News:

'sup, my privileged, cishet shitlords?  I'm back from oppressing womyn and PoC.

Main Menu

The Circular Firing Squad

Started by Cain, July 16, 2008, 06:43:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cain

The Circular Firing Squad

Anyone familiar with left wing and left of centre politics is very aware of the circular firing squad phenomena.  The name says it all really.  You have a large coalition of people with varying aims, backgrounds, means and ideologies, all gathered under one supposedly large tent.  The thing is, tensions are apparent between various groups.  Socialists loathe the liberals loathe the post-modernists loathe the anarchists loathe the socialists. 

And so, when a disagreement does come along, the battle-lines are already drawn.  Nearly everyone prepares to stand by their ideological convictions and shoot the next person along in the head, until the whole thing causes the entire group to unravel.  Hence, the circular firing squad.  Its the "land-mine" of the political circus.  The right is somewhat susceptible to it as well, but not to nearly the same degree (possibly because the right-wing is where authoritarian mass movements are currently, and thus left-wing authoritarians simply don't have the number to enforce consensus).

The circular firing squad is the bane of anyone who has ever had to try and coordinate groups with disparate aims.  The question, as always, is how to overcome it, once it becomes an overriding problem.  Because its not, not always.  The long tail of politics demands that groups with different philosophical, strategic and tactical backgrounds but similar aims should cooperate on goals of mutual benefit.  That way, the most effective methods of advancing can be discovered through empirical observation, of trial and error.  To a degree, the circular firing squad can be used to weed out those who put ideological above effectiveness.

The problem comes when its intractable on every side, that few will accept the inefficiency of their tactics, and others, while not wanting to lose their manpower or voices, do want them to change.  The problem at this stage is how to circle the square, break the deadlock and get people back into a mindset where they cooperate for mutual gain while respecting each others differences.

I think the answer is pretty simple, in theory, but hard in practice.  What is required is an enemy.

Oh, not in that sort of sense.  I don't mean the fictitious "we must always have an enemy so we can hold together" sort of thinking, which H. L. Mencken so accurately described and which makes up the basis of most totalitarian policy while in power.  Nor the equally flawed, quasi-social sciences view that enemies provide social bonds for society and that there is a psychological need for an enemy, for people to define themselves against as much as they define what they are for.  These ideas are stupid and pointless and only lead to hysteria.

No, I mean an actual enemy, one who really threatens and presents risk to the groups in question.  Consider the best example we have in modern history and national mythology, that of world war two.  We have ass-kicking Socialists (such as Orwell), committed Communists (like Khrushchev), old style imperialists (Churchill), aristocrats (von Stauffenburg), anarchists, nationalists, capitalists, Catholics, Hindus, Jews, atheists and many other positions all contained under one roof, fighting the threat from fascist aligned governments in Europe and Asia.

They all managed to work together because the threat was there, and the threat was real.  Afterwards, the spoils could be divided and old arguments resumed.  But without everyone pitching
in and getting involved, they would be picked off, one by one, until none remained.

That is the virtue of having an enemy, a real one.  Not only do they instruct you, on a tactical and strategic level, they remind you who your real enemies and friends are.  Enemies, as dangerous as they are, nevertheless serve a purpose.  Acting as an external focal point for aggression amongst groups who should otherwise be on the same side seems as good a use as any I can think of.

Cramulus

Our progidal mod has returned, and bearing gifts!

I'm reminded of the talk in the Art of Memetics about the purpose of stress. Stress forces a group to stick together, move tightly, and form strong bonds. External threats (in hindsight) serve to strengthen a group and mortar them together.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 16, 2008, 07:28:58 PM
Our progidal mod has returned, and bearing gifts!

I'm reminded of the talk in the Art of Memetics about the purpose of stress. Stress forces a group to stick together, move tightly, and form strong bonds. External threats (in hindsight) serve to strengthen a group and mortar them together.

So you're saying that it turns their Black Iron Prison Cells, into a Black Iron Prison Block?

Also, wb Cain and I like the OP.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Payne

Powerful stuff Cain.

Who is our enemy?

Requia ☣

Quote from: Payne on July 16, 2008, 10:34:53 PMWho is our enemy?


Everyone.  Also no one, judging by how fragmented we are.

Wibbles Cain.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Adios


LMNO

It's interesting to observe the Conservatives these days, especially the Evangelical Xtians and the Libertarians who are speaking out against the Bush administration.  They all huddled under the GOP tent, keeping their mouths shut in the hopes that if the Republicans got into power, they'd toss an ideological bone in their direction.

