Rational Injustice

Different attempts have been made to answer Reich's question why the majority of those who are hungry don't steal and why the majority of those who are exploited don't strike. The two most influential approaches have been the ideological one and the gunman theory. The gunman theory seems to have the upper hand in that it not only explains many cases of successful oppression by a minority of a majority but also in that it explains why ideology is a widespread phenomenon in society. However, there are cases where oppression takes place in the absence of any gunman. The usual example is the democratic welfare state. Another one would be a country like South Africa, where democracy has been introduced but where old structures from apartheid seem recalcitrant. We can conceive of such instances of (continued) oppression by a minority of a majority as cases of rational injustice. We face here a case of the game called the clash of wills (or the battle of sexes). Unless the privileged minority accepts the introduction of just institutions, there is no way of introducing them. And, for simple egoistic reasons, the minority doesn't cooperate with the majority. So it is rational for the oppressed majority to endure.