Question
Given that the rich are so powerful, how did the masses ever win any battles at all?
Answer
In addition to the arguments offered by the other answers, it is important to note the implication of one fact: most "popular" revolutions are in fact led by members of the upper classes.
In fact you could reframe most of these battles as simply being a case of two rich/powerful sides fighting with different armies. One side (the losing one) fights with the support of a declining set of allies (like nobles, old money etc.), and the other co-opts mass/popular sentiment to its own ends.
There was a French politician who said something like "I must find out where the people are going, so I can get out in front of them and lead them!"
I haven't yet made up my mind about whether such revolutions ACTUALLY give any useful power to the people. Quality of life certainly has gone up. I don't have to walk around afraid of being beaten up by the goons of the nearest rich guy. I don't have to worry about being seized and held without trial and tortured (thanks Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta, much obliged). I have better indoor plumbing than the richest people 100 years ago.
On the other hand, the cost of these improvements has been the gradually ceding of power and autonomy on other fronts to the instruments of the rich and powerful.
With each shift, there was a popular vs. powerful war on a visible battle-ground, but the actual power dynamics shifted to a DIFFERENT battleground. You can usually spot the actual battleground of a given age by looking at the type of religion on the rise. That's a whole other question...
But overall, I'd have to say that I think historically, BOTH rich+powerful and the masses have been growing less powerful over time. We fool ourselves by pointing to our technology and our leveraged power over nature, but overall we are trending towards becoming lesser creatures. What Nietzsche called the "last man" or "men without backs."
Power has been draining out of humans and into systems for thousands of years. Faster out of the masses than out of the ruling classes, but both are being drained. Metaphorically, I suspect Carnegie could beat up Bill Gates. Genghis Khan could beat up Carnegie.
In fact you could reframe most of these battles as simply being a case of two rich/powerful sides fighting with different armies. One side (the losing one) fights with the support of a declining set of allies (like nobles, old money etc.), and the other co-opts mass/popular sentiment to its own ends.
There was a French politician who said something like "I must find out where the people are going, so I can get out in front of them and lead them!"
I haven't yet made up my mind about whether such revolutions ACTUALLY give any useful power to the people. Quality of life certainly has gone up. I don't have to walk around afraid of being beaten up by the goons of the nearest rich guy. I don't have to worry about being seized and held without trial and tortured (thanks Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta, much obliged). I have better indoor plumbing than the richest people 100 years ago.
On the other hand, the cost of these improvements has been the gradually ceding of power and autonomy on other fronts to the instruments of the rich and powerful.
- Agriculture took control of space and farmers became less powerful/autonomous than nomads
- Urbanization took control of craft and craftspeople were less powerful/autonomous than farmers
- Industrialization took control of time and industry workers were less powerful/autonomous than craftspeople
- Middle-class-ization took control of information work, and office workers are less powerful/autonomous than small business owners/professionals
- Consumerization took control of money and shopper-spenders are less powerful than saver-investors
With each shift, there was a popular vs. powerful war on a visible battle-ground, but the actual power dynamics shifted to a DIFFERENT battleground. You can usually spot the actual battleground of a given age by looking at the type of religion on the rise. That's a whole other question...
But overall, I'd have to say that I think historically, BOTH rich+powerful and the masses have been growing less powerful over time. We fool ourselves by pointing to our technology and our leveraged power over nature, but overall we are trending towards becoming lesser creatures. What Nietzsche called the "last man" or "men without backs."
Power has been draining out of humans and into systems for thousands of years. Faster out of the masses than out of the ruling classes, but both are being drained. Metaphorically, I suspect Carnegie could beat up Bill Gates. Genghis Khan could beat up Carnegie.