And now they (or at least the ones that are paying attention) are pissed.

fomenter

circular firing squad great phenomena to use against those  whose ideology needs some chaos and disorder
                   
                           
                   
"So she says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy... Without the lumps. HAAA-ha-ha-ha!"


hmroogp

BADGE OF HONOR

Quote from: Payne on July 16, 2008, 10:34:53 PM
Powerful stuff Cain.

Who is our enemy?

Terrorism, Drugs, and Poverty.   :lulz:
The Jerk On Bike rolled his eyes and tossed the waffle back over his shoulder--before it struck the ground, a stout, disconcertingly monkey-like dog sprang into the air and snatched it, and began to masticate it--literally--for the sound it made was like a homonculus squatting on the floor muttering "masticate masticate masticate".

fomenter

Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on July 17, 2008, 05:23:26 PM
Quote from: Payne on July 16, 2008, 10:34:53 PM
Powerful stuff Cain.

Who is our enemy?

Terrorism, Drugs, and Poverty.   :lulz:

thought those were discordias best friends  :lulz:
"So she says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy... Without the lumps. HAAA-ha-ha-ha!"


hmroogp

Cramulus

Quote from: fnord mote eris on July 17, 2008, 04:59:08 PM
circular firing squad great phenomena to use against those  whose ideology needs some chaos and disorder
                   
                           
                   

:lulz:

Raphaella

Quote from: fnord mote eris on July 17, 2008, 04:59:08 PM
circular firing squad great phenomena to use against those  whose ideology needs some chaos and disorder
                   
                           
                   
:lulz:  apt visual

QuoteActing as an external focal point for aggression amongst groups who should otherwise be on the same side seems as good a use as any I can think of.

I suppose 'we' should find an aggressor quickly so that 'we' may band together and defeat them. 
The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon into blood before the coming of the great and terrible OZ

Triple Zero

Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on July 17, 2008, 02:18:06 PM
Quote from: Payne on July 16, 2008, 10:34:53 PM
Powerful stuff Cain.

Who is our enemy?

Right now we are.

DAMN RIGHT! LETS GET OURSELVES!!

no but seriously. good stuff Cain. if we were to pick an enemy however, wouldnt it be slightly artificial, basically it would be like picking a common goal, only formulated in the negative.

now, if we'd fabricate an enemy, even if it's a real one, not imagined, this would either lean towards the totalitarian example (if a small amount of people would do it without knowledge of the others) or again to artificialness if we were all to wage war on someone (say, wiccans).

so, what i get from your piece is, that if a really real enemy ever surfaces, we can use this knowledge to be aware and take advantage of it if it happens?
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Cainad (dec.)

Quote from: Payne on July 16, 2008, 10:34:53 PM
Powerful stuff Cain.

Who is our enemy?

No Payne. You are the en-AAAUUUGH NO PLEASE DON'T! FUUUUUCK! *BLAM*



And then Cainad shut the fuck up.

Cain

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 07:54:28 PM
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on July 17, 2008, 02:18:06 PM
Quote from: Payne on July 16, 2008, 10:34:53 PM
Powerful stuff Cain.

Who is our enemy?

Right now we are.

DAMN RIGHT! LETS GET OURSELVES!!

no but seriously. good stuff Cain. if we were to pick an enemy however, wouldnt it be slightly artificial, basically it would be like picking a common goal, only formulated in the negative.

now, if we'd fabricate an enemy, even if it's a real one, not imagined, this would either lean towards the totalitarian example (if a small amount of people would do it without knowledge of the others) or again to artificialness if we were all to wage war on someone (say, wiccans).

so, what i get from your piece is, that if a really real enemy ever surfaces, we can use this knowledge to be aware and take advantage of it if it happens?

I'm not so sure it matters.  If you pick an enemy, and if you mock them and attack them enough, sooner or later, they will respond (except Buddhists, but fuck those guys).  And once they do that, it usually affirms you had a good reason for pursuing them in the first place.

Obviously, a legitimate greivance (like being a totalitarian dickwad) is also necessary, but beyond that its a matter of finding the people in question, and communicating your disapproval.  Once someone leaps onto the radar, it focuses your energies.  You remember why these people are considered so negatively, and why its generally a good idea to go up against them.  Its somewhat unfair, because it tends to using small groups as symbolic examples of the underlying malaise or ideal that is disliked...but as they say, life isn't fair either.