42 replies to this topic

[mohistManiac]

And if they don't die?They come back to disturb you some more.

I don't think its the act of conducting malicious business that eventually gets one into trouble if they turn out to be within the confines of law. It's the whole coverup and playing innocent that eventually gets to be very tiring.

The strategy which I commented on was "Consider non-violent means to victory before violent ones"
My reply was Sun Tzu stated that subduing the enemy without fighting is always a better option,but what happens when the violent conflict is unavoidable?The other company hire ruffians to intimidate your business friends.But the law says it's wrong for you to to use such means back against them.

I am thinking though that if the other company can hire misfits to cause damage then its also something you can get away with although it's not something you might wish to emulate due to the law. You might even employ the law in this case to reduce the potential damage caused by said misfits.

Sun Tzu favoured conquering without using an army, but worse to worse if they hire ruffians first,you need all the flexiblities in a real war if you want to strike back.They have broken the law and therefore if you do so in return you will have also broken the law.If news of this reaches the police then all the prosecutors to the defense attorneys will be wasting their time in a long bureaucratic mess.

Not if you have good lawyers who will do things very thoroughly and make sure long bureaucratic process doesn't result.

This is the reply to my comment on Protracted war right?Even if a client has decided to only do business with you,you will still get stuck in a protracted war(or lack of war) for the remaining years with the rival boss.But if you take over everything via force,the process is much faster and you got everything under you.No need to worry about rivals anymore.Of course if there was a quick non-violent way to end everything once and for all it would be better,but there are none unless the rival boss dies all of a sudden.Other than that,there seems no way to end the rivalry quickly and conquer the competition the same way Helu did in his time.Triads can end the rivalry quickly by threats and force.It is not right legally or ethically since this is business and not war,but that's the way the Art of war can be fully implemented.

They wouldn't be willing to do threatening since if the word gets out then the real loser aura would be projected onto the opponent's side in a protracted war that is.

[SlickSlicer]

To adapt this text to business in a valuable way a person should actually avoid cherry-picking passages from it. The Art of War provides the reader with an overall approach to strategy. Cherry-picking stratagem or tactics from this approach can be reckless unless they are integrated into another strategic process.

That makes a lot of sense, and I do agree that the overall thrust of the Art of War can be applied to business. I just don't agree that every individual component of the Art of War can work outside of its intended purpose. There are some parts of the text that I think are more explicit in their application than others.

Just a stretch of my imagination.

I appreciate the attempt to apply burning things to business, but I think it still doesn't really work. In other sections, Sunzi emphasizes diplomacy over war, attacking, attacking with strategems, deception, espionage, etc. etc. These aspects can be better applied to things like targeting specific aspects of your competition. His passage on fire stands out to me because it is one of the most literal and explicit parts, leaving very little to the imagination. He's literally talking about fire and how to use it in specific ways against enemy forces, whereas at other times the meanings he gives are more vague.

Edited by SlickSlicer, 01 September 2011 - 08:31 AM.

[Hannibal27]

I appreciate the attempt to apply burning things to business, but I think it still doesn't really work. In other sections, Sunzi emphasizes diplomacy over war, attacking, attacking with strategems, deception, espionage, etc. etc. These aspects can be better applied to things like targeting specific aspects of your competition. His passage on fire stands out to me because it is one of the most literal and explicit parts, leaving very little to the imagination. He's literally talking about fire and how to use it in specific ways against enemy forces, whereas at other times the meanings he gives are more vague.

Sunzi is explicitly and literally referring to war as a matter of life and death. Whether explicit or not in areas of the text, the meaning is literal throughout so your argument seems flawed to me. I think that it comes down to whether it is possible to make an analogy, which retains enough of a meaningful connection/comparability, as well as having practical value. Though this task may pose more difficult for some sections of the text than others, I'm not convinced that it is impossible.

[Gan]

Out of curiosity, have any of you all ever run or tried to operate a business?

Or perhaps know someone really close that has done that?

[Hannibal27]

Out of curiosity, have any of you all ever run or tried to operate a business?

Or perhaps know someone really close that has done that?

