The True Believer by Eric Hoffer

[Howard509]

As an anarchist, I'm skeptical of any mass movement which seeks to replace one political regime with their own. I highly recommend reading The True Believer by Eric Hoffer, which explains the rise of fascism and Leninism as movements, including the psychology of self-styled activists. His thought was influenced by Nietzsche, especially how many, though not all, political rebels are really just suffering from ressentiment. As a self-educated longshoreman, Hoffer was a true working class intellectual.



"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both."

"In an affluent society, the alienated who clamor for power are largely untalented people who cannot make use of the unprecedented opportunities for self-realization, and cannot escape the confrontation with an ineffectual self."

"Such persons sooner or later turn their backs on an individual existence and strive to acquire a sense of worth and a purpose by an identification with a holy cause, a leader, or a movement. The faith and pride they derive from such an identification serve them as substitutes for the unattainable self-confidence and self-respect."

"When watching men of power in action it must be always kept in mind that, whether they know it or not, their main purpose is the elimination or neutralization of the independent individual- the independent voter, consumer, worker, owner, thinker..."

"A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self."
http://donpmitchell.blogspot.com/2008/08/eric-hoffer.html




People unfit for freedom - who cannot do much with it - are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a "have" type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a "have not" type of self.
http://www.nthposition.com/thetruebeliever.php

[Conquer or Die]

Well, he's partially right about a majority of mass movements. But where he accounts for the "personal development" of individuals he leaves out the scientific reality of collective achievement.

Let's be honest, his argument can be used by any government, regime, or ideology that wishes to keep power centralized to the top and top only.

[jake williams]

"In an affluent society, the alienated who clamor for power are largely untalented people who cannot make use of the unprecedented opportunities for self-realization, and cannot escape the confrontation with an ineffectual self."

"When watching men of power in action it must be always kept in mind that, whether they know it or not, their main purpose is the elimination or neutralization of the independent individual- the independent voter, consumer, worker, owner, thinker..."
Why aren't you restricted yet? You sound like a Randroid.

[Howard509]

Why aren't you restricted yet? You sound like a Randroid.

Notice that this is the alternative viewpoints forum. You should respect that. Do you have anything constructive to say about Hoffer?

[Plagueround]

What is there to be said for a few sparse sentences? They read like horoscopes. Apply to whatever suits you and interpret to be tailor made you to your situation.

Personally, I think he sounds very typical of those that attempt to paint anyone not within the status quo as merely crazed or disgruntled, ignoring how brutal and oppressive the status quo actually is.

[jake williams]

It depends what you mean by "constructive". What sort of society, or political program, did he actually advocate? I think "radically anti-political" might be correct. FYI, OI doesn't mean you don't get restricted if you're actually advocating OI positions, which I hate to say it sounds like you are. I really don't mean to be an asshole, but I do think there are restrictions for a reason. One delusional longshoreman who gets a medal from Reagan does not a "working class intellectual" make, in any reasonable sense of the term. They also don't tend to take much from Nietzsche.

[Howard509]

They also don't tend to take much from Nietzsche.

Anarchists have a long love affair with Nietzsche, I'm surprised you are ignorant of this.

"Nietzsche and the Anarchists"
http://info.interactivist.net/node/4240

Like I said, anarchists can identify with Hoffer while Leninists probably can't. I'm only advocating Hoffer's book as it relates to anarchist beliefs. Anarchists, of course, are opposed to any mass movement that attempts to seize government power, especially the authoritarian ones that Hoffer opposed.

[jake williams]

...Even if one doesn't hold to the old belief that the "working class" (whoever that might be today) are the only ones who can make revolutionary change...

Right.

[Howard509]

Since anarchists advocate non-politics, and oppose participation in pro-state mass movements, Hoffer should be an appropriate subject.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Howard, much of what Hoffer says is quite accurate, but not just about the left, and it is not inherent to Leninism, either.

