Amen. To further illustrate that: when I TA'd an intro to sociology class at Rutgers, I used a ceratin didactic device that was supposed to demonstrate the principle of collective action. The device was a competitive game played in rounds by several teams. The initial rules of the game were such that heavily favoured the team who happen to win the first round. The team who won the first round, had a greater chance of winning the second round, and having won several rounds that way, its victory in subsequent rounds was virtually a ceratinty. There was, however, a provision that the rules of the game can be changed, if the majority of the players agreed to it. The idea was that since the majority of the players belonged to the losing teams, they would naturally come up with the necessary consensus to make the playing field more level.
To my surprise, however, the expected collective action did not materialize in the sections I taught. Surely, after a few rounds most players realized that the rules were rigged, and something had to be done about that if they were to have a chance of winning. However, the most frequently sought change was not that which would level the playing field, but that which would ease the restriction on changing teams by the players - as the losers hoped to be admitted to the winning team.
Suckers! That experience was really disappointing for me, as I realized that it indeed is next to impossible to develop any serious left in this country. The people are too damn brainwashed with the propaganda of individual success.
Regards
Wojtek