Rating: 
Summary: Longshoreman Makes Murky Waters Clear
Review: Eric Hoffer, famed longshoreman and blue collar intellectual, brilliantly clarifies many unseen but compelling motivating forces behind men of action. He lays bare the common threads among extremists of all political stripes and in so doing provides a seminal analysis of political fanaticism. But his groundbreaking work doesn't end there. By showing us what makes a fanatic tick, he also exposes the workings of the more conventional political motivations. As such, this text allows all of us who have been politically active to better understand what has driven us in this direction. A must read for any organizer, political activist or teacher.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant book
Review: Because of constraints of space, I'll note that at least two things that he did that were brilliant in the overall writing were:1. The use of specific historical examples to develop the general idea (deductive reasoning) and NOT vice versa (inductive reasoning). Many sociologists get so caught up in trying to make fine sounding phrases that they don't understand that there is a qualitative difference in going from examples to suppositions and not the other way around. 2. Succinctness. A great many books go on for a very long time and manage to assert very little. (Read anything by Ayn Rand lately?) This book is very to the point and short on words. The way that we know that his predictions are with merit is that they have come true 50 years *after* the book was written. Ten examples of things for which he gives good, mechanistic explanations/ predictions are: 1. Noting that movements for the rights of this group or that group often end with finished products/ governments that are WORSE than the formerly existing order. (Africa). 2. Explanations of why it is in the best interest of governments to have citizens that are less well educated. The less well informed are citizens, the less likely they are to hold government accountable for serious mistakes because they aren't aware of what's happening. (United States) 3. If there is no cause, people will invent one. (The Islamic world. Student protestors on university campuses). 4. When people stay caught in religious movements (or any movement too long), then it will divert other energy that could have been used for other more immediately useful tasks. The net result will be backwardness. (Islamic world again. Sub-Saharan Africa and tribal conflicts.) 5. This book makes a clean separation between the Dixiecrats in the American South and the Poor White Trash as the creators of problems for blacks. While he only devoted two sentences two it, it could have well been expanded to explain to explain the origin of the Segregation laws (which happened AFTER the Reconstruction governments). 6. He talks about the role of class in assimilation. (The Cubans in Miami have tried to recreate Cuba in Miami because the people the managed to get out were the richest people. But no other ethnic group has gone as far in creating an ethnic enclave because these people were from the lower echelons of their own respective home countries.) 7. Religious conversion is *incidental* to whatever conqueror there is gaining control of the government. (So Christianity was not taken up in Japan because the conquerors did not control the government. But in places where the rapport was made between the government and the colonizers, the subjects were converted almost as an afterthought.) 8. Shows that there is separation between men of action, men of words, and fanatics. Some people are actually capable of going out and getting things organized and done, but may not be the greatest speaker (George Bush). Others may speak very well, but be capable of nothing else (WEB DuBois). And others just like to stay inflamed and create chaos because that's what they do best (bin Laden). 9. Revolutions must take place in certain steps. And there must be people who are *looking* for something to change. (All the talk of radicalism in New England at Harvard and the other Ivy League Institutions may not amount to anything.) 10. Succesful governments befriend the "learned men" (intellectuals), so that they don't become mouthpieces against the governments/ catalysts for revolution. This system existed for centuries in Mainland China. It exists in some sense in the Western World (Universities. The tenure system. Intellectuals won't go *that* far in promoting the destruction of the system that ultimately keeps them employed.) This book has many good things that can be learned. It's only 160 pages. But it should take at least two weeks to read if read properly. And I believe that it has more *authenticated* knowledge than most sociology degree courses.
Rating:
Summary: Still vibrant, after all these years.
Review: When I first read Hoffer's classic book, "The True Believer", as a graduate student twenty years ago, I was shocked. I was astonished that a writer could openly suggest parallels among Christianity, Islam, fascism, and the KKK, and survive to write another book. Yet I was riveted by Hoffer's observations, which seemed to jump off the page in spite of his straightforward and unembellished prose. But I also recall thinking that Hoffer was a bit too brash in his assertions; that he ought to have tempered nearly every statement with a qualifier--a disclaimer that left open the possibility that he was mistaken. Upon reading Hoffer again, as a middle-aged and somewhat less idealistic professor, I find that several things have changed. First, Hoffer's observations seem even more keenly relevant today, post 9/11, than they did in the post-Vietnam era. Secondly, I now understand Hoffer's apparent brashness. In my youthful zeal I often rushed through the preface of a book, or skipped it entirely. But therein was Hoffer's justification: "The book passes no judgments, and expresses no preferences. It merely tries to explain; and the explanations--all of them theories--are in the nature of suggestions and arguments even when they are stated in what seems a categorical tone. I can do no better than quote Montaigne: 'All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed.'" While I am generally no fan of blanket disclaimers, I understand why Hoffer did it this way. His words could have been too easily dismissed had they been continually tempered and restrained. Hoffer revels in pointing out seemingly paradoxical situations and attitudes, such as "Discontent is likely to be highest when misery id bearable; when conditions have so improved that an ideal state seems almost within reach. A grievance is most poignant when almost redressed." His incisive comments cut to the nerve of his subject, treating in one stroke mass movements of every variety: "It is futile to judge the viability of a new movement by the truth of its doctrine and the feasibility of its promises. What has to be judged is its corporate organization for quick and total absorption of the frustrated." But what I remember most vividly, and Hoffer has reaffirmed for me, are his chilling observations about indoctrination and self-sacrifice. "The readiness for self-sacrifice is contingent on an imperviousness to the realities of life. He who is free to draw conclusions from his individual experience and observation is not usually hospitable to the idea of martyrdom... All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth or certitude outside it. The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ." I will close with one further quote from "The True Believer": "...in order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand." It is in statements like these that Hoffer seems to speak from a vantage point that few others have attained. Hoffer's insights are timeless.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant and insightful
Review: First published in 1951, this was one of very few books then that probed into the mind of a true believer whose blind faith and single-minded allegiance had nearly destroyed the world in the last century. 50 years on, some of Hoffer's analyses still ring true for fundamentalists, extremists and even terrorists which we now labeled these true believers. What makes Hoffer's book so remarkable is his ability to filter out the common ingredients that gave rise to mass movements hitherto and traced them to their roots. And he ended up in the psyche of an insecure and frustrated individual. His non-academic background largely contributed the book's originality since he was not strait-jacketed by the dominant thoughts in his times. Though some might feel uncomfortable with his sweeping generalisations without the rigors of scientific analysis, I do not see it as a major defect since the subject matter is difficult to be duplicated in a control environment. All in all, this is a brilliant and deeply insightful book for anyone who wants to peek into what lurks inside the minds of true believers or anyone who wishes to lead them.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic
Review: Hoffer's analysis of mass movements is timeless. It gives comfort in the post 9/11 world by pointing out that members of such mass movements can often be converted to another - like freedom!
Rating:
Summary: Cuts right to the chase
Review: Hoffer gets right to it and he tells it like it is. If you are at all curious about what motivates people to join mass movements (religious, nationalist, whatever), this book is for you.
Rating: 
Summary: On the origins of fanaticism
Review: This book was written more or less in the Vietnam era by a Longshoreman who was a self-styled conservative philosopher. Hoffer was turned off by the left-wing fanatacism of that time. This was the era in which Maoism was fashionable among a few western academics who, unlike their Chinese counterparts, did not have to do cultural duty on pig farms and in rice fields. Hoffer is, however, up to date. His argument is not about left-wing fanatacism in particular, but instead discusses the causes of fanatacism in general. The book may help you somewhat to understand the tendency of internally-unhappy people toward extremist movements of all stripes, whether fascist, communist, El Quaida, the Taliban, the Christian Coalition, neo-conservative, or others. Citizens who are wondering why America is where it is today might profit a bit from reading The True Believer.
Rating:
Summary: Does not Explain Terrorism
Review: Those who would use Eric Hoffer's book "The True Believer" to attempt to explain why people join terrorist organizations are applying his ideas incorrectly. By its very nature, terrorist organizations are not mass movements and are thus not subject to the theories(not truths!) that Hoffer offers. They are very small, individualistic movements, though the movement itself offers a cause not unlike mass movements and demands similar self-sacrifice. But that is where the similiarities end: there is often no great leader in terrorist organizations, no state propaganda, large degress of self-sufficiency (both social and economic), etc. all of which are traits that Hoffer says are not elements of mass movements. To assume that terrorists join groups like Al Qaeda because they are frustrated as Hoffer says only depicts half the picture. The other half is that terrorism arises due to a lack of political participation, a feeling that one's voice no longer matters. I imagine in a more open political system where it was felt that individuals could affect daily policy, terrorism as we know it would either be far different in form or greatly reduced.
Rating:
Summary: OUTSTANDING ANALASYS
Review: Eric Hoffer created a study on the mind of those who get swept up in the tides of mass movements. As illuminating now(perhaps more so) as when it was written decades ago. If you've ever wondered what makes a person join the Nazi's, Al Quida, etc., by all means get this thought provoking work.
Rating:
Summary: Useful in any era
Review: "Believer" is insightful if not always well written. The disjointed nature of some one or two line sections leaves support for their conclusions vacant, making them rather pushy pronouncements. Hoffer does not allow devotion and dedication sourced in conviction and confidence. For Hoffer the holy cause is always a substitute for a loss of faith in oneself. What he does reveal for us, however, is the unification of seemingly unrelated things. Such flashes of connectivity between the apparently sovereign are the mark of brilliance not unlike the unification of religions and mythology provided by Campbell. In the continuing quest for understanding such clarifications are critical to grasping why humans are the way they are. The book's theme is that all mass movements - good or bad social, religious, national - share certain characteristics giving them a "family likeness". That is, mass movements generate a proclivity for united action (challengers not welcome), breed fanaticism, fervent hope, hatred, intolerance, release powerful human energy, demanding blind faith and single-hearted allegiance. Such features are common to any movement, be it Christianity, Political Correctness, Islam, Postmodernism, the Pensacola Movement, feminism, communism. "For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious," writes Hoffer. "The true believer is everywhere on the march", converting and antagonizing he shapes the world in his image. Sure to raise the hackles of many Hoffer writes, "The hammer and sickle or swastika are in a class with the cross." But he does not mean they are equivalent movements, only that they have equivalent features. Parades are religious processions, all have articles of faith, saints, martyrs and holy sepulchers. (Ever see Lenin's tomb or the burial place of St Peter?) In a nutshell, this is human behavior with reason removed, or made a tool of the passions. Which is not to imply movements have no good rewards. As Hoffer notes, some have organized and others helped shake the West out of the Dark Ages. Carried along in the wake of zealots breaking ground are the "not so zealous" and those just plain unaware of their surroundings. Though what we today perceive as "normal", all of it is result of a variety of mass movements from the very advent of agriculture to the invention of the city as a dominant way of life. But Hoffer focuses on movements sprung from an idea, value or perception that are matters of the heart more than matters of technology or comfort. Interestingly, movements have stages of development from initial radicalism to eventual conservatism in which those attracted seek careers in the new order, not molding a new world but preserving the present. The zeal of experience, replaced by orthodoxy. Consider transitions in the Church from apostles to Bishops, 1917 Russia from revolution to rules of communist productivity, riots of 1960's America to the squelching of free speech by graying activists holding university chairs. "Believer" shines on these apparently disparate acts a new light.
| 