It's more a feature of the class origins of leading Marxists, a subject I have analysed here (I used other sources than Hoffer, since he is clearly a right-wing git):

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

[Howard509]

Howard, much of what Hoffer says is quite accurate, but not just about the left, and it is not inherent to Leninism, either.

It's more a feature of the class origins of leading Marxists, a subject I have analysed here (I used other sources than Hoffer, since he is clearly a right-wing git):

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

Hoffer was not right-wing, as he opposed all political ideology whether left or right. He figured that if you are to make change in the world, you must first change yourself, rather than using a political doctrine and a mass movement larger than yourself to compensate for your own inadequacies. A lot of self-styled activists are really just projecting their self-hatred onto something else outside them, whatever it might be.

[jake williams]

Hoffer was not right-wing, as he opposed all political ideology whether left or right. He figured that if you are to make change in the world, you must first change yourself, rather than using a political doctrine and a mass movement larger than yourself to compensate for your own inadequacies. A lot of self-styled activists are really just projecting their self-hatred onto something else outside them, whatever it might be.
Right about now I'm projecting my self-hatred onto you. It's called RefLeft for a reason. If you want to "oppose all political ideology whether left or right", you can go just about everywhere else in the world and have fun.

[Howard509]

Right about now I'm projecting my self-hatred onto you. It's called RefLeft for a reason. If you want to "oppose all political ideology whether left or right", you can go just about everywhere else in the world and have fun.

I oppose the statist left, just as Hoffer did. Anarchism, though of the left, is anti-ideological. We have no creed or party line to obey. Being anti-capitalist does not mean that I'm pro-communist.

[Conquer or Die]

I oppose the statist left, just as Hoffer did. Anarchism, though of the left, is anti-ideological. We have no creed or party line to obey. Being anti-capitalist does not mean that I'm pro-communist.

There is no natural argument you can make to deny the survival and welfare of a species.

[Howard509]

If you try to silence my anarchism, you are a commissar.

[Howard509]

There is no natural argument you can make to deny the survival and welfare of a species.

You've made a comment that appears to have nothing to do with anything I've said.

[Conquer or Die]

You've made a comment that appears to have nothing to do with anything I've said.

You have insinuated that all of humanity's social movements have been attempts at improving themselves by forcing something onto others. This means that a person taking improvement for themselves and a MAJORITY of others is inherently immoral. This means that the survival and welfare of the species is unimportant.

I'll happily see the "Anti political left libertarian Free Market Anti Communist Non interventionist freedom freedom personal improvement cult"'s list of non authoritarian organic improvement plans.

[Howard509]

You have insinuated that all of humanity's social movements have been attempts at improving themselves by forcing something onto others. This means that a person taking improvement for themselves and a MAJORITY of others is inherently immoral. This means that the survival and welfare of the species is unimportant.


You are misrepresenting my position, like a true commissar.



I'll happily see the "Anti political left libertarian Free Market Anti Communist Non interventionist freedom freedom personal improvement cult"'s list of non authoritarian organic improvement plans.


Aren't you familiar with Samuel Konkin or Kevin Carson? Mutualism is free market anti-capitalism.

[Conquer or Die]

You are misrepresenting my position, like a true commissar.

If only I was a commissar, my benevolent plans would save the WORLD!



Aren't you familiar with Samuel Konkin or Kevin Carson? Mutualism is free market anti-capitalism.

I am referring to your generalizations against people wanting the betterment of its race and world. Your philosophy is correctly politically applied to keeping the status quo. This much has already been stated.

Oh, and I appreciate the contributions of American individualist socialists who battled the capitalist behemoth in the minute ways that they did.

[Howard509]

You've entirely misunderstood Hoffer's opposition to coercive mass movements.

[Conquer or Die]

You've entirely misunderstood Hoffer's opposition to coercive mass movements.

Anarcho-fascists are intent on the point of people misunderstanding them and their opinions.

