It’s kinda down to evolutionary psychology. I’ve read it sometime ago that some people are happy to be followers because they gain access to the resources that could be given by the leader. Also, the follower or the second in command has the benefits of access to resource, but without the responsibility of running the group, while also being privy to the private information relating to the leader which could be leveraged.
I don’t like the implication that some people are genetically predisposed to accepting authority. This seems to be a eugenecist explanation for why organizational structures form, not actual science.
I’m not saying genetics is end all be all but nature is still a dominant influence whether we like to admit it or not. It’s why cults of personality persist. That’s why there are plenty of bootlickers for the wealthy, especially on social media (assuming they’re not shills and/or bots).
Even before the capitalist system, there are those who already fawn hierarchy. The French revolution, for example, wasn’t an overnight success because there are still those from the peasant and working class who support the Royalists.
I didn’t say that people never support those that go against their own interests. I think your line of thinking seems to be veering towards a genetic view, one that is more based in eugenics, than a socialist view. That’s why I referenced Lukacs’ theory of false consciousness, Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is also quite useful here.
Not everything can be viewed from socialist/material dialectic perspective alone. Even the human penchance for tribalistic behaviour could be attributed to simple survival mechanism, ingrained in our psyche, that anyone outside from the group are seen with either suspicion or outright disdain. This leads to bigotry. Animals exhibit the same behaviour-- we are animals after all.
It’s kinda down to evolutionary psychology. I’ve read it sometime ago that some people are happy to be followers because they gain access to the resources that could be given by the leader. Also, the follower or the second in command has the benefits of access to resource, but without the responsibility of running the group, while also being privy to the private information relating to the leader which could be leveraged.
I don’t like the implication that some people are genetically predisposed to accepting authority. This seems to be a eugenecist explanation for why organizational structures form, not actual science.
I’m not saying genetics is end all be all but nature is still a dominant influence whether we like to admit it or not. It’s why cults of personality persist. That’s why there are plenty of bootlickers for the wealthy, especially on social media (assuming they’re not shills and/or bots).
I think theories of false consciousness are more accurate.
Even before the capitalist system, there are those who already fawn hierarchy. The French revolution, for example, wasn’t an overnight success because there are still those from the peasant and working class who support the Royalists.
I didn’t say that people never support those that go against their own interests. I think your line of thinking seems to be veering towards a genetic view, one that is more based in eugenics, than a socialist view. That’s why I referenced Lukacs’ theory of false consciousness, Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is also quite useful here.
Not everything can be viewed from socialist/material dialectic perspective alone. Even the human penchance for tribalistic behaviour could be attributed to simple survival mechanism, ingrained in our psyche, that anyone outside from the group are seen with either suspicion or outright disdain. This leads to bigotry. Animals exhibit the same behaviour-- we are animals after all.
I don’t understand your point, how is instinct outside of dialectical materialism?