reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
The world fell apart fairly rapidly in "Atlas Shrugged" when that strategy was employed. It's a good idea, but haw would one coordinate a global labor
strike and make it work. Not that I'm recruiting for anything. I'm not actually speaking about doing it, I'm just talking about it.
John Galt and the producers of the world in Atlas Shrugged
did not stop playing the game, they changed the rules. No win games are pointless.
The whole point of a game is to have winners and losers. In this regard, all games are perverted. Perverted in the sense that on a higher plane of
existence, there are no winners and losers, and victory and defeat are equal. On this plane of existence, that existence where we are inhabiting
biological constructs, the ultimate game is to survive!
Survival is not just simply subsisting. Subsistence is arguably anti-survival. Those who merely subsist are not properly prepared to deal with all
the obstacles and pitfalls that come with this game called life. In order to survive, or at the very least, considering our mortality, maximize our
survival, we must, each and everyone of us, learn how to flourish and prosper. That is the game! That is the perversion.
Why is it perversion? I suppose if one believes that all we are exists within these biological constructs we call a body, then perhaps there is no
perversion, but if one understands the paradigm differently, and accepts that we are spiritual beings who, for whatever reasons, have made the
agreement to inhabit these physical states, then the understanding of our immortality becomes easier to accept, and therein lies the perversion.
The biological command of all living beings seems to be to survive, but if we are spiritual beings immortal in our existence, then there is this
insane dichotomy of immortal beings inhabiting physical states in order to become mortal so we can survive.
From that premise, all games that follow are a perversion. So, if we are immortal beings who decide to become mortal beings, why? Perhaps it is
because as spiritual beings we exist in a static state, knowing everything there is to know, and having everything there is to have. Under such a
condition, it is arguable that there is no game. No game is problematic. We can witness the problems with no game in a variety of situations, but as
an example, I would point to the last few seasons of the L.A. Laker's when both Kobe and Shaq were still teammates. As a team, combined with the
other players, this team was unbeatable (even though they would get beat) and they were often faced with teams not nearly as good as they were. They,
in effect, played seasons where many of the games they played were facing inferior teams...in effect, there was no game. So, Kobe and Shaq, needing a
game, turned on each other. This became the new game, bickering and one upsmanship, to the point where they would lose games they - statistically
speaking - should not have lost. They turned in on each other and were not much of a team, until they were finally confronted with a team worth
playing, and then suddenly Kobe and Shaq would drop all their differences and become teammates long enough to play the game afoot.
We all need a game. No win situations are not games. This is why Tic Tac Toe becomes no fun once we learn the rules of the game, and then it is no
longer a game. In chess, there is a scenario known as zugzwang, (German for "compelled to move"), where one player has created a situation where his
opponent must move, but any move he makes will only put him in a worse situation than he was before he makes the move. Suddenly that person is faced
with a no win scenario and the loss is inevitable. No game. I suspect that this is what TIWWA is getting at with the so called "power elite", that
they have created a zugzwang scenario for everyone else, or at the very least, that they are working towards such a strategy.
While it is important to learn how to think four or five moves ahead - the ability to successfully predict an outcome before moving is key in playing
games, including the game of life - it is also important to remember that life does not come down to 64 squares. In fact, if the so called "power
elite" or Illuminati are viewing life and the world in terms of a chess board, then this very well may be their weakness, that they are viewing the
game in a limited sphere of 64 squares. Their weakness should become our strength.
The suggestion that we should organize a global labor strike is probably thinking inside of the 64 square paradigm. John Galt did not go on a "labor"
strike, he went on a producer strike. What I mean by this is that Galt was not a worker, he was a producer. I am not making the argument that all of
us need to be producers in the Galtian sense, nor should my arguments be construed as the popular anti-Randian perception that everyone should bow
down to the producers and kiss their asses. I am in agreement with Galt that if one does not want to be a producer in the game of life, then they
should "Get the hell out of (the) way!" This includes all who seem to want to get in the way which are the so called "power elite", and the workers
of the world who think they are the basis of production, and that their unity, simply because it is a majority, is enough to make the assertion
The worker or laborer, who buys into Marxist dogma is most likely a part of the zugzwang strategy in the game that is probably afoot. They play into
the hands who wish to aggregate power. A worker, by definition, needs a job in order to be a worker. By and large, workers seem to have no interest
in creating their own jobs, and seem to expect someone else to do this for them, and then far too often assert that they are the sole reason for any
success the creation of that job brought about. To be sure, in a business where jobs exist, those who fill those jobs are indeed a part of any
success that business has, assuming they are productive, but they are not the sole reason, and this limited thinking, this 64 square thinking, creates
many problems for the workers who think their unity is all that is needed to squeeze profits out of the creator of their jobs.
Labor unions, and labor strikes seem to help the so called "power elite" aggregate power. In fact, I created a thread a while back explaining how a
united front could effectively kill corporations that are acting in unreasonable ways, and had a pro labor member come in and "explain" to me that
corporations have the preferred jobs. I was advocating sole proprietorship over corporate charters and this member was largely dismissive of the sole
proprietor because any jobs a sole proprietor would create could not offer the same kind of pay and benefits a corporation could. In effect, this
member was demonstrating how big labor is very much in collusion with big business.
This collusion seems to be a big part of the rules. Those rules being we need corporations so that we can have jobs but the corporations need workers
who will agree to low pay, and the game is who wins, the workers or the corporations. Of course, it is easily to predict under such a scenario who
will win because in order for the worker to win, they need a unity that is rare and that unity when it is in effect can only function in terms of a
strike, but unlike John Galt, who never stopped producing, but instead stopped sharing that production with those who had no appreciation for his
effort, the labor movement will just stop producing, and because of this all they can do is put a strain on any collective investment they made until
the investment is spent, and once that happens, if they have not been able to put the pressure upon the corporations they are striking against, then
they lose. There are too many "scabs" willing to work outside the union paradigm and accept lower pay than a union worker for any strike to have any
advantage. Being a "worker" is a no win game.
There is nothing wrong with having a job and no ambitions beyond having a job secure enough to provide for oneself and their family, but if this is
the strategy employed while playing the game then it becomes necessary to understand that a certain amount of control has been relinquished, and it
becomes imperative to pay attention to the political and economic environment that surrounds the livelihood one is relying upon. Otherwise, the fear
of unemployment can become a reality while no preparation has been effectively made to deal with that unemployment.
In any economy, there are always certain rules that apply. Regardless of the economic system in place, there are always buyers market, and sellers
market. An employee is a seller, selling their labor on the market, presumably to the highest bidder. In a sellers market, the seller has more
control on how much their product is priced at. In a buyers market, the buyers have more control. When unemployment is high, this creates a buyers
market for employees, and makes it much more difficult for all employees to get paid the wage they need in order to survive.
No win games, as I stated earlier, are pointless games. They are a fools game. When forced to play a game not of your choosing that offers as a part
of the rules a no win scenario, there is only one valid option. Change the rules! I have come to affectionately call this strategy the Captain Kirk
Strategy in honor of his mythology where he has become legend for many reasons, but one of them being for being the only Starfleet commander to beat
the no win scenario of the computer simulation. He beat it by reprogramming the no win scenario to a scenario that allowed for a possible win. He
didn't cheat, he changed the rules.
Change the rules!
P.S. Thank you for plugging my thread, and the very kind words you written about me. I am most grateful.
edit on 6-2-2011 by Jean Paul
Zodeaux because: Post Script added