The Psychology of Mass Movements and Revolutions

submitted by TheJamesRocket from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

His psuedopsychoanalysis just says anyone who doesn't like the status quo is a loser who is willing to throw away their life for any change

Hoffer has an unromantic perspective on the individuals who join mass movements, that is true. But I can't say that his characterization is entirely wrong. It is a self evident fact that social malcontents are always drawn to revolutionary movements. After all, if they weren't discontent with society, then why would they be rebelling against it? The reasons for discontent only matter in so much as they compel the individual to join a revolutionary group and fight the establishment.

On its face, it may seem that Hoffer is taking a swipe at the characters of these persons. On the other hand, it may simply be that he is giving a dry exposition on the social conditions that produce revolutionary movements, without regard for niceties.

Mass movements apparently have no real ideals and can just be substituted for anything

Again, thats a matter of interpretation. I did not get the impression that Hoffer was making value judgements about the mass movements he studys. He is simply stating that revolutionary groups are all of the basic character, regardless of the causes they champion. In his view, the Nazis of the 1920s were interchangeable with the Bolsheviks of the 1910s.

That comparison will understandably piss of sympathizers of either group, leading them to explain just how different their causes were. But thats missing the point. Ideologys only matter in so far as they compel a group of malcontents to overthrow the establishment. It doesn't matter whether the cause is valid or not, it only matters if the revolutionarys are inspired by it to the point where they are willing to risk their lives in pursuit of the vision.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

1) Do you think your psychological profile is exactly the same as the average antifa and you and an antifa could be interchangeable and switch between the movements? It's quite clear he is dishonestly conflating 2 completely different phenomena: the Disaffected (our psychological types) and the Oversocialised - Ted Kaczysnki's term, refers to leftist/antifa types, concern with racism, climate, LGBT stuff, civil rights, feminism, fake anti-capitalism etc.

The Disaffected make up genuinely revolutionary movements, the Oversocialised make up what he's talking about whilst he's pretending it applies to the Disaffected. It's a classic bait and switch that tricks midwit liberals because it appeals to their narcissism that they're smart and everyone who is against liberalism is a doo-doo head with a tiny peepee.

There's much more accurate psychological analysis about. Check out Ted Kaczynski, Jouvenalian analysis, Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd, Josh Neal, Ed Dutton, The Last Psychiatrist, Borzoi etc. The DR understanding of mass psychology and the psychological profile of revolutionaries (and bootlickers) is far superior to this guy's.

This guy even has a quote 'the mouth that bites the hand that feeds it, also licks the boot that kicks it'. This exemplifies his total misunderstanding or intentional dishonesty. It of course applies to the Oversocialised type but it absolutely does not apply to the Disaffected type. Even then they don't really bite the hand that feeds them, they tend to lash out at powerless people for not sufficiently being up to the standards set by the powerful.

2) >He is simply stating that revolutionary groups are all of the basic character, regardless of the causes they champion.

I disagree. There's a massive difference between Mao using lumpenproles (classic De Jouvenalian strategy) or the Bourgeois in the French Revolution, or the world bankers for the Bolshevik revolution and an organic mass movement that wasn't a battle between elite groups or a high-low vs the middle civil war. It's conflating things that are essentially completely different.

In his view, the Nazis of the 1920s were interchangeable with the Bolsheviks of the 1910s.

The NSDAP was 10x the size of the Bolsheviks, the SA alone had twice as many members as the entire Bolshevik party. Russia's population was 91 million, Germany's 66 million. The Bolsheviks were not a popular party, they won by staging a coup. The NSDAP won because the people wanted them in power. If you actually analyse the real conditions, disregarding ideology, of the 2 revolutions you see that they really don't have anything in common. Their supporters were completely different types of people and neither fit the description Hoffer has for mass movements. His analysis pretty much only actually applies to American gayop movements like Civil Rights and shit lol.

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The NSDAP was 10x the size of the Bolsheviks, the SA alone had twice as many members as the entire Bolshevik party. Russia's population was 91 million, Germany's 66 million. The Bolsheviks were not a popular party, they won by staging a coup. The NSDAP won because the people wanted them in power.

That is a massive difference. I hadn't realised the Bolsheviks were that far behind. It's interesting that they still managed to win in Russia.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's interesting that they still managed to win in Russia.

Mostly because the resistance to them was heavily demoralized and disorganized.

The White Movement was a mess of infighting and constantly flipping alliances and leaders. Not only this, but the barbaric slaughter of the Romanovs by Jewish thugs removed one of the main reasons to fight against the subhumans. Their propaganda and initial success allowed them the upper hand to gain these other advantages later on and defeat the White armies and their allies/international supporters.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

they tend to lash out at powerless people for not sufficiently being up to the standards set by the powerful.

That would be a silly reason to lash out. More valid would be lashing out at 'powerless people' for mal or poor function. The baseline standard for an organism is functionality sufficient to maintain life, with abilities to reproduce or enjoy a particular type of life being a bonus.

Is it really only the powerful who care about functionality? I know we celebrate dysfunction, retardation, and a poor genetic code these days, but that's only because they cede more power to the state.

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

More valid would be lashing out at 'powerless people' for mal or poor function.

From their perspective, it is the same thing.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Now I'm unsure who the "they" is that Markimus referred to. By the sentence construction, it appears to be "the disaffected". By the content, it seems more "the Oversocialized".

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I was referring to the Oversocialised. My point is that his analysis only really applies to those people, not actually disaffected people. Even when it does apply to the Oversocialised, it still doesn't really apply to them that much.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

"the Oversocialized"

I like that term.

The propaganda overcooked their brains.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.google.com/search?q=oversocialization+ted+kaczynski

One of the more interesting users of that term.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

You haven't seen cancel culture, antifa, feminists etc 24/7 attacking right wingers, ruralites, the working class etc for not being up to speed with hollywood's latest social agendas? This is all the 'left' has been since the New Left was invented, just Oversocialised people policing people for racism, sexism, homophobia and whatever else capitalists decide to push.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Cancel culture IS those who celebrate dysfunction, retardation, and poor genetic codes.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, and they are attacking ordinary people for not being retarded dysfunctional bootlickers like themselves.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Given the reality of the limitations a 100 IQ confirs, it's inappropriate to refer to ordinary people as non-retarded. The ordinaries come up with a variety of beliefs to demonstrate their fantastic views of reality. Then they fight over those beliefs.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

...and authority, limitations of freedom, "the greater good", social credit scores, and virtue signalling as if it were actually productive.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps you'd be interested in posting about the "Oversocialized" or other useful things in /s/Terminology. We need better vocabularies to more accurately describe things clearly and to resist tyranny better.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

a group of malcontents to overthrow the establishment.

Usually manipulated malcontents. And they replace the old establishment with a new establishment, same as the old.

Two days ago I gave a couple short speeches in front of hundreds at our Windsor Freedom Rally. I started with a joke that Trudeau was a revolutionary and threw my fist up in the air, then slowly rotated and spun around 360o saying that Trudeau is a revolutionary because after all the political spin and elections, we ended up right back where we were. Revolved without evolving.