--- Mike Ballard <swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Beyond that, masses, when unorganized, tend toward
> servility. As
> individuals, they are no match for forces at the
> disposal of the
> ruling class, and they are dependent on landlords,
> capitalists,
> creditors, etc. Only when they are organized do
> they have dignity.
> Desire for dignity is the most important motive in
> an attempt to
> organize, whether a plain and simple trade union or
> a social
> revolution.
>
[WS:] True. People seldom rebel in defence of their wallet. They rebel in defence of their dignity. However, their dignity is seldom threatened by those above them on the social ladder. People tend to accept social hierarchy as a given, and if a hierarchy is seen as a legitimate one i.e. based on some generally accepted, shared values, people accept the superiority of those above them as legitmate as well.
With relatively rare exceptions, people's dignity is threatened not by those oveove them, but by those below them, especially if those "below" appear to usurp a place or a benefit that is not considered legitmate for their social position. That is why people tend to accept lavish wasteful spendings of Trumps, Kozlowskis, Hollywood and sports celebrities etc. or elect foreign born body builiders and B-movie actors to political offices - but will resent "welfare mothers" living of the public dole, or immigrants "taking over" their communities.
Perhaps the only time people rebel against those above them is when the latter openly disrespect them e.g. by blatantly violating some commonly shared values or rules of reciprocity. But the elites know better than that, and wrap themselves in those shared values - flags, natioalism, religion, populism etc. to elicit legitimacy and thus popular consent to their superior position in society.
This is not "servility" of the masses. This is how society works and how people think. Only self-styled revolutionaries and rat-choice theorists think of social order as a contract or payola, as something people accept only conditionally and renounce when the payola ends. In reality, people accept the status quo and thier position in it, even if inferior, as a given, as long as they perceive that order as legitimate.
I am not quite sure what you mean by "organizing" - but if that means agitating people to rebel against the status quo - I think it is a pipe dream, a delusion of "activistists" and demagogues. The only "organizing" that can move people to reject the existing social order is one that creates a new social order, compelte with its own instituions, shared values, hierarchies, stock knowledge, distinctions and legitimacy. Only when such an alternative order is in place and clearly perceived by the "masses" as a legitimate alternative - the "masses" will be in a position to renounce the status quo. Without it, they will denounce those who instigate to a rebellion as usurpers and mountebanks.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.