Thoughts from a social philosopher

[tingdzin]

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.

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 peoples' business. This minding of other peoples' business expresses itself in gossiping. snooping, and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national, and racial affairs.

Though they seem at opposite poles, fanatics of all kinds are actually crowded together at one end. It is the fanatic and the moderate who are poles apart and never meet. the fanatics of various hues eye each other with suspicion and are ready to fly at each others' throats. But they are neighbors and almost of one family.

Even the mass movements which rise in the name of freedom against an oppressive order do not realize individual liberty once they start rolling. So long as a movement is engaged in a desperate struggle with the prevailing order . . .its chief preoccupation will be with unity and self-sacrifice,which require the surrender of the individual's will, judgement, and advantage. According to Robespierre, the revolutionary government was "the despotism of liberty against tyranny."

(Just food for thought. I am not naming the philosopher in question just yet lest he be pigeonholed and dismissed.)

[Grigoris]

Eric Hoffer

Ain't Google grand?

[Nicholas Weeks]

Good ole Hoffer, a non-commie longshoreman and sagely chap! One of my early favored thinkers.

[tingdzin]

You spoiled the fun. Yes, Hoffer was amazing and needs to be resurrected.

[Nicholas Weeks]

His major works:

http://www.hopepubs.com/Hoffer/Hoffer-Books.html

[Nicholas Weeks]

His best known work is The True Believer - still in print since 1951, new Harper edition this year. From Hoffer's Preface:

This book deals with some peculiarities common to all
mass movements, be they religious movements, social revolutions
or nationalist movements. It does not maintain that all
movements are identical, but that they share certain essential
characteristics which give them a family likeness.

All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness
to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective
of the doctrine they preach and the program they project,
breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance;
all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of
activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind
faith and singlehearted allegiance.

All movements, however different in doctrine and aspiration,
draw their early adherents from the same types of humanity;
they all appeal to the same types of mind.

Though there are obvious differences between the fanatical
Christian, the fanatical Mohammedan, the fanatical nationalist,
the fanatical Communist and the fanatical Nazi, it is yet true
that the fanaticism which animates them may be viewed and
treated as one. The same is true of the force which drives them
on to expansion and world dominion. There is a certain uniformity
in all types of dedication, of faith, of pursuit of power,
of unity and of self-sacrifice. There are vast differences in the
contents of holy causes and doctrines, but a certain uniformity
in the factors which make them effective.

The subtitle is Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.

[Grigoris]

You spoiled the fun. Yes, Hoffer was amazing and needs to be resurrected.

A philosophical zombie?

[Grigoris]

His best known work is The True Believer - still in print since 1951, new Harper edition this year. From Hoffer's Preface:

This book deals with some peculiarities common to all
mass movements, be they religious movements, social revolutions
or nationalist movements. It does not maintain that all
movements are identical, but that they share certain essential
characteristics which give them a family likeness.

All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness
to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective
of the doctrine they preach and the program they project,
breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance;
all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of
activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind
faith and singlehearted allegiance.

All movements, however different in doctrine and aspiration,
draw their early adherents from the same types of humanity;
they all appeal to the same types of mind.

Though there are obvious differences between the fanatical
Christian, the fanatical Mohammedan, the fanatical nationalist,
the fanatical Communist and the fanatical Nazi, it is yet true
that the fanaticism which animates them may be viewed and
treated as one. The same is true of the force which drives them
on to expansion and world dominion. There is a certain uniformity
in all types of dedication, of faith, of pursuit of power,
of unity and of self-sacrifice. There are vast differences in the
contents of holy causes and doctrines, but a certain uniformity
in the factors which make them effective.

The subtitle is Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.

I wonder, if he was alive now, what he would have to say about fanatical capitalists?

[Nicholas Weeks]

I wonder, if he was alive now, what he would have to say about fanatical capitalists?

I only have a couple of his titles, but here are two pithy quotes from his 1954 book The Passionate State of Mind:

We clamor for equality chiefly in matters in which we ourselves cannot hope to attain excellence. To discover what a man truly craves but knows he cannot have we must find the field in which he advocates absolute equality. By this test the Communists are frustrated Capitalists.[/quote

There is radicalism in all getting, and conservatism in all keeping. Lovemaking is radical, while marriage is conservative. So, too, get-rich-quick capitalism is radical, while a capitalism intent solely on keeping what it already has is conservative. Radicalism itself ceases to be radical when absorbed mainly in preserving its control over a society or an economy.

[tingdzin]

Probably the same.

[Malcolm]

I wonder, if he [Hoffer] was alive now, what he would have to say about fanatical capitalists?

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/the- ... hilosopher

The man lived a rich life of the mind — reading on the job during breaks, taking half-day walks to ponder particular intellectual conundrums, journaling fastidiously, and writing for publications. However, he never changed his views that politicians like Nixon and, especially, Reagan (first as governor, later as president) were noble and his union leaders dupes, “true believers” of false idols who demonstrated their own lack of self-confidence by joining a mass movement. Based on the limited record, Hoffer never spoke at meetings, never ran for any union office, and never volunteered in the union to help his fellow workers.

Ironically, the best-known working-class American of the Cold War era was a conservative who was lucky enough to find a job represented by the most powerful leftist union in postwar America. As such, his life represents the cognitive dissonance of many working Americans today: profiting from — albeit less so than in the past — the great gains of the labor movement yet unwilling to become union advocates.

As for Hoffer’s legacy, history can be cruel even to those who appreciate its fickleness. Today, few people know of Hoffer and fewer read him (though the term “true believer” still carries some rhetorical weight). The “longshoremen philosopher” was a powerful thinker, and the fact that he was a literary celebrity during the Cold War and consistently identified as “working class” is noteworthy.

While historians commonly associate the conservative ascendancy with Nixon and Reagan, they rarely note that the influential writings of the slightly older Hoffer predicted and praised the rise of the New Right. Scholars of Hoffer (generally conservatives themselves) inevitably note his working-class bonafides, but they don’t mention or analyze the irony of his membership in the leftist ILWU. In that way, they’re similar to all those, Hoffer included, who forgot that the labor movement brought us the weekend and much more.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I wonder, if he [Hoffer] was alive now, what he would have to say about fanatical capitalists?

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/the- ... hilosopher

The man lived a rich life of the mind — reading on the job during breaks, taking half-day walks to ponder particular intellectual conundrums, journaling fastidiously, and writing for publications. However, he never changed his views that politicians like Nixon and, especially, Reagan (first as governor, later as president) were noble and his union leaders dupes, “true believers” of false idols who demonstrated their own lack of self-confidence by joining a mass movement. Based on the limited record, Hoffer never spoke at meetings, never ran for any union office, and never volunteered in the union to help his fellow workers.

Ironically, the best-known working-class American of the Cold War era was a conservative who was lucky enough to find a job represented by the most powerful leftist union in postwar America. As such, his life represents the cognitive dissonance of many working Americans today: profiting from — albeit less so than in the past — the great gains of the labor movement yet unwilling to become union advocates.

As for Hoffer’s legacy, history can be cruel even to those who appreciate its fickleness. Today, few people know of Hoffer and fewer read him (though the term “true believer” still carries some rhetorical weight). The “longshoremen philosopher” was a powerful thinker, and the fact that he was a literary celebrity during the Cold War and consistently identified as “working class” is noteworthy.

While historians commonly associate the conservative ascendancy with Nixon and Reagan, they rarely note that the influential writings of the slightly older Hoffer predicted and praised the rise of the New Right. Scholars of Hoffer (generally conservatives themselves) inevitably note his working-class bonafides, but they don’t mention or analyze the irony of his membership in the leftist ILWU. In that way, they’re similar to all those, Hoffer included, who forgot that the labor movement brought us the weekend and much more.

Incidentally, this describes 80% of the people I worked with when I worked in the public sector.

No real sense of civil service, a deep and irrational distrust of unions, despite the fact that it was the unions generations before who got them the very excellent jobs, pensions and benefit packages. Amusingly, when we began to organize with the threat of privatization looming (which would have not only eliminated half the jobs, but made the other half pay less than half wages), they all grumbled, some claimed they shouldn't have to pay the four bucks a month or whatever for union dues. Most realized however that it was in their best interest, and that they were simply conceding any say in wages, workplace environment, etc. by being so staunchly anti union. So, magically a bunch of ex-military conservatives were just pro-union enough to cover their own asses.

[Grigoris]

So, magically a bunch of ex-military conservatives were just pro-union enough to cover their own asses.

Ego-centered greed can sometimes be a wonderful motivator.

[shaunc]

I'm a union member and have been since I started working at 15 years old. At one job I had I was the union delegate about 20 years ago. There is a problem with young people not wanting to be members mainly because they think why should I pay $20/week to the union when the guys not paying get exactly the same wages and benefits. Completely oblivious to the fact that it was the union that forced the hand of the employer to pay those wages and benefits originally.
Even in my own family I had to have this argument with my oldest son a few years ago. He said if I ever get a problem I'll join then. I told him that they may or may not take him on then, after all, you can't insure your car after you've had an accident.

[Malcolm]

I'm a union member and have been since I started working at 15 years old. At one job I had I was the union delegate about 20 years ago. There is a problem with young people not wanting to be members mainly because they think why should I pay $20/week to the union when the guys not paying get exactly the same wages and benefits. Completely oblivious to the fact that it was the union that forced the hand of the employer to pay those wages and benefits originally.
Even in my own family I had to have this argument with my oldest son a few years ago. He said if I ever get a problem I'll join then. I told him that they may or may not take him on then, after all, you can't insure your car after you've had an accident.

Isn't socialism great!

[shaunc]

I'm a union member and have been since I started working at 15 years old. At one job I had I was the union delegate about 20 years ago. There is a problem with young people not wanting to be members mainly because they think why should I pay $20/week to the union when the guys not paying get exactly the same wages and benefits. Completely oblivious to the fact that it was the union that forced the hand of the employer to pay those wages and benefits originally.
Even in my own family I had to have this argument with my oldest son a few years ago. He said if I ever get a problem I'll join then. I told him that they may or may not take him on then, after all, you can't insure your car after you've had an accident.

Isn't socialism great!

I'd hardly call myself a socialist. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the employer profiting off their employees, after all they're the ones who took the gamble on starting the business, most likely borrowed money from the bank and had to put their home on the line to get it.
Not all business ventures are successful. My wife runs a small business and believe me it's not all roses

[Malcolm]

I'm a union member and have been since I started working at 15 years old. At one job I had I was the union delegate about 20 years ago. There is a problem with young people not wanting to be members mainly because they think why should I pay $20/week to the union when the guys not paying get exactly the same wages and benefits. Completely oblivious to the fact that it was the union that forced the hand of the employer to pay those wages and benefits originally.
Even in my own family I had to have this argument with my oldest son a few years ago. He said if I ever get a problem I'll join then. I told him that they may or may not take him on then, after all, you can't insure your car after you've had an accident.

Isn't socialism great!

I'd hardly call myself a socialist. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the employer profiting off their employees, after all they're the ones who took the gamble on starting the business, most likely borrowed money from the bank and had to put their home on the line to get it.
Not all business ventures are successful. My wife runs a small business and believe me it's not all roses

The fact that you are in a Union is one of the great successes of socialism, along with weekends, health care, etc.

[MagnetSoulSP]

Can't say I agree with his words, sounds rather narrow minded.

I mean faith is the first step to doing anything in life, if he knew that maybe he wouldn't have said what he did.