Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced “compromises” with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimizes the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into “compromises”!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists.
In other words, you can’t really say that compromise in general is good or bad. It depends on the specifics of the situation. There are plenty of cases where compromise is the best way to advance one’s interests, but if you commit to one path or the other, you’re showing your hand too early. If the party you’re negotiating with knows ahead of time that you’re committed to compromising, then they’re not going to offer very much to do it, but if you never accept compromise, then you may miss out on a mutually beneficial arrangement.
There are historical examples where compromise was necessary, but there have also been cases where it wasn’t. If you’re going to take a position that says compromise is generally preferable, I’d ask whether that includes, for example, trying to find a compromise with Russia over Ukraine. Because it seems like the same people who say that the left has to compromise and sacrifice every demand will also call for fighting to the last Ukrainian and not giving up an inch of territory. That makes me think that it’s less about whether compromise is good or bad, and more about what we consider worth fighting for and what points we see as negotiable.
Serious answer:
-“No Compromises?” Lenin.
In other words, you can’t really say that compromise in general is good or bad. It depends on the specifics of the situation. There are plenty of cases where compromise is the best way to advance one’s interests, but if you commit to one path or the other, you’re showing your hand too early. If the party you’re negotiating with knows ahead of time that you’re committed to compromising, then they’re not going to offer very much to do it, but if you never accept compromise, then you may miss out on a mutually beneficial arrangement.
There are historical examples where compromise was necessary, but there have also been cases where it wasn’t. If you’re going to take a position that says compromise is generally preferable, I’d ask whether that includes, for example, trying to find a compromise with Russia over Ukraine. Because it seems like the same people who say that the left has to compromise and sacrifice every demand will also call for fighting to the last Ukrainian and not giving up an inch of territory. That makes me think that it’s less about whether compromise is good or bad, and more about what we consider worth fighting for and what points we see as negotiable.