>
>They are now the victors. The oppressed become the
>oppresssors. When people think that they have power,
>they to support 'their power'. Never mind that they
>are 'only pawns in the game'. It's always easierier
>to be a cheerleader when 'your' team is ahead.
>
>The core question, IMO, is *why* does the working
>class NOT respond to the many and varied messages
>which it has received over the years to revolt and
>establish their own rule?
The question is very important and the answer goes to the very heart of the materialist understanding.
Some people have suggested it is human nature and in a way they are right. In the sense that human beings have the same instinct as all life, to survive. So long as a struggle to survive is (or appears) inevitable, so long as there must be losers because there are insufficient available resources for all to survive, then solidarity only makes sense up to a point.
If it is "us" or "them", then it is absurd to expect any of the "us" to cheer "them", because their suffering is obviously preferable to our suffering. If "they" must suffer so that we can survive, then the philosophers will surely agree that their suffering is for the best.
I guess the reason why "...the working class [does] NOT respond to the many and varied messages which it has received over the years to revolt and establish their own rule?" simply boils down to whether it is apparent to the working class that is is practical to extend the definition of "us" to include the entire human population of the planet. I suspect it is not readily apparent to large numbers of people that this does not threaten their own hopes of escaping poverty and insecurity, or retaining such economic security as they do have.
That is to say, if the only alternative to a society such as our own - where the many toil in relative poverty and insecurity, so that a tiny few live may live lives of luxury - is a society where poverty is universal and all must toil and the only possible security is the security of the wretched, then we should not expect people to choose the latter. At least in the unequal class society there is always some hope that one can escape and join the ranks of the privileged. Socialism is, of course, impossible in a society which is unable to sustain a secure and dignified life for everyone.
Socialism is impossible in a country such as Cuba for example. It was impossible in under-developed Russia in 1917, even more so in post-colonial China. This is understood by all socialists. These states did not have the means to provide a universal standard of living which was high enough to prevent conflict between the population. Hungry people make poor socialists.
In fact even the wealthiest nations cannot attain socialism in isolation, if they would need to somehow sustain a high standard of living surrounded by the poor and hungry. Rich people, if they are surrounded by people who want to take the food out of their mouths, make even worse socialists. It must be possible to provide for all.
So long as those who are comfortable believe "the poor will always be with us", they will insist on maintaining barriers to prevent the poor getting in the gate. Or even worse, themselves suddenly joining the ranks of the poor.
As for power and hierarchy, which this thread seems to have drifted into for some reason, in any system where some people must go without in order for others to have decent lives, the decisions cannot be made democratically. You can have a pretend democracy, where those who are to starve get a token vote, but you cannot expect them to abide by the vote. And you can't expect anyone else to vote rationally either. In any such society particular classes of voters will vote on the basis of which party is more or less likely to to patronise them, and which is more or less likely to exclude them from the privileges.
Democracy cannot function properly under such conditions. In fact dictatorship is much more efficient in many ways. I would say that dictatorship is certainly much less soul-destroying.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas