Mass Movments

[Pawn Power]

For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have a feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking. Experience is a handicap. (Part I Section 6)

This seems to be true when you look at the number of young radicals compared to that of older ones. For communism at least, I do not think it is a source of ‘irresistible power’, more of a superior method, at this point in time. The future always seems to be the goal, even though we want to fight day to day.


One of the most potent attractions of mass movement is its offering of a substitute for individual hope. … Mass movements are usually accused of doping their followers with the hope of the future while cheating them of the enjoyment of the present. Yet to the frustrated the enjoyment of the present is irremediably spoiled. Comforts and pleasures cannot make it whole. No real content or comfort can ever arise in their minds but from hope. (Part II Section 12)

I agree with this to an extent when talking about communism, although it can be argued that communism is no longer a mass movement, at least in the United States. I do not feel that I cannot enjoy myself, but I am often disquieted by ‘politics’, and comforts and pleasures do not fill that whole. I think this occurs to many people that become entrenched in something significant to them. And maybe as I grow older I will become disillusioned of this ‘vast undertaking’ like many others have. I do not think this will happen, or hope it will, but I think the statistics are against me.

Note: The book addresses all mass movements in one sort; I am deliberating specifically on communism/anarchism.

All quotes are from:
(The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Eric Hoffer+--> (Eric Hoffer)For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have a feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking. Experience is a handicap.[/b]

What Hoffer is essentially arguing here is that "undertakings of vast change" are and must be irrational.

If we really "thought it through", we "wouldn't attempt it"...it's "too hard".

Is that true?

Moreover, even if it were true for 20th century mass movements, is it an "eternal truth"?

Are rational mass movements possible?

Personally, I don't see why they wouldn't be...unless, like Hoffer, you want to smuggle in the assumption that humans are "essentially/eternally" irrational.

I do not think the historical evidence since 1789 will support that proposition.


Hoffer
One of the most potent attractions of mass movement is its offering of a substitute for individual hope. … Mass movements are usually accused of doping their followers with the hope of the future while cheating them of the enjoyment of the present. Yet to the frustrated the enjoyment of the present is irremediably spoiled. Comforts and pleasures cannot make it whole. No real content or comfort can ever arise in their minds but from hope.

Possibly and perhaps even probably true -- but again Hoffer hints that "something is wrong" about this. That we somehow "ought" to have "individual hope" even in circumstances that clearly render such hopes illusory.

It's almost as if he were saying that "a healthy human lives for the individual pleasure of today" and "hopes that tomorrow will be even more pleasurable".

A human who doesn't do that is, in some sense, "sick".

I don't think that was a very useful idea back when it was published (early 60s?)...and I don't see how it makes any sense at all now.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Pawn Power]

What Hoffer is essentially arguing here is that "undertakings of vast change" are and must be irrational.

If we really "thought it through", we "wouldn't attempt it"...it's "too hard".

Is that true?

I think that is why some people 'grow out of it' because they become disheartened. I also think that some people have thought it through and understand how 'hard' it is, but still contiue, like you and myself (I like to think I have thought it through but i am still rather young).
However, I do not think this would make one irrational, any more then one who lives their lives conforming to the 'easy'.
We are attempting this and we have thought it through and we know it is difficult.



It's almost as if he were saying that "a healthy human lives for the individual pleasure of today" and "hopes that tomorrow will be even more pleasurable".

Yes, I got a similar impression throughout the entire book.


I don't think that was a very useful idea back when it was published (early 60s?)...and I don't see how it makes any sense at all now.

Published in 1951.
I agree with you that the premise brought up by Hoffer on the individual rational of mass movements does not always agree with logical thinking. Although, some mass movements are irrational in a sense, nationalist, fascist, and religious ones.
The book does adequately explain how mass movements transpire and the reasoning behind them. Hoffer is fairly thorough in covering the many aspects that go into the making of mass movements.

[Lamanov]

I think that a great missconception is that in which we start to beleve that any mass movement is product of organisation and agitation of some "leader" or "doctrine", when, in reality, organisation grows out of spontaneous social struggle with that reason.

When social struggle is at it's peek - in a revolutionary period - everything "irrational" comes out of "rational" circumstances and reasoning which must find it's rational expression only through irrational practice - otherwise it finds itself drvien in mechanisms of prior "ration" and breaks down.




Originally posted by redstar2000
I do not think the historical evidence since 1789 will support that proposition.

Agreed.
Infact, he totally neglected the fact that masses and mass movements in the shortest period of time accumulate all the knowledge needed for any undertaking which the real material circumstances can allow. History tells us this loud and clear. Some people just don't listen.

Why "prospects and potentialities of the future" don't turn out as some people thought they would... "Men, however great, are very small before history, which steps beyond them and surprises them always anew with the results of their own surprising schemes." (Mattick)... nicely put.

:ph34r: