Forum

As promised, I finally gathered my thoughts and put into words what has always seemed so obvious to me that it didn't need to be verbalized... So, let's say there's a boss – a king/president/foreman on a construction site (it doesn't depend on the form of power) – and he has a certain number of people under his command. In the boss's eyes, this group is divided into several categories: 1) The support group. People whose goals align with the boss's goals, both strategically and tactically. There are few conflicts within this group; discussions are constructive and private; from the outside, this group appears as a single entity. 2) Systemic opposition. People whose goals align with the boss's goals at the level of general principles (where we are going), but may differ tactically (how we get there and at what speed). Conflicts do occur, but discussions are usually constructive and open, aimed at finding consensus, and if that is not possible, at least at finding a compromise. That is, a normal public political process. 3) Non-systemic opposition. People whose goals diverge from the boss's goals. Conflicts are chronic; discussions are unproductive; consensus is impossible in principle, although in some cases a tactical compromise (a temporary truce) is possible. 4) Anti-elite. Revolutionaries and all sorts of conspirators. 5) Neutrals. Those who do not fall into the above groups. One of the basic management principles is not to make concessions to the non-systemic opposition. Because they perceive these concessions not as a reason to seek consensus/compromise, but as a reason to continue the pressure, to try to get the next portion of concessions. Therefore, when a claim arises from this group, you either have to agree immediately (if the claim is reasonable) or stand your ground. For this reason, it is extremely unproductive for the systemic opposition to cooperate with the non-systemic opposition – the effect will be at the lower limit, and you can even end up on the list of non-systemic actors yourself. If the systemic opposition cannot independently draw a line between itself and the non-systemic opposition, then the boss must initiate this separation. The task of the non-systemic opposition is, accordingly, the opposite – to attach itself to the systemic opposition as much as possible and impose its agenda on it. Whew... I think I managed to get through that... I'll reread it later and maybe correct it where I formulated it poorly.