>I see heavy usage of this word, "strategy", here on this list. It's
>a word I typically associate with managerial types (hence my earlier
>wisecrack) who, unlike GHW, believe in the "vision thing"; so the
>heavy use here creates cognitive dissonance! To repeat CB's
>question, what is meant by "strategy"? Can someone offer some good
>examples?
OK, well let me have a go at that. Though understanding what "strategy" is and explaining it to you "non managerial types" is quite another thing. ;-)
Jokes aside, it just means how you want to go about getting what you want. It isn't rocket science.
So, so example, you want to rule the world, fine, what is your overall strategy to achieve that?
I can't think of any way of doing that, let's work on some more limited objectives. Let's say you are the US capitalist class. Your objective I'm assuming is to keep being the ruling class and keep exploiting the subject working class, as long as possible. OK, objectives defined, next step is -how are we going to do that?
That's strategy.
Your strength is, you (the capitalist class remember) own and control the means of production. Right? Which means you own everything that comes off the production lines. the 99% want to eat and have shelter, anything, they have to have your permission.
A necessary flip side to that is that you are a tiny minority. Antime they want the 99% can just take what they want and you will be powerless to stop them. The situation looks hopeless. Your strategy needs to be real good.
The obvious strategy is brute force. You monopolise the use of force, hold a gun to the heads of the 99% and force them to work for you. That would be the *brute force* strategy
But that strategy hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of working. There are just too many of them, you won't have enough bullets. it would be no fun sleeping in underground bunkers and they would probably not work very efficiently and keep breaking stuff. Even if you employed the *divide and rule* strategy and got half the subject class to side with you and do your dirty work subjugating the other half of their class, you still have the problem that slaves are very inefficient workers.
So after some trial and error, you come up with the idea that maybe you can control your massive subject class by somehow convincing them that it would be best for everyone, including them, if you and your friends ruled them. This is called the *consent of the governed* strategy.
I won't go into all the advantages this confers, look around you and you can see.
For our current purposes what is important is to understand that this strategy, like any strategy, has certain implications. If it is to work, a strategy must ensure that tactical elements must be consistent with overall strategy. Strategy must rule tactics.
For instance, if your primary strategy to maintain your minority rule was *brute force*, it would be silly to do something like dismiss your army, or try to avoid paying them. See what I mean? Sure, it would be nice to avoid the cost of maintaining an army and police force. But if you rule by brute force that is not what we would call strategic thinking. ;-)
Likewise, if you rule by *consent of the governed* that is your primary strategy and your tactical elements have to be consistent. That is to say they have to avoid undermining your brilliant strategy.
Like for instance, if a majority of the population get their knickers in a knot about some trivial thing, like widespread hunger or homelessness (among themselves) and some of them take to the streets protesting, you have to avoid the temptation to have the troublemakers shot on the spot. Couple of reasons for that.
For one thing, the people you need to carry out the order to shoot them might hesitate. Unlikely, but if they did, its all over for you then and there. And it has been known to happen, because your lackeys are from the subject class (the 99%) themselves. They might have mothers and fathers, cousins and girlfriends in the crowd you order them to shoot.
The other reason not to do it is even more important. Remember that to the great unwashed out there (the 99%) you are seen as the "little father", or some such foolishness. They worship you and are in awe of your superior moral and intellectual characteristics. You have cultivated this awe and wonder as part of your *consent of the governed* strategy to rule over and exploit them forever. It has taken much effort and time to manufacture and maintain this consent.
Having the protestors shot in the streets would tend to undermine this. It would in other words be counter to your primary strategy. So not a tactic to be employed, except as a last resort. And in that case it would actually indicate a complete change of strategy. If you are forced to employ that kind of tactic, it probably means that *consent of the governed* has failed and you have moved back to *brute force*. Which probably won't work very long, better start packing your bags with those gold bars you have stashed away for this contingency.
Unless of course... There is an exception. It may just be that you can get away with brute force, while maintaining the consent of the majority of the governed, if you can somehow convince them that shooting them in the streets is for their own good.
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it, but it can be done if you don't panic. The trick is convince the majority of people that the protestors are a threat to them (the 99%), rather than merely a threat to you (the 1%).
All you really need is to conjure up some incidences of violence or theft to make it appear that the protestors are engaged in rioting and looting. The public hate that, they wont withdraw their consent if you send in the cops to preserve order, preserving order is entirely consistent with *consent of the governed* strategy.
In fact, preserving order is one of your few *duties* as a ruling class. If you fail to maintain order, you will lose the *consent of the governed* faster than you will by letting them starve and freeze in the snow.
You may be tempted to order a few agents to go set some fires and loot some stores as a pretext but that is probably unnecessary. Not to mention a bit dangerous. If you are caught out it can look really bad for you. Your duty is to preserve order remember? Looks bad if you are caught doing the opposite. also undermines you on the level of maintaining a sense of awe at your great intelligence and wisdom, if you get caught doing something so stupid. The public would be greatly shocked to discover you are as dumb as plank, you need to avoid that happening.
And really, there's no need, Just wait for a few impetuous youth to get carried away. There are ways of encouraging them to do so. Unless the opposition is really well organised, that will be sure to happen eventually.
And that brings us to the Black Bloc...
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas