The seesaw gambit
A gambit is a manoeuvre in which a part of a force is put at a disadvantage in order to motivate an opposing force to put an even greater part of it at a disadvantage, like onto the valley floor, say.
This latter example belongs to the class of exposure gambits, which are designed to bait an enemy into showing himself and, besides that, are all too well known as a fixture in crime novels.
But just as concealment is a strategic advantage, so is disproportionally aligned interest, i.e. that it is, though barely so, in somebody else's interest to act in one's own vital. The picture that applies is that of a seesaw: sitting on the same side all aligned parties join in the gains of the movement, but some more so than others.
In the picture those who contribute most to it, also enjoy most of it, but that isn't necessarily so in its application, in which lies the origin of the seesaw gambit: As long as the social order of the enemy is seen as beneficial by its potential fighters, they'll be willing to fight for it, but otherwise they'd had to be forced or paid substantially to do so. Would the latter occur, the aim of the gambit would've been achieved, namely to encumber the enemy's recruitment, but when a society is built around opportunity, it can't wage war unless at least for victory achieved it can credibly promise it, so that recruitment would cease completely once the social order isn't perceived as opportune anymore. Now, in order to achieve this, the credit that the enemy's social order enjoys must be taxed by war and emergency measures and parallelly his internal policies must be influenced to drastically cater to other interests than those of the potential fighters. Then, if the situation remains unchanged for a while, if the military pressure is kept up, while the enemy's society retains enough freedom to choose its policies voluntarily, the commitment of the fighters to the enemy's social order will come to an end.
The second last step seems awfully difficult though, and it wouldn't usually work, but in an oligarchy* capital always concentrates in a few hands and will be increasingly used in order to command servant behaviour according to oligarch wishes, so that society splits into
The upcoming U.S. election is, first and foremost, a measurement that will tell the oligarchs, whether or not the second class is still vital enough to play its role in the social architecture of the United States, and if so, the seesaw gambit will have been defeated for now, but otherwise its progress will require short term action.
*
This latter example belongs to the class of exposure gambits, which are designed to bait an enemy into showing himself and, besides that, are all too well known as a fixture in crime novels.
But just as concealment is a strategic advantage, so is disproportionally aligned interest, i.e. that it is, though barely so, in somebody else's interest to act in one's own vital. The picture that applies is that of a seesaw: sitting on the same side all aligned parties join in the gains of the movement, but some more so than others.
In the picture those who contribute most to it, also enjoy most of it, but that isn't necessarily so in its application, in which lies the origin of the seesaw gambit: As long as the social order of the enemy is seen as beneficial by its potential fighters, they'll be willing to fight for it, but otherwise they'd had to be forced or paid substantially to do so. Would the latter occur, the aim of the gambit would've been achieved, namely to encumber the enemy's recruitment, but when a society is built around opportunity, it can't wage war unless at least for victory achieved it can credibly promise it, so that recruitment would cease completely once the social order isn't perceived as opportune anymore. Now, in order to achieve this, the credit that the enemy's social order enjoys must be taxed by war and emergency measures and parallelly his internal policies must be influenced to drastically cater to other interests than those of the potential fighters. Then, if the situation remains unchanged for a while, if the military pressure is kept up, while the enemy's society retains enough freedom to choose its policies voluntarily, the commitment of the fighters to the enemy's social order will come to an end.
The second last step seems awfully difficult though, and it wouldn't usually work, but in an oligarchy* capital always concentrates in a few hands and will be increasingly used in order to command servant behaviour according to oligarch wishes, so that society splits into
- one class of storehouse workers who follow orders by the letter, though with great inner detachment, and
- another class of small entrepreneurs who face increasingly difficult working conditions,
The upcoming U.S. election is, first and foremost, a measurement that will tell the oligarchs, whether or not the second class is still vital enough to play its role in the social architecture of the United States, and if so, the seesaw gambit will have been defeated for now, but otherwise its progress will require short term action.
*
Labels: 39, formalisierung, geschichte, gesetze, institutionen, sehhilfen, wahrnehmungen, zeitgeschichte, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
11:58