Hi Gan,

I currently own and operate a small business, which I established in 2004. As well, I know a few people who run businesses, two of which handle large scale operations.

[Belken]

The "regulated" business doesn't mean nothing "shady" can get past. There are ways to play by the rules and still use actions well within the law to "burn" your enemies, one up the competition in your favor etc.

I don't think its the act of conducting malicious business that eventually gets one into trouble if they turn out to be within the confines of law. It's the whole coverup and playing innocent that eventually gets to be very tiring.

But if we take the fire stragegy into account, it's not a complete literal burning.Burning must have death or injury.If people can stand up after a "burning" then it totally isn't burning at all.

Consider non-violent means to victory before violent ones

I am thinking though that if the other company can hire misfits to cause damage then its also something you can get away with although it's not something you might wish to emulate due to the law. You might even employ the law in this case to reduce the potential damage caused by said misfits.

Since you mention using ruffians back against them(while risking getting into trouble with the law),then there is nothing I can disagree with since the violent method used here is much more similar to a real war(although not by much).Let's just hope the police aren't in the other company's pay.

Not if you have good lawyers who will do things very thoroughly and make sure long bureaucratic process doesn't result.

Lawyers can't win every single time and attempts to use more and more lawsuits to weaken each other in the future will just prolong matters that can be solved in a single takeover or totally destroying the enemy in a cavalry swift charge.And taking into account the dumb thing some countries have which consists of emotionally based decision making idiots know as Jury.......

They wouldn't be willing to do threatening since if the word gets out then the real loser aura would be projected onto the opponent's side in a protracted war that is.

If it is was a real protracted war and not business,then threatening someone and finally taking over his territory would be considered a victory and not loss therefore the conquerer has no loser aura.

Edited by Belken, 03 September 2011 - 04:10 PM.

[mohistManiac]

But if we take the fire stragegy into account, it's not a complete literal burning.Burning must have death or injury.If people can stand up after a "burning" then it totally isn't burning at all.

I think we are using the set of ideas in the Bing Fa texts and making them apply in typical ways. Of course you can still try real burning and with gasoline and fuse but that's just terrorism which is all but typical.

Since you mention using ruffians back against them(while risking getting into trouble with the law),then there is nothing I can disagree with since the violent method used here is much more similar to a real war(although not by much).Let's just hope the police aren't in the other company's pay.

Ruffians can do things like putting up a similar product but cheaper price tag in the aisles of stores which stock up on the original but more expensive version. It would direct some customers to spread word of mouth in search of the product elsewhere where the new product has been firmly established. Both parties can do this to each other and police don't know any better.

Lawyers can't win every single time and attempts to use more and more lawsuits to weaken each other in the future will just prolong matters that can be solved in a single takeover or totally destroying the enemy in a cavalry swift charge.And taking into account the dumb thing some countries have which consists of emotionally based decision making idiots know as Jury.......

If you are the big fish lawyers will help you plenty in defeating small fish. If you are small fish lawyers will help you against big fish. Lawyers help to draw the line somewhere so that the fishes will know who is boss.

If it is was a real protracted war and not business,then threatening someone and finally taking over his territory would be considered a victory and not loss therefore the conquerer has no loser aura.

If one store is making threats against another store then it will show it's loser aura. The other store is just listening to threats and doesn't have to budge.

[Belken]

I think we are using the set of ideas in the Bing Fa texts and making them apply in typical ways. Of course you can still try real burning and with gasoline and fuse but that's just terrorism which is all but typical.

Real burning is the only thing can that can be applied as a fire tactic.If we try to implement other things only the theory of fire and not real fire,then it has strayed and is totally not a fire tactic.If a chaotic situation that spreads around is considered burning just because it is "spreading" like fire,then the people being "burned" should be considered as fire proof and having been resurrected.

Ruffians can do things like putting up a similar product but cheaper price tag in the aisles of stores which stock up on the original but more expensive version. It would direct some customers to spread word of mouth in search of the product elsewhere where the new product has been firmly established. Both parties can do this to each other and police don't know any better.

