the concept of getting past position-based arguments, I stumbled across a New Yorker article about Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds. Here author Elizabeth Kolbert voices frustration with issues like gun control and vaccination explaining to readers why some people are dismissive of facts and how to get them to see clearly. Kolbert talks about human ignorance, and our reliance on others to provide us with safety, assurance, and overall knowledge (Kolbert). This article ties right into Fisher and Urry’s point about why positional arguments are pointless. What Kolbet is suggesting is that people do not even know why they believe or think what they think; they just have these beliefs because it is what is given to them. Again, this is all the more reason to try and stay away from positional arguments. Instead, like Urry and Fisher suggested, attempt to understand another person’s interests and be open to opinions other than your own. Successful negotiations with counterparts, and hopefully a reshaping of your oppositions’ outlook will be a result of this when incorporated with other positive negotiation techniques.
All of that is well and good but you will realize very quickly whether or not a person is going to actually be willing to listen. Open-mindedness can change greedy capitalistic tendencies if dealt with properly. For insight on how combatants act during negotiations, I turned to Walter’s The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement. This article addressed the idea that combatants cannot agree on principles because they need assurance from a third party before conceding to such a foreign idea. In our example of Capitalism v Socialism, an American who has been raised on the value of money, and the importance of working hard in order to achieve material positions that other capitalists might equate to “successes,” might be wary of someone telling them to live modestly and refrain from buying material goods. This is due to the lack of third-party encouragement; incentivizing Capitalist to step outside of their comfort zone. It can be scary to encounter new or different ideas, and what Walter is arguing is that without an outside source that can be trusted, a person will not be willing to take a leap of faith towards to ideological unknown.
Another reading addressing the mistrust of one’s counterpart is Kaufman’s Escaping the Symbolic Politics Trap, in this article Kaufman stresses that myths and fears about one's counterpart can lead to a party demanding political dominance or superiority in the state. Like Walter, Kaufman would agree that understanding your counterpart, and fostering a good relationship with them will lead to more clear, constructive communication that can lead to mutually beneficial solutions.
As for Capitalism v Socialism in the US, I would try and eliminate any preconceived notions that I have about either side when discussing lifestyle and views of the two ideologies with a counterpart. Instead, I would try and get to know the lifestyle and preferences of the person I am conversing with. This way I can make my own decisions on what I think about the way they live. This will allow me to be able to make constructive non-bias suggestions on how what they do or how they live can be improved. It is important however that my suggestions come from a place that my counterpart knows to be friendly and constructive. I do not want to come off high and mighty compared to my counterpart, because that would cause feelings of distrust. Instead, I want to take an interest in the other person’s way of life, even suggest ways that I can learn from my counterpart. This will help both my counterpart and me to learn from each other and maximize our understanding of each other’s views and interests.
In another reading, Greenhill and Major discuss civil war spoilers and their effect on the collapse of peace agreements. Greenhill and Major for the purpose of this argument for all intents and purposes, basically lay out the dos and don’t of playing hardball. Do use ultimatums when trying to force an opposing party's hand. Don’t make threats willy-nilly thus putting your counterpart into a situation where they either adhere to your needs without a fight or start to make ultimatums of their own. This spoiler model laid out by Greenhill and Major cautious negotiators to use their leverage sparingly and to not pounce on openings so quickly as to turn off your negotiation partner from striking a deal. In our Capitalism v Socialism model, one party may suggest that capitalistic vices such as alcohol, tobacco, or prescription drugs, need to be weaned off of in order to live a more sustainable community-centric lifestyle. But, just because it is in the interest of the socialists to rid life of these vices, does not mean they should suggest their counterpart rid their life of them as soon as possible. When put like that it could be seen as a spoiler for the capitalist, thus turning them off from any suggestions the other person may make even if they have logical merit.
Katie Shonk is the editor of the negotiations briefing newsletter at Harvard Law School. In one of her articles titled Emotional Intelligence as a Negotiating Skill, she addresses the recent 21st century breakthrough in emotional intelligence and its application to negotiations (Shonk). This is a great tie-in to everything that has been addressed in our Conflict Resolution course. The better we are able to control our own emotions during negotiations, as well as recognizing the emotional capacity of others during the negotiation, the more likely we will perform well and come to a favorable deal at the negotiation table. To go back again to our Capitalism v Socialism example, if I was able to calmly explain to a counterpart that as a practical matter, the best place to practice a socialistic lifestyle is in a wealthy capitalistic society (Caplan), and they were able to receive it in such a way that was not combative but rather a refined, well-thought-out response than we are going to have a constructive negotiation on ideologies. On the contrary, if they scream blasphemy, and refuse to acknowledge the value in my ideas then there is no progress to be made on the issue.
When processing political ideologies, it can be easy to fall in love with a certain idea and disregard others. But in politics, and in life it is important to keep an open mind and listen to possible counterarguments to what you believe in. At the same time, a critical part of politics is being well versed in how to alter a counterpart’s opinion. When doing this it is important to focus negotiations on the person, their interests, their objectives, and how to assure your allegiance to their best interest. It is important during this process to encode your message in such a way that it can be received well with a counterpart and also does not inflict feelings of insecurity causing your counterpart to be guarded and or refuse negotiation. When using all of this and applying it to convincing the Capitalistic West to alter its belief system, one should be patient, and persistent if they want to achieve success in a shift of socio-cultural beliefs.
Works Cited:
Caplan, Bryan. “How You Can Find Socialism in a Capitalist World.”
Econlib. August 21, 2018. Accessed May 04, 2019.
https://www.econlib.org/how-you-can-find-socialism-in-a-capitalist-world/.
Kolbert, Elizabeth. “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds.” The New Yorker. June 19, 2017. Accessed May 04, 2019
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-don’t-change-our-minds
Shonk, Katie. “Emotional Intelligence as a Negotiating Skill.” PON.
February 25, 2019. Accessed May 04, 2019
Https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-limits-of-emotional- intelligence-as-a-negotiation-skill/.
.