[Howard509]

I am not and never have been a fascist. Please don't misrepresent me. Hoffer, like most anarchists, was anti-fascist. If anything, Hoffer was an anarchist at heart who believed that government was a necessary evil to restrain ignorant, self-serving people.

[Conquer or Die]

I am not and never have been a fascist. Please don't misrepresent me. Hoffer, like most anarchists, was anti-fascist. If anything, Hoffer was an anarchist at heart who believed that government was a necessary evil to restrain ignorant, self-serving people.

The ignorant, self serving slaves and workers of society I assume.

[Howard509]

The ignorant, self serving slaves and workers of society I assume.

No, the loud minority who insist on oppressing everyone else to compensate for their own inadequacies.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Howard:


Hoffer was not right-wing, as he opposed all political ideology whether left or right.

Well he does a pretty good job impersonating a right-wing git.

Exhibit A for the prosecution:


He figured that if you are to make change in the world, you must first change yourself, rather than using a political doctrine and a mass movement larger than yourself to compensate for your own inadequacies. A lot of self-styled activists are really just projecting their self-hatred onto something else outside them, whatever it might be.

Classic example of petty-bourgeois individualism.

Case closed...

[Conquer or Die]

No, the loud minority who insist on oppressing everyone else to compensate for their own inadequacies.

In otherwords; slaves and workers of society who do not bow down the skill of Imperialists and Capitalists.

[khad]

Hoffer was not right-wing, as he opposed all political ideology whether left or right. He figured that if you are to make change in the world, you must first change yourself, rather than using a political doctrine and a mass movement larger than yourself to compensate for your own inadequacies. A lot of self-styled activists are really just projecting their self-hatred onto something else outside them, whatever it might be.
Let me get this straight, a man who receives the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Reagan, whose papers reside in the Hoover Institution, and who attacked academics for being anti-American supporters of dictatorships is not right wing?

Next you'll have us believe that gravity doesn't exist.

[Luís Henrique]

If anything, Hoffer was an anarchist at heart who believed that government was a necessary evil to restrain ignorant, self-serving people.

An "anarchist at heart" that "believes government is a necessary evil" is no longer an anarchist, but at best a liberal.

And "you are just like a commissar" isn't an appropriate argument.

Luís Henrique

[Howard509]

Howard:



Well he does a pretty good job impersonating a right-wing git.

Exhibit A for the prosecution:



Classic example of petty-bourgeois individualism.

Case closed...

If you can't even meet your own basic needs, and if you are undeveloped as an individual, how will you be able to lift up the rest of society?

"Right-wing" and "fascist" isn't anyone that disagrees with you.

[Howard509]

Let me get this straight, a man who receives the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Reagan, whose papers reside in the Hoover Institution, and who attacked academics for being anti-American supporters of dictatorships is not right wing?

Next you'll have us believe that gravity doesn't exist.

I'd accept a Medal of Freedom if it meant that my books would receive a larger audience.

[Howard509]

In otherwords; slaves and workers of society who do not bow down the skill of Imperialists and Capitalists.

Wrong again. I'm talking about people who have personal inadequacy, as in a lack of self-esteem. Hoffer and I would identify with the sufferings of the poor, not the internal confusion of many self-styled activists. Hoffer didn't oppose all mass movements, he opposed fanaticism and those who grasp for power.

[Howard509]

An "anarchist at heart" that "believes government is a necessary evil" is no longer an anarchist, but at best a liberal.


Actually, philosophical anarchists believe that anarchism is something that society must evolve into, and that a government may be necessary until this happens.

[Luís Henrique]

Actually, philosophical anarchists believe that anarchism is something that society must evolve into, and that a government may be necessary until this happens.

So, if Marxists are "authoritarian" socialists because they believe a government is necessary to eliminate the remnants of the former ruling class, are those "philosophical" anarchists... authoritarian anarchists?

Or believing a government is necessary is only authoritarian in the case of Marxists?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Howard:


If you can't even meet your own basic needs, and if you are undeveloped as an individual, how will you be able to lift up the rest of society?

As I indicated, this begins in the wrong place -- in individualism --; none of us is a self-sufficient, socially-isolated individual. We are all born into or later enter into some class or other (working class, boss class, etc.), and that affects our ability to do what you say. Thise with money might be able to do what you say, but the vast majority cannot, even if they wanted to. They advance their intertest collectively, in unions, etc.

On the left, we characteristically therefore begin with a class and the self-organisation of the working class, and not with an individualistic analysis. And that is why I called Hoffer's view petty-bourgeois (and thus right-wing), since it is characteristic of this class to begin with the individual, not the class. That class advances itself through individual, not collective, effort.

Now, you are quite at liberty to reject this, but then that is just going to get you restricted here, since this is a site for leftists, not disguised or apologetic rightists.


"Right-wing" and "fascist" isn't anyone that disagrees with you.

Well, I didn't use the word 'fascist', and I have indicated above why I have used 'right-wing'.

So, it's not so much that I call anyone 'right-wing' if he/she disagrees wth me, but that those we (collectively) on the left call right-wing already disagree with us -- especially over the sorts of things I mentioned above.

[Luís Henrique]

If you can't even meet your own basic needs, and if you are undeveloped as an individual, how will you be able to lift up the rest of society?
You mean, if Albert Einstein could not wash his dishes, then he had no business discussing physics?

Luís Henrique

[Howard509]

As I indicated, this begins in the wrong place -- in individualism --; none of us is a self-sufficient, socially-isolated individual.

Individualist anarchism has always been a philosophy of the left, as it's anti-capitalist and egalitarian, while focusing on the sovereignty of the individual.

An anarchist should be able to agree with Hoffer's basic observations:


"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both." - The True Believer, Hoffer

"Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves. The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause." - The True Believer, Hoffer

In this quote, Hoffer is obviously not referring to "haves" and "have nots" in an economic sense, but in terms of self-esteem:

"People unfit for freedom - who cannot do much with it - are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a "have" type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a "have not" type of self." - Eric Hoffer

[Howard509]

You mean, if Albert Einstein could not wash his dishes, then he had no business discussing physics?

Luís Henrique

No, I mean that people with low self-esteem shouldn't try to project their self-loathing onto a fanatical grievance. This is called ressentiment. Look it up.

[Howard509]

So, if Marxists are "authoritarian" socialists because they believe a government is necessary to eliminate the remnants of the former ruling class, are those "philosophical" anarchists... authoritarian anarchists?

Philosophical anarchists believed that a transitory state should be as minimal as possible, Marxism believes it should be as expansive as possible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Howard:


Individualist anarchism has always been a philosophy of the left, as it's anti-capitalist and egalitarian, while focusing on the sovereignty of the individual.

And yet, in this regard it aligns itself with a right-wing, petty-bourgeois analysis -- and at this site, we restrict those who hold such anti-class views, You can like it or lump it.

[New Tet]

Well, he's partially right about a majority of mass movements. But where he accounts for the "personal development" of individuals he leaves out the scientific reality of collective achievement.

Let's be honest, his argument can be used by any government, regime, or ideology that wishes to keep power centralized to the top and top only.

You hit the nail right on the head.

For I moment, while reading Hoffer, I heard echoes of Mein Kampf.

[New Tet]

Philosophical anarchists believed that a transitory state should be as minimal as possible, Marxism believes it should be as expansive as possible.

Not so.

De Leonism, a very important branch of Marxism, envisions a relatively brief transitional period from capitalism to socialism in which the state will be abolished and replaced by an industrial democracy.

[New Tet]

No, I mean that people with low self-esteem shouldn't try to project their self-loathing onto a fanatical grievance. This is called ressentiment. Look it up.

No spelled like that I wont!

[Luís Henrique]

Philosophical anarchists believed that a transitory state should be as minimal as possible, Marxism believes it should be as expansive as possible.

Do we?

Well, you probably know what I believe better than I do.

Luís Henrique

[Howard509]

You have insinuated that all of humanity's social movements have been attempts at improving themselves by forcing something onto others. This means that a person taking improvement for themselves and a MAJORITY of others is inherently immoral. This means that the survival and welfare of the species is unimportant.


Like I've said, you've completely misrepresented Hoffer, which proves your dogmatic worldview. Hoffer didn't condemn each and every social movement. He stated that many within social movements, rather than wanting to improve society, want power over other people, since they feel powerless over themselves.



I'll happily see the "Anti political left libertarian Free Market Anti Communist Non interventionist freedom freedom personal improvement cult"'s list of non authoritarian organic improvement plans.

It's called agorism.

[Howard509]

No spelled like that I wont!

This is one of the most ignorant comments I've ever seen. :D

res·sen·ti·menthttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/R0183000/ressentiment) (rə-säɴ'tē-mäɴ') http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. A generalized feeling of resentment and often hostility harbored by one individual or group against another, especially chronically and with no means of direct expression.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ressentiment

[Howard509]

Howard:



And yet, in this regard it aligns itself with a right-wing, petty-bourgeois analysis -- and at this site, we restrict those who hold such anti-class views, You can like it or lump it.

Wow. Have you never heard of Kevin Carson, Samuel Konkin, Benjamin Tucker, or Lysander Spooner? Your ignorance of individualist anarchism is obvious.

[Howard509]

You hit the nail right on the head.

For I moment, while reading Hoffer, I heard echoes of Mein Kampf.

Your dogma has made you ignorant, by filtering the facts of the world through a narrow worldview.

[Howard509]

I'll post this again:
res·sen·ti·menthttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://www.anonym.to/?http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/R0183000/ressentiment) (rə-säɴ'tē-mäɴ') http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. A generalized feeling of resentment and often hostility harbored by one individual or group against another, especially chronically and with no means of direct expression.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ressentiment (http://www.anonym.to/?http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ressentiment)

Many Bolsheviks and Nazis were really suffering from ressentiment, if not most. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Howard:


Have you never heard of Kevin Carson, Samuel Konkin, Benjamin Tucker, or Lysander Spooner? Your ignorance of individualist anarchism is obvious.

I am just as 'ignorant' of other right-wing authors too -- and glad of it.

[Howard509]

Howard:



I am just as 'ignorant' of other right-wing authors too -- and glad of it.

Mutualism is a left-wing anarchist philosopy. Duh.

[Howard509]

Main Entry: res·sen·ti·ment
Pronunciation: r&-sän-tE-'män
Function: noun
: deep-seated resentment,frustration, and hostility accompanied by a sense of being powerless to express these feelings directly
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ressentiment

res⋅sen⋅ti⋅ment

 http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/R02/R0236500) /Fr. rəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsɑ̃http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtiˈmɑ̃/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [Fr. ruh-sahn-tee-mahn] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA Use ressentiment in a Sentence (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+ressentiment+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)

–noun 1. any cautious, defeatist, or cynical attitude based on the belief that the individual and human institutions exist in a hostile or indifferent universe or society. 2. an oppressive awareness of the futility of trying to improve one's status in life or in society.

Are you suffering from this disorder?

[Luís Henrique]

Are you suffering from this disorder?


1. any cautious, defeatist, or cynical attitude based on the belief that the individual and human institutions exist in a hostile or indifferent universe or society.

Cautious, yes. Defeatist or cynical, by no means.

But really, I can't convince myself that human institutions exist except in an indifferent universe, or nature. Or do you think that nature is friendly?

As for the individual, yes, as long as it exists in a capitalist society, it exists in an indifferent, or even hostile society (it isn't called a "second nature" for no reason, after all). But would you argue that capitalist societies are friendly?


2. an oppressive awareness of the futility of trying to improve one's status in life or in society.

Yes, "awareness" is the word. Would you argue that there are actual possibilities of improving our status in this society, without previously transforming it in a quite different society?

Luís Henrique

[Howard509]

Yes, "awareness" is the word. Would you argue that there are actual possibilities of improving our status in this society, without previously transforming it in a quite different society?


Go to college. Duh.

[Havet]

Go to college. Duh.

college sucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl_24uSPedM)

[Howard509]

college sucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl_24uSPedM)

If you wanted to move up in society, go to college. Social funding makes that education available to you. Stop complaining about the upper class and actually move up in society yourself. This is what Chomsky and Zinn did. Otherwise, you'll never have the economic security to change anything for those less fortunate than you.

That video is right-wing bullshit. It takes an educated populace to challenge government.

[Havet]

If you wanted to move up in society, go to college. Social funding makes that education available to you. Stop complaining about the upper class and actually move up in society yourself. This is what Chomsky and Zinn did. Otherwise, you'll never have the economic security to change anything for those less fortunate than you.

That video is right-wing bullshit. It takes an educated populace to challenge government.

College does not imply success. I only complain about the upper class when they are preventing my arise in society. I know i can improve my life, and i am working on it, but i think college is largely overrated precisely by the upper class which claims "it is the only way to get a decent job and a good life". Also most colleges only teach people to get a job and to obey an employer, and not to think for themselves.

"that video is a right-wing bullshit" does not count as a valid counter-argument. Provide scientific evidence to the scientific data collected in the video (like number of employed people, college people without a job, etc) or refrain from such empty comments please.

[Howard509]

The Trilateral Commission wants less people to attend four year colleges, because they are intentionally cutting the amount of middle class jobs. That's why funding for colleges has been cut.

[Howard509]

This thread has displayed far too much willful ignorance of Hoffer's most basic observations.

[khad]

This thread has displayed far too much willful ignorance of Hoffer's most basic observations.
This thread has displayed far too much of your rightwing rhetoric. You'll find that your Nietzschean elitism won't go over well here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Howard:


Mutualism is a left-wing anarchist philosophy. Duh.

So we are told, but even Hitler belonged to a party with 'socialist' in the titile.

Individualism, howsoever it is re-packaged, is a right-wing ideology, and for reasons I outlined earlier --which reasons you have simply ignored.

[Luís Henrique]

Go to college. Duh.

I went, and I earned my degree. And?

Luís Henrique

[Howard509]

I went, and I earned my degree. And?

Luís Henrique

Then you should be able to move up in society without trying to seize government power to compensate for a lack of self-esteem.

[Howard509]

This thread has displayed far too much of your rightwing rhetoric. You'll find that your Nietzschean elitism won't go over well here.

Nittzschean elitism is the kind of words a commissar would use. As an anarchist, I care little for your ideology.

[Howard509]

Howard:



So we are told, but even Hitler belonged to a party with 'socialist' in the titile.

Individualism, howsoever it is re-packaged, is a right-wing ideology, and for reasons I outlined earlier --which reasons you have simply ignored.

I recommend reading the Anarchist FAQ. Your ignorance of anarchism is pathetic.

[Luís Henrique]

Then you should be able to move up in society without trying to seize government power to compensate for a lack of self-esteem.

There's not much that I can further move up without actually becoming a bourgeois.

Frankly, do you really equate "moving up in society" with "becoming a better human being"? In a capitalist society, no less?

Do you actually believe that "ressentiment" isn't rampant among college graduates?

Do you actually believe that a college degree is a warranted passport to upper echelons of society?

And do you feel in a position to shout "duh" at others, kid?:lol:

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Nittzschean elitism is the kind of words a commissar would use. As an anarchist, I care little for your ideology.

As a Marxist, I care little for your "anarchism". It's a mere petty bourgeois posturing, full of petty bourgeois pride in academic achievement, despise for the downtrodden, and prejudice against those who toil to give you a "good" (ie, mediocre) petty bourgeois life. Indeed, it is an insult in the face of actual anarchists who fight, even if misguidedly, for the liberation of our class.

Luís Henrique

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

He figured that if you are to make change in the world, you must first change yourself, rather than using a political doctrine and a mass movement larger than yourself to compensate for your own inadequacies. A lot of self-styled activists are really just projecting their self-hatred onto something else outside them, whatever it might be.

How edifying!!! This analysis is spot on and the logic of this position is impeccable. Martin Luther King was most likely calling for civil rights for blacks not because he felt that they were oppressed and that extensive change was needed, but because he probably lacked self esteem. Poor dope should've went to a better college.

[Howard509]

Martin Luther King was a self-actualized person. He wasn't trying to compensate for a lack of self-esteem by getting involved in a cause.

Here's a summary of Hoffer's book that should be easy to understand, even for an ideologue:



Hoffer argues that mass movements such as fascism and communism spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors. Hoffer quotes extensively from leaders of the Nazi and communist parties in the early part of the 20th Century, to demonstrate, among other things, that they were competing for adherents from the same pool of people predisposed to support mass movements. Despite the two parties' fierce antagonism, they were more likely to gain recruits from their opposing party than from moderates with no affiliation to either.

The book also explores the behavior of mass movements once they become established (or leave the "active phase"). With their collapse of a communal framework people can no longer defeat the feelings of insecurity and uncertainty by belonging to a compact whole. If the isolated individual lacks vast opportunities for personal advancement, development of talents, and action (such as those found on a frontier), he will seek substitutes. These substitutes would be pride instead of self-confidence, memberships in a collective whole like a mass movement, absolute certainty instead of understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Howard:


I recommend reading the Anarchist FAQ. Your ignorance of anarchism is pathetic.

Almost as pathetic as your ignorance of right-wing ideology seems to be.

[#FF0000]

Then you should be able to move up in society without trying to seize government power to compensate for a lack of self-esteem.

Yeah. He should. I mean, unless the entire self-esteem thesis is bullshit, that is. But we all know that can't be true.

You're pretty dumb, man.


Martin Luther King was a self-actualized personThat's assuming "self-actualization" is possible.

[#FF0000]

I'd also like to see you respond to Luis' response to you, Howard.

[PRC-UTE]

Go to college. Duh.

this is an example of what attending a university can do to your brain.

clueless idiot.

[Howard509]

Perhaps the most important insight in the book--and it is very hard to settle on just one--is that the members of mass movements, who ostensibly seek to better the lot of all mankind, are motivated not by altruism but by selfishness. They join such movements not because they believe in any particular ideals or goals but because they do not believe in themselves :

Unless a man has the talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden...We join
a mass movement to escape from individual responsibility, or, in the words of an ardent young
Nazi, 'to be free from freedom.' It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared
themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves
cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not
joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?

-----------------

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all
excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.

-----------------

A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his
mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.

With these startling thoughts, Eric Hoffer, one of the very proletarians for whom activist intellectuals always claim to be fighting, stood conventional wisdom on it's collective head and threw down a challenge which has never been adequately answered.

Traditionally folks have been willing to forgive coercive utopians for the catastrophic harm they have done to society because it was felt : "their hearts were in the right place," that however misguided their actions proved to be, they should be forgiven because they meant well. Think of how charitably we look upon youthful membership in the Communist Party by many artists and intellectuals of the 1930's. Sure the Party was funded by Moscow and served Soviet ends and, of course, we realize now that Communism was not quite as beneficial to the workers of the world as it was supposed to be, but surely we can all agree that their motivations were noble, that they were thinking only of the downtrodden, right? Wrong. Hoffer exploded that myth and forced us to consider that they were driven by feelings of personal inadequacy and the desire to tear others down.
http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/743


I hope that the Marxists of this forum aren't so entrenched in political ideology that honest and rational criticism of ideological thinking is impossible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Looks like you can't answer Luis.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Kid, anarchism gets slandered enough by the leninists around here. We don't need a self proclaimed 'anarchist' actually being the straw man they put out and vindicating everything they say.

Are you familiar with mainstream anarchist theory (not the fringe poisoned by liberalism)? Have you, for example, read mutual aid?
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html


For Hoffer's hero is 'the autonomous man,' the content man at peace with himself, engaged in the present.Of course for Kropotkin (and most anarchists) this 'autonomous' (meaning narrowly focused on his own concerns) man is the creation of the state and serves to defend it. Individualism and the state are joined at the hip. Only by acting en masse can people effectively challenge the state/ruling class. So the state and ruling class have expended enormous energy to atomise the working class and so render it impotent. Any liberating political philosophy must undermine this process and be deeply collectivist. Such is anarchism.

Hoffer is parroting the individualist ideology which has so succesfully atomised the american working class and for which it has suffered so much. If you want to believe this rigthwing crap, fine. But please don't call it anarchism.

[khad]

Kid, anarchism gets slandered enough by the leninists around here.
Slandered? You're one to talk with your obviously trollbaiting, sectarian screen name.

Most of the Admins here are anarchists, and plurality of the CC are anarchists. No one here believes that you are a persecuted minority.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

I never said anarchists was a minority here. To slander means to negatively misrepresent. And thats what a lot of leninists here do regarding anarchism.

[Luís Henrique]

These substitutes would be pride instead of self-confidence, memberships in a collective whole like a mass movement, absolute certainty instead of understanding.

Curiously, you come across as proud instead of self-confident, and your posts denote absolute certainty rather than understandig. The only of those things you can't be accused of, is membership in a mass movement.

... unless we take the general comformism and adherence to bourgeois rule as a "mass movement" of another kind. In which case...

Luís Henrique

[rednordman]

Hoffer was not right-wing, as he opposed all political ideology whether left or right. He figured that if you are to make change in the world, you must first change yourself, rather than using a political doctrine and a mass movement larger than yourself to compensate for your own inadequacies. A lot of self-styled activists are really just projecting their self-hatred onto something else outside them, whatever it might be.Did he oppose capitalism?, or does he not see that as being a part of ideology?

[#FF0000]

I never said anarchists was a minority here. To slander means to negatively misrepresent. And thats what a lot of leninists here do regarding anarchism.

Pot, Kettle, black.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Pot, Kettle, black.Tu Quoque.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

leninwasblahblah:


To slander means to negatively misrepresent. And thats what a lot of leninists here do regarding anarchism.

As Lovesach intimated, anarchists are not well-known for getting Leninism right, either.

In fact, quite the opposite.

[RGacky3]

As Lovesach intimated, anarchists are not well-known for getting Leninism right, either.


Thats because Leninists have a big contradiction between what they write and say, and what the leaders they support actually did.

[#FF0000]

Thats because Leninists have a big contradiction between what they write and say, and what the leaders they support actually did.

You can say the exact same thing with Anarchists. Tons of anarchists went out and supported world war 1. The CNT-FAI would use force to collectivize farms if they had to. And Makhno was nearly a dictator in the Ukraine.

Anarchists have contradicted themselves all over history. You just don't notice it as often because anarchists have rarely succeeded in carrying out a revolution.

It's rare for an anarchist to be consistent. I can think of two examples of actual consistent anarchists.

[Glenn Beck]

If you try to silence my anarchism, you are a commissar.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5796/holt.png

Choose your next words with exceptional care!

[mel]

Then you should be able to move up in society without trying to seize government power to compensate for a lack of self-esteem.

And that solves what?

[Havet]

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5796/holt.png

Choose your next words with exceptional care!

You should post more often in OI. I roll on the floor laughing every time I see the picture of Glenn Beck :lol::laugh::lol::laugh: