Rating: 
Summary: Pegs the previous reviewer
Review: The reviewer, with his hip Michael Moore attitude, obviously didn't understand the book. He makes reference to the Nazis wanting to surrender to the Allies rather than the Soviets--um, did Hitler/Goebbels/Himmler surrender to *anyone*? The nonideological soldiers, the middle men, they weren't the "true believers", the members of the mass movement who articulated the vision of the Third Reich, who invested their egos into the identity of National Socialism, went down w/ the ship. The suicide rate amongst Germans at the end of WWII was higher than the suicide rate amongst Jews in the concentration camp. Not everyone living under a tyrannical minority is a member of a mass movement, not everyone is a "true believer". As Hoffer said so himself, "The game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle." Yeah, the previous reviewer sure did read this book, didn't he! As for the interchangability between Nazis and Commies--it often happened, however it requires some amount of cognitive dissonance to trigger the change. A traumatic event, or a revelation. We see it often on the scale of American culture--David Horowitz and David Brock, Dennis Miller and Ariana Huffington, for example. Fundamentalist Christians become militant atheists. Militant atheists become fundamentalist Christians. Hoffer's conclusion does not differ much from a LEFT wing psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, who articulated similair views about tribalism as the result of individual narcissism sublimated into group narcissism. They seem to be working on the same wavelength, at least when it comes to group think, group psychosis. "A man is likely to mind his own business when it was worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off of his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." "Mass movements can rise and spread without the belief in God, but never without belief in a devil." Gee, what irrational side of the political spectrum does *that* describe? ABB? "Those who find no difficulty in decieving themselves are easily decieved by others." Hoffer is not perfect and he stretches on some points. He also approaches mass movements from an amoral point of view--ie, if there was some group out there that miraculously had the truth w/ a capital T, whether divine or scientific in a Grand Unified Theory way, it would still be just like other mass movements preying on the same psychological weaknesses. This book is about human nature and the tribal instinct, not specific moral values. A masterpiece nonetheless, that dissects much of the current worldwide political climate.
Rating: 
Summary: A Fascinating Author; A Little Classic
Review: It is no accomplishment to trash a book. Many, who clearly do not understand what Hoffer is writing about or what he is saying, have criticised him over the forty plus years since first publication of "The True Believer". Hardly any of Hoffer's critics have a single accomplishment that equals "True Believer."
Let me tell you a little about this unique man. Eric Hoffer did not finish elementary school. A rare disease struck him blind. Possessing an insatiable curiosity, Hoffer studied on his own, getting anyone he could corner to read to him. He developed powerful memory skills to compensate for his blindness and limited resources. He wrote his books entirely in his mind while laboring and wrote them out when he was done. He could recite verbatim any page of any of his books. (Bill Moyers had him demonstrate this profound memory skill during a PBS interview.)
A new medical proceedure reclaimed Hoffer's sight when he was about 19. It was too late for schooling. He had to work. Hoffer lived much of his adulthood as a drifting laborer. He worked as a miner, a prospector, a dishwasher, a longshoreman. He never stopped learning. This unusual man, who understood his fellow Longshoreman and respected the common man, was able to engage fellow laborers in deep philosophical discussions. That is something no professor can do with a classroom full of university students. Like a Socrates of the docks, Hoffer learned much from orchastrating discussions with his humble work mates. I suspect he got the idea from the life and work of great thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle, ageless works most professors want students to ignore.
Hoffer was dedicated to a life of learning. A practical, rugged man, Hoffer understood the wisdom of seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge. He read only the best writing: Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Locke, Mills, books or science. With his contemporary, Mortimer J. Adler, Hoffer detested text books & abridged works of literature.
Everything interested him. Nothing escaped his observant mind. One story should give you the flavor of this career autodidact. Hoffer had a few questions no one could answer to his satisfaction. One invloved 'why does grass grow up, not down or sideways.' He drifted to California, rented a sleeping room near a major library and took a job nearby as a dishwasher. He worked just enough to eat, buy shelter and basic supplies. Hoffer invested the rest of his time Hoffer studying in the huge public library.
Hoffer's first book "True Believer" (1951) was a best seller and it brought him fame. It is a well written, thin book, as are all four of his books. "True Believer" brought Hoffer to the attention of President Eisenhower, and before Hoffer died, another president awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom, an honor bestowed on few people.
UCLA was so impressed with Hoffer's independent mind and writings that he was offered a full Professorship in Psychology. Hoffer accepted but resigned a few years later, prefering the streets to the more comfortable campus. In effect, Hoffer said he left so he could think.
"True Believer" has never been out of print. Some publisher, somewhere has always made the book available. Hoffer's other books have been in and out of print several times over the years. Hoffer wrote exceptionally well. He was a prose stylist. Late in life, Bill Moyers asked Hoffer what he wanted to be remembered for. To the interviewer's surprise , Hoffer chuckled & replied: "He could write a good sentence". Hoffer could do more than write powerful sentences. He wrote powerful, thought provoking essays, which is what his thin books amount to, powerfully written essays.
The basic observations of "True Believer" are still compelling. There is a social type who gravitates to extreme ideologies and extreme political movements. the basic personality of fanatics on the extreme left and fanatics on the extreme right are similar, if not the same. It is equally true that it is a tendency of this type to migrate from one extreme to the other.
If you seek insight into what makes the extreme mind tick, you will not find all the answers here but you will leave satisfied that you gained something from reading "The True Believer."
By the way, more than a few people have learned to write well by reading and learning the rhythm of Hoffer's prose, a style based on the American cavalier writing style of simple, straight forward sentences. Hoffer would advise us to: 'begin and end each sentence with a punch. He did exactly that.
Rating:
Summary: Generally well done (though by its nature imperfect)
Review: A few insights struck me as particularly noteworthy:
1. How aggressive mass movements such as Communism and Islamic radicalism differ from the would-be lunatic movements in American politics today. Hoffer points out that a truly vigorous mass movement requires self-sacrifice - but even the most devoted tree-hugger, Bush-worshipper or anti-abortionist is unlikely to want to be blown up for their cause of choice.
2. Hoffer foreshadows the collapse of Communism, by suggesting that a dictatorship's most dangerous moment is when it relaxes its restraints. Communism survived Stalin, but not Gorbachev. A logical inference: North Korea is probably more stable than China.
3. Hoffer's analysis of the difference between conservatives/liberals and radicals/reactionaries. The conservative and the liberal both revere the present. The conservative "doubts that the present can be bettered" while the liberal "sees the present as the legitimate offspring of the past and as constantly growing and changing toward an improved future." By contrast, the "radical and the reactionary loathe the present [and] see it as an aberration and the deformity." The reactionary differs from the radical by seeking to recreate the past, but even this difference may be illusory because the reactionary's "image of the past is based less on what it actually was than on what he wants the future to be." Today, the American Right seems dominated by the latter rather than the former, seeking to remake government (if not society) by crushing it with debt.
I agree with most of the positive comments. Certainly, Hoffer's generalities are not universally applicable: but Hoffer himself anticipates these problems, stating that the typical 2-star reviewer "is likely to feel that much has been exaggerated and much ignored. But this is not an authoritative textbook. It is a book of thoughts, and it does not shy away from half-truths so long as they seem to hint at a new approach and to formulate new questions."
The 2-star reviewer wrote that totalitarians "subdue and rule through force" rather than through belief. But this analysis begs the question: how do these totalitarians take over in the first place? Usually on the backs of an army of true believers, who then oppress the apolitical masses.
But Hoffer does fail to address the death of mass movements: how did fanatics stop becoming fanatics after (for example) the defeat of Nazis and Japanese ultranationalists in WW 2?
Rating:
Summary: This should be on everyone's bookshelf
Review: Eric Hoffer, not a scholar (in the traditional sense), but visionary and a longshoreman who wrote philosophical treatises in his spare time. This book was written in 1951, made famous when cited by Eisenhower during a press conference, and just as relevant today as when it was conceived.
Both straightforward and riveting, The True Believer lays bare the essential and unifying characteristics of all mass movements and their appeal to certain frustrated minds. Hoffer explains the various phases of mass movements, the mindsets of individuals who join them, and how reactions to the movements perpetuate more mass movements.
This should be on everyone's bookshelf (placed in between Machiavelli and the Declaration of Independence).
Rating:
Summary: Hoffer is king...
Review: This book is incredible. It is one of the most important books ever written in my opinion. I'm looking at a lot of the reviews here, and how everyone is saying this book is perfect for the analysis of the terrorist mindset. It is...but it is also absolutely incredible at looking at the unquestioning American patriot, which does not question it's own government's actions enough. This book should be required reading for everyone, at least 3 times.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant and concise treatise on mass movements
Review: The True Believer_ by Eric Hoffer is a short though rather intense and pithy book. His basic premise is that there are traits common to all mass movements, whether they are religious, social, or nationalist in nature. He stresses that while not all movements - and followers of such mass movements, the titular true believer - are identical nevertheless (be they Communism, the French Revolution, Islam, or Christianity) all share certain essential characteristics. He also stresses that he is not making value judgments; that while few would dispute that Nazism was evil many mass movements produced positive benefits (for instance the rapid modernization of Japan and Turkey would not have been possible without a revivalist nationalist movement).
The true believer in any mass movement shares many key characteristics. One is that he or she is discontented and blames the world for his or her problems. Second is that he possesses some sense of power, whether real or imagined (those who are in awe of the world he wrote do not think of change, no matter how miserable); the true believer is not destitute, as those who are living hand-to-mouth, unsure of food on a daily basis, don't join mass movements. Moreover, this power comes from some powerful doctrine or infallible leader and through these things the believer feels he has power. Third, the true believer has a great deal of faith in the future, that he believes that tremendous change is possible. Fourth, the true believer is inexperienced, that generally he is nearly completely ignorant of the difficulties involved in a movement's massive undertakings.
Hoffer identified several of the appealing elements of mass movements to individuals. Though mass movements in their more mature stages attract those who seek self-advancement, they generally at first are appealing to those who seek self-renunciation. They see their lives - and the present in which they live -as irredeemably spoiled. These people seek a rebirth and wish to lose themselves in a mass movement. The true fanatic of a movement is always incomplete and insecure, only finding assurance through whatever he desperately clings to. Hoffers wrote that fanatics sometimes switch movements entirely and the truest fanatics in any movement have more in common with the fanatics in other movements than with moderates, sometimes one becoming the other (Saul becoming Paul, radical Communists becoming radical Nazis, etc.). The fanatic seeks to deal with a pressing sense of self insufficiency with a strong missionary zeal to proselytize and dominate the world.
What types of individuals seek the self-renunciation, rebirth, and transformed future offered by a mass movement? The "new poor" are a key group, those that have a memory of better times, of more affluence and often more power but through circumstances have been deprived of them. The "free poor" are another vital group. Hoffer wrote that freedom "aggravates as much as it alleviates frustration." Freedom of choice places the blame of failure in life squarely on the shoulder of the individuals; they are free to fail and they would rather seek freedom from responsibility. The free poor - perhaps recently freed slaves, perhaps those who once lived under a despotic regime and came to dislike the following anarchy - often seek freedom from being free, valuing equality and fraternity much more than they value freedom. They find in a mass movement a refuge "from the anxieties, barrenness, and meaninglessness of an individual existence."
Hoffer stressed however that not all poor people join mass movements; as noted the abject poor do not join them, nor do those he called the "unified poor," those who are members of compact, tightly knit groups that provide solidarity and support (such as in the past the Chinese family or the Jewish ghettos in Medieval Europe). Leaders of mass movements he noted were aware of these groups and often sought to disrupt or destroy them.
Once within a mass movement the true believer is assimilated. This is facilitated by "make believe" - activities such as parades and by wearing uniforms - that stress the glory of a movement, carrying away viewers by sheer spectacle. Leaders of a mass movement deprecate the present, encouraging a negative attitude to the world as it is and fixing the attention upon the future. Doctrine is key in this, a "fact proof screen" that insulates the individual from the world, a doctrine that is deliberately not wholly intelligible and that requires no small amount of faith to follow.
Mass movements themselves have many similarities. First, all mass movements are competitive. Second, all mass movements are ultimately interchangeable, either changing in character or possessing more than one character, as a religious movement may become a nationalist one or vice versa. For instance Zionism can be seen as a nationalist, social, and religious movement. Third, while mass movements do not require a God they do require a devil, something to focus their wrath on (and if an enemy does not exist it must be invented).
For a mass movement to come to pass, three types of leaders at different stages are required. More often than not, each of these leaders is a different person. First is the man of words, an articulate and intelligent person who undermines faith in the existing order and sets the stage for a mass movement. When conditions are ripe the second leader, the fanatic, appears, one who is comfortable in a world of chaos and is not interested in reform but rather revolution, moving beyond mere dialogue - however important - and enacting real change. However, while a mass movement is pioneered by the man of words and materialized by the fanatic, it is consolidated by the man of action, a person who has experience and can consolidate and stabilize the gains made by fanatics. Those movements that lack this person can burn out, destroyed in trying to achieve ever more impossible goals. The man of action saves a movement from suicidal dissensions and the recklessness of fanatics.
An excellent book, it was well worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: a must read
Review: As for the reviewer who is harshly critical of Hoffer, he obviously didn't read the book or somehow didn't grasp Hoffers assertions. This is a great book that helped me understand the behavior of other people and groups of people. It also helped me understand why the war in Iraq has been tremendously more difficult than anticipated. Our government failed to understand the people and culture of Iraq. This is a book that I will insist my children read when they get old enough. This is probolly one of the 5 best books I have ever read.
Rating:
Summary: Pegs the previous reviewer
Review: The reviewer, with his hip Michael Moore attitude, obviously didn't understand the book. He makes reference to the Nazis wanting to surrender to the Allies rather than the Soviets--um, did Hitler/Goebbels/Himmler surrender to *anyone*? The nonideological soldiers, the middle men, they weren't the "true believers", the members of the mass movement who articulated the vision of the Third Reich, who invested their egos into the identity of National Socialism, went down w/ the ship. The suicide rate amongst Germans at the end of WWII was higher than the suicide rate amongst Jews in the concentration camp. Not everyone living under a tyrannical minority is a member of a mass movement, not everyone is a "true believer". As Hoffer said so himself, "The game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle." Yeah, the previous reviewer sure did read this book, didn't he! As for the interchangability between Nazis and Commies--it often happened, however it requires some amount of cognitive dissonance to trigger the change. A traumatic event, or a revelation. We see it often on the scale of American culture--David Horowitz and David Brock, Dennis Miller and Ariana Huffington, for example. Fundamentalist Christians become militant atheists. Militant atheists become fundamentalist Christians. Hoffer's conclusion does not differ much from a LEFT wing psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, who articulated similair views about tribalism as the result of individual narcissism sublimated into group narcissism. They seem to be working on the same wavelength, at least when it comes to group think, group psychosis. "A man is likely to mind his own business when it was worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off of his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." "Mass movements can rise and spread without the belief in God, but never without belief in a devil." Gee, what irrational side of the political spectrum does *that* describe? ABB? "Those who find no difficulty in decieving themselves are easily decieved by others." Hoffer is not perfect and he stretches on some points. He also approaches mass movements from an amoral point of view--ie, if there was some group out there that miraculously had the truth w/ a capital T, whether divine or scientific in a Grand Unified Theory way, it would still be just like other mass movements preying on the same psychological weaknesses. This book is about human nature and the tribal instinct, not specific moral values. A masterpiece nonetheless, that dissects much of the current worldwide political climate.
Rating: 
Summary: Wacko Hullaballoo!
Review: The dust jacket for the original 1951 print sells "The True Believer" as insight into Stalin's "'secret weapon,' his ability to generate enthusiasm and self sacrifice in all manner of people." It's a misleading premise. Stalin and many of Hoffler's other examples are less mass movement leaders than totalitarian dictators! They do not sweep unfulfilled people off their feet, but subdue and rule through force. Myriad peoples struggle to get away from the world's "Stalins," not follow them! The Soviet Union and scores of dictatorships have fallen in recent decades because the "leader" exhausted resources trying to *contain* "his people!" In short, there is no differentiation between "mass movement" and reign of terror! Broadly, Hoffer claims there is a mass movement man/personality, afraid of his own freedom - of facing himself. Why then, did vanquished Nazis (the epitome of Hoffler's "true believers") strive desperately to surrender to the U.S. rather than fall into the hands of Soviets (the other epitome)? Hoffler theorizes that "true believers" would rather go from communist to fascist, or vice versa, rather than become a democrat - for the "true believer," any mass movement is preferable to individuality. Then wouldn't Nazis abhor America's individual freedoms and run instead into the bosom of Stalin's "mass movement?" For the best answer to that, ask folks who ran through barbed wire and climbed a Wall to get to the West.
More troubling is Hoffer's consistent allusion that slaves want to be slaves. For example, Hoffer pulls these theories out of his rump: "The absolute equality among the slaves, and the intimate communal life in slave quarters, preclude individual frustration." And, "The segregated Negro in the South is less frustrated than the non-segregated Negro in the North" (#26, 40). Tell it to Rosa Parks! Much of this book is an insult to oppressed people... and to many of America's guiding principles. For most of Hoffer's theories, he cherry picks one example from scores of nations and thousands of years. A gullible reader could think up further examples to support Hoffer's claims. And a mildly discerning reader could come up with a handful of counter examples. In short, Hoffer explains mass movements like Nostradamus explains the future. In fairness, Hoffer is dead on with some points (wink). Like when he says failed or dried up artists "become the most violent extremists in the pursuit of their holy cause" (#37). The example of Hitler "verifies" this theory. And so does my friend Joe. He used to do cartoon sketches of people (giant head, small body). He'd ask what their favorite sport was, and sketch in a tennis racquet or skis, etc. One day he lost his touch -- and he is now the most rabid 49er fan I know! In Hoffler style, here's my rating guide: People who give 5 star reviews are eager to praise something outside themselves. A leader who promises answers easily sways them. For example, Italians who cheered Mussolini were 5 star people. 1 star reviewers show disaffection with the book, reflecting their internal emptiness. They are despondent, ripe to be enthralled by a more charismatic book, and are prime candidates for a cult. For example, people who were bored with The Backstreet Boys were easily swept up by the flashy propaganda of N Sync. 4 star people are sad, pathetic losers. They are perhaps most dangerous to global stability. 3 star reviewers are compromisers, clinging to a middle ground. Afraid to choose, they are desperate for a mass movement to choose for them. 3 star movements include Bolshevism, early Christianity, and Hulkamania. I give 2 stars. And I recommend the writings and life of Orwell (not too much, I mean I don't worship the guy or anything!) for clearer takes on "mass movements" and individuality. Peace out, fellow individuals!
Rating:
Summary: I USED TO BE ONE!
Review: The key to understanding destructive human organizations. The world is built by practical organisations, and it is periodically damaged or destroyed by "mass movements". From religous cults to the the open source movement, all mass movements have a similar structure and dynamic.
|
