>>466321People are not reducible to their job task or social status, if you are speaking of their material conditions as individuals. In large numbers, masses of people who share a particular designation may, but are not guaranteed to, act in particular ways. In any democratic society - democratic being defined broadly as a society where an idea of mass politics exists - it is never observed that if someone exists in a particular income bracket or works a particular profession, that their poliitcal choices are made for them. People who are largely similar are known to hold very different views, and this is not because they are fooled by ideology and don't know their "true interests" - because their true interests are not reliant on a social category that was created for them, but on the actual conditions they are in and their upbringing. Humans, being living creatures, remember their individual past and respond to it. If someone has a living memory of being screwed by a politician, they are very unlikely to vote for them. A personal animosity is an uncommon reason for someone to break with affilitions they normally hold, but it happens often enough. You can see this because this sort of thing is surveyed in order to attain a better understanding of public opinion, and there are people who will just tell you exactly what they think and why they voted the way they did, or why they supported the thing they did.
What you do, then, is premised on a belief that a category you assigned to them overrides their own experience and the actual conditiosn, which they probably know better than you do.
By this logic, anyone who deviates from your position must have "false consciousness", and this is why you see the left splinter into sects and echo chambers so easily. It's a tendency CIA exploits, knowing that leftists fall into this due to inherent flaws in the Marxist construction of the world. Marxism properly speaking was never a whole theory, but a method of critique - the point is to use the method to attack something you don't like, rather than make it the sole foundation of your understanding. Marx himself was not suggesting you could use dialectics to change the world by thought alone, but that you could understand the dialectical method to, for example, sense when someone else is bullshitting you.
Further, the question is not simply trust, but whether sortition is even seen as a legitimate project in the first place - and whether the masses really have a problem with being ruled by an aristocrat. A willingness to engage in politics is not something for everyone. A lot of people will, knowing their inability to perform at the level of another person, stay away from any political career. There are people who find every excuse to escape jury duty, or ignore the summons. If they have to hold an office they're not willing to occupy, and there are people who want it more, it doesn't take much for someone to delegate his decision making to an unelected party. He may find it very prudent to do so, knowing the risk of failing in the office or displeasing the powers that be. Those powers exist in any society, because they are not something decreed by law alone. That's another consequence of historical materialism - the state is not what the pretenses of a state presume it to be, and this is something Marx would have accepted, being critical of the state as many of his peers would be. It wasn't a criticism of the state in the anarchist sense, but a criticism that the state's pretenses were made of magic. Marx did not live in total society, but we do today, so it is often difficult for people who are entrapped in that total society to see that there are standards of comparison, or the prospect of leaving society. Total societies forbid that.
So far as Marx has a political point to make, he's asking his readers who aren't thinking politically to first of all think politically, and then to get some sense of what politics is, rather than going off to lala land. The problem with this is that many of the workers and the disaffected did not want politics or intrigue. Socialism generally was not really a political project at all, but suggested a transformation of institutions and the way people did things at a basic level, and this meant it was often critical of institutions like the family or the private firm, and it could be critical of religion - but the socialist answer for religion was not uniform, and the earliest socialists didn't rail against religion but desired essentially a new religion. This is Saint-Simon's final work, suggesting ways Christianity could be reformed to operate when scientists and science had spiritual authority, while maintaining what he thought worked in Christianity - and he presumed that socialism would have to be religiously sound to survive at all, and Christian brotherhood and charity to the lowest class were at the center of his final understanding. These are the things that would be most stridently attacked, by showing disgust towards morality and by cutting off the lumpenproletariat and residuum from the workers' movement. As entertaining as it is for Marx and Engels to take their piss out on bourgeois hypocrisy, ordinary people didn't want to hear about abolishing families, and those ordinary people were not all utterly destitute and depraved. The trade unionists and the better off sectors of labor could have family life, and saw "abolish the family" without any suggestion of a moral alternative to be an attack on them. Many of the socialists faced this problem. A part of the transformation the spiritual authority of science and dominance of industry entailed would be the abolition of family life as it had existed, and what replaced it would be contentious. It became necessary for autocratic types to insist that the state and its control of institutions would replace the family, and so it sounds an awful lot like the communists want the state to raise your kids and keep them at the same low level, unless they have the favor of the Party and they're useful to "society", now reimagined as what the thought leaders want it to be. Whether this is actually what the communists want doesn't change that the transformation is happening, and has been aided by political interests who want to control what the new arrangement is for raising children. The thing the people wanted was to be able to protect their children, and the thing the children wanted was to be able to live, rather than going to schools that are designed to torture and kill them, which consign most of the students to some desultory existence and make a point of marking those who are prepared for the Satanic cycle, of the sort that I lived through.