Since water retains no constant shape, in warfare there are no constant conditions.

All options have to be available be it the violent(threats) and non-violent(cheaper price tags).Being restricted to only using non-violent ways by the law causes non-flexibility.Like water in a cup that restricts the water to be only that shape and cannot become any other shape unless you pour it out of the cup(the law)

If you are the big fish lawyers will help you plenty in defeating small fish. If you are small fish lawyers will help you against big fish. Lawyers help to draw the line somewhere so that the fishes will know who is boss.

If you are the small fish,you need to apply anything that can help you win.That includes threatening or assasinating the other big fish or even the lawyers.But since we all know what the law thinks of such actions.....

If one store is making threats against another store then it will show it's loser aura. The other store is just listening to threats and doesn't have to budge.

Having a reputation of a "loser" doesn't matter.If the triads threaten major players and if they succumb,then you are the winner.If
there is a chance you can win through force just go for it.

If the fighting is sure to result in a victory,then you should fight even though the ruler forbids it

But since the "ruler" will show up with guns at your house if you go and fight in public or even closed doors,then the true Art of War cannot be applied here,only those that can ensure victory without conflict.Which is restrictive..In an environment of peace and understanding(?),everyone can implement and reinterpret sections of the Art of War in a non-war type of way but the entire process will end up in circles and without a quick option of victory through takeover it will become what Sun Tzu always wanted to avoid;a protracted war.

Edited by Belken, 05 September 2011 - 03:31 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Real burning is the only thing can that can be applied as a fire tactic.If we try to implement other things only the theory of fire and not real fire,then it has strayed and is totally not a fire tactic.If a chaotic situation that spreads around is considered burning just because it is "spreading" like fire,then the people being "burned" should be considered as fire proof and having been resurrected.

I really don't think using the Bing Fa texts is the same as taking it literally in economics because people use warfare when they fight wars but use economics craft when trying to succeed in business. The use of the texts is in trying to making a parallel that there is a struggle in the economics environment and that many elements are the same as a battlefield. Therefore using fire is demonstrated when you deal difficulty and damage in ways that resemble the use of fire. Although it is more explicit nothing has to be burned literally. It is an invisible flame that spreads.

Since water retains no constant shape, in warfare there are no constant conditions.

All options have to be available be it the violent(threats) and non-violent(cheaper price tags).Being restricted to only using non-violent ways by the law causes non-flexibility.Like water in a cup that restricts the water to be only that shape and cannot become any other shape unless you pour it out of the cup(the law)

There is the constant of what people realize you are doing. Using the misfits is a means of using a force to engage the opponent that is not out of bounds of the typical. Using the misfits and completely having no respect for human life is not. Of course it is true you can use murder and inflict lawless destruction but that's just not typical.

If you are the small fish,you need to apply anything that can help you win.That includes threatening or assasinating the other big fish or even the lawyers.But since we all know what the law thinks of such actions.....

Small fish economics are already of the sort that makes use of conditions that big fish are not very keen on and so they win by being small fish and having only to gain when they keep getting bigger or they may wish to continue their existence as small fish.

Having a reputation of a "loser" doesn't matter.If the triads threaten major players and if they succumb,then you are the winner.If
there is a chance you can win through force just go for it.

A business reputation is important since it defines the relationships that would otherwise seek opportunity in more stable conditions much like it is in political power balances.

If the fighting is sure to result in a victory,then you should fight even though the ruler forbids it

But since the "ruler" will show up with guns at your house if you go and fight in public or even closed doors,then the true Art of War cannot be applied here,only those that can ensure victory without conflict.Which is restrictive..In an environment of peace and understanding(?),everyone can implement and reinterpret sections of the Art of War in a non-war type of way but the entire process will end up in circles and without a quick option of victory through takeover it will become what Sun Tzu always wanted to avoid;a protracted war.

In the economics environment you deal with the restrictions that enable it's format in the first place. They are not restrictions in the sense that you are prevented from doing efficient things to bend your opponent to your will. Quick options of victory exist and we can talk about that. However, economics people who use the Bing Fa texts are not doing economics and then doing warfare on the side. Integrating the knowledge of warfare into economics just means drawing parallels between them otherwise it would just be called war all the time.

[Belken]

I really don't think using the Bing Fa texts is the same as taking it literally in economics because people use warfare when they fight wars but use economics craft when trying to succeed in business. The use of the texts is in trying to making a parallel that there is a struggle in the economics environment and that many elements are the same as a battlefield. Therefore using fire is demonstrated when you deal difficulty and damage in ways that resemble the use of fire. Although it is more explicit nothing has to be burned literally. It is an invisible flame that spreads.

The fire strategy can be reimprovised to deal with the business situation at hand but not fully 100%.If no one really dies or gets injured,then the fire strategy has been used non-literally but not literally which is the way the fire strategy in the Art of war should be used.

There is the constant of what people realize you are doing. Using the misfits is a means of using a force to engage the opponent that is not out of bounds of the typical. Using the misfits and completely having no respect for human life is not. Of course it is true you can use murder and inflict lawless destruction but that's just not typical.

All options including murder and fighting must be able to be used when the moment calls for it.

Small fish economics are already of the sort that makes use of conditions that big fish are not very keen on and so they win by being small fish and having only to gain when they keep getting bigger or they may wish to continue their existence as small fish.

Depends on what the small timer businessman wants.But if he want to stage a takeover and looks to the Art of war as guidance,then he should be prepared to know that only some but not all can be applied.

A business reputation is important since it defines the relationships that would otherwise seek opportunity in more stable conditions much like it is in political power balances.

But when a conflict that needs the use of violence arises,you should be able to use the war methods in the Art of war without restrictions.If you cannot use them,then therefore they are the strategies from the Art of war that cannot be used in business

In the economics environment you deal with the restrictions that enable it's format in the first place. They are not restrictions in the sense that you are prevented from doing efficient things to bend your opponent to your will. Quick options of victory exist and we can talk about that.

One should not hope to be able to fully implement the Art of war to it's fullest if one purposely puts themselves in a restricted environment in the first place.It's like purposely choosing to build a fort on quicksand.There are of course many ways for a quick victory including non-violent methods.Sun Tzu favoured non-fighting methods to gain a quick victory.But if met by volence,you should be able to respond back in the same way otherwise it is not really the Art of war.

However, economics people who use the Bing Fa texts are not doing economics and then doing warfare on the side. Integrating the knowledge of warfare into economics just means drawing parallels between them otherwise it would just be called war all the time.

The book is after all,called the Art of war not Art of business.If they just do business and then hope to use the Art of war,then there will come a time one day where should be prepared when they start encountering a lot of strategies that cannot be implemented unless it is literal.

Edited by Belken, 07 September 2011 - 07:51 PM.

[mohistManiac]

The fire strategy can be reimprovised to deal with the business situation at hand but not fully 100%.If no one really dies or gets injured,then the fire strategy has been used non-literally but not literally which is the way the fire strategy in the Art of war should be used.

I'm glad to see your point of view isn't as purist when it comes to using these texts. Although when it was written I don't doubt that certain texts would be viewed as applying to certain things only. The beauty of living in the 21st century is that we can dig up these texts when the kinds of things they are talking about hardly apply but draw parallels.

[Mak Jo Si]

GREAT! Someone finally said this with wisdom! Man, I am a Chinese and I hate to see those crappy books that try to say XXX art of war book can be for business, for interpersonal, for sex, for whatever. Sucks! They don't undersatnd that these books are AS-IS and you cannot use them like a multi-function device! If you try to twist their words and make them use for other things, you will fail badly and lead yourself to tons of troubles. That's also what happen when it comes to those new agers who try to blend lots of stuff into one, it is just spoiling the original taste and making a pot of c**p instead. Great post, I am happy to see someone who finally got some BRAINS! You got it!

[baybal]

Modern business is much less than positional warfare that Sun Tzu favoured. It's all about mobilisation, much more like Genghiz Khan's strategy. The goal of modern management is to be a "mosquito that bites an elephant to death."