Is this whole instance like this? Like, is this another hexbear?

I actually am genuinely interested in that fellow’s reasoning behind believing both that his job of managing people is successful, and also that all the people he managed do not like being managed by him.

Anecdotally, I have encountered workplaces containing a manager or employee that was universally disliked, and it was never because they were doing an awesome job. They did appear to think that people disliked them personally but benefited from their results. Often they seem to also believe those results would be unachievable in ways that do not produce the distaste. I am not sure these contradictions are entirely defensible.

Sure, but that’s not the end stage of the thought experiment. It’s not really even the start. How exactly is this larger group of people supposed to enact any viable change? I think we could agree that seems unlikely to be possible in an unorganized/uncoordinated manner. The solution to that is to get organized and coordinate, right?

Well what does that look like? That could take nearly as many forms as people you ask to agree - so you’d need an idea that enough people would fall behind to still out number. Once that is achieved… What? If the goal of the burgeoning group is violent revolution, they won’t get very far into the planning phase before being scooped up by security forces in some form or another. If the goal is nonviolent revolution, such as refusal to work, the system is constructed in such a way that those you would need to participate have a lot to lose, and little ability to withstand a protected protest/encounter/whatever, vs, presumably, a group that could easily outlast all of those things, as well as their children, and their children’s children.

That’s not to say nothing can work, but I think it might be just a bit reductive to suggest that things are as simple as suggesting it is total apathy in those who would need to unite to accomplish these goals that explains why the goals aren’t striven towards.