In 1941, George Orwell wrote The Lion and the Unicorn, a short book on what England should do to survive World War II.#

Generally, I like what George Orwell writes provided he stays far enough away from his Socialism. Unfortunately, this is not one of those instances.#

This book is divided into three parts. The first is about the English people, and I find it very interesting. The second make his case for Socialism and the final is his proposed plan for England. I could fsck it if I were inclined, but I am not, any critique of Socialism will find the holes in this book, but I want to highlight a few points.#

On the English passion for liberty:#

But here it is worth noting a minor English trait which is extremely well marked though not often commented on, and that is a love of flowers. This is one of the first things that one notices when one reaches England from abroad, especially if one is coming from southern Europe. Does it not contradict the English indifference to the arts? Not really, because it is found in people who have no aesthetic feelings whatever. What it does link up with, however, is another English characteristic which is so much a part of us that we barely notice it, and that is the addiction to hobbies and spare-time occupations, the privateness of English life. We are a nation of flower-lovers, but also a nation of stamp-collectors, pigeon-fanciers, amateur carpenters, coupon-snippers, darts-players, crossword-puzzle fans. All the culture that is most truly native centres round things which even when they are communal are not official - the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the 'nice cup of tea'. The liberty of the individual is still believed in, almost as in the nineteenth century. But this has nothing to do with economic liberty, the right to exploit others for profit. It is the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above. The most hateful of all names in an English ear is Nosey Parker. It is obvious, of course, that even this purely private liberty is a lost cause. Like all other modern people, the English are in process of being numbered, labelled, conscripted, 'co-ordinated'. But the pull of their impulses is in the other direction, and the kind of regimentation that can be imposed on them will be modified in consequence. No party rallies, no Youth Movements, no coloured shirts, no Jew-baiting or 'spontaneous' demonstrations. No Gestapo either, in all probability.

Orwell makes this claim about the improved living conditions and later tries to claim that capitalism does not benefit all. Perhaps it does not benefit all, equally, but it does benefit all.#

But much more important than this is the spread of middle-class ideas and habits among the working class. The British working class are now better off in almost all ways than they were thirty years ago. This is partly due to the efforts of the trade unions, but partly to the mere advance of physical science. It is not always realized that within rather narrow limits the standard of life of a country can rise without a corresponding rise in real wages. Up to a point, civilization can lift itself up by its boot-tags. However unjustly society is organized, certain technical advances are bound to benefit the whole community, because certain kinds of goods are necessarily held in common. A millionaire cannot, for example, light the streets for himself while darkening them for other people. Nearly all citizens of civilized countries now enjoy the use of good roads, germ-free water, police protection, free libraries and probably free education of a kind. Public education in England has been meanly starved of money, but it has nevertheless improved, largely owing to the devoted efforts of the teachers, and the habit of reading has become enormously more widespread. To an increasing extent the rich and the poor read the same books, and they also see the same films and listen to the same radio programmes. And the differences in their way of life have been diminished by the mass-production of cheap clothes and improvements in housing. So far as outward appearance goes, the clothes of rich and poor, especially in the case of women, differ far less than they did thirty or even fifteen years ago.

Orwell claims that socialism is more effective at waging wars than capitalism. I would say that this might only be so in the short-run, and then only if it was preceded by capitalism.#

What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism - that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit - does not work. It cannot deliver the goods. This fact had been known to millions of people for years past, but nothing ever came of it, because there was no real urge from below to alter the system, and those at the top had trained themselves to be impenetrably stupid on just this point. Argument and propaganda got one nowhere. The lords of property simply sat on their bottoms and proclaimed that all was for the best. Hitler's conquest of Europe, however, was a physical debunking of capitalism. War, for all its evil, is at any rate an unanswerable test of strength, like a try-your-grip machine. Great strength returns the penny, and there is no way of faking the result.

Orwell later proves that socialists, like himself, are focused on war and by their nature seek to expand the net of their slavery.#

Until the Churchill Government called some sort of halt to the process, they have done the wrong thing with an unerring instinct ever since 1931. They helped Franco to overthrow the Spanish Government, although anyone not an imbecile could have told them that a Fascist Spain would be hostile to England. They fed Italy with war materials all through the winter of 1939-40, although it was obvious to the whole world that the Italians were going to attack us in the spring. For the sake of a few hundred thousand dividend-drawers they are turning India from an ally into an enemy. Moreover, so long as the moneyed classes remain in control, we cannot develop any but a defensive strategy. Every victory means a change in the status quo. How can we drive the Italians out of Abyssinia without rousing echoes among the coloured peoples of our own Empire? How can we even smash Hitler without the risk of bringing the German Socialists and Communists into power? The left-wingers who wail that 'this is a capitalist war' and that 'British Imperialism' is fighting for loot have got their heads screwed on backwards. The last thing the British moneyed class wish for is to acquire fresh territory. It would simply be an embarrassment. Their war aim (both unattainable and unmentionable) is simply to hang on to what they have got.

The final book read over fourth of July was Philosophy: Who Needs It, by Ayn Rand, a collection of essays collected after her death. I have read the title piece before. It was a great think to read after The True Believer.#

Philosophical Detection#

A thinker like Kant does not want you to agree with him: all he wants is that you give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows that your own subconscious does the rest. What he dreads is your conscious mind: once you understand the meaning of his theories, they lose their power to threaten you, like a Halloween mask in bright sunlight. [p. 21]

Selfishness Without a Self#

Love is a response to values. The amoralist's actual self-appraisal is revealed in his abnormal need to be loved (but not in the rational sense of the world)--to be "loved for himself," i.e., causelessly. James Taggart reveals the nature of such a need: "I don't want to be loved for anything. I want to be loved for myself--not for anything I do or have or say or think. For myself--not for my body or mind or words or works or actions." (Atlas Struggled.) When his wife asks: "But then... what is yourself?" he has no answer. [p. 48]

Faith and Force#

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." [p. 61]

Another book that I read over fourth of July was The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde.#

Oscar Wilde is fabulous. I love reading him and the cleverness of his characters makes me envious. I would adore being able to quip like Lord Goering or Lord Henry.#

Firstly, I wanted to quote the Preface of Dorian Gray. It is exquisite.#

The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.

The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.

This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.

They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written.

That is all.

The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.

The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.

No artist has ethical sympathies.

An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.

Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.

Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician.

From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type.

All art is at once surface and symbol.

Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.

Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.

When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.

We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.

(Quoted from here.)

And then some other little snippets of cleverness:#

"'How dreadful!' cried Lord Henry. 'I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect.'" (p. 55)

"'My dear boy, the people who love only once in their lives are really the shallow people. What they call their loyalty, and the fidelity, I call either the lethargy of custom or their lack of imagination. Faithfulness is to the emotional life what consistency is to the life of the intellect--simply a confession of failures. Faithfulness! [...]'" (p. 66-67)

"'[...] When one is in love, one always begins by deceiving one's self, and one always ends by deceiving others. That is what the world calls a romance. [...]'" ) (p. 70)

On fourth of July weekend, one of the books I read was The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, by Eric Hoffer. This book is a collection of ideas and theories on the various whys and hows of "mass movements", a term he uses to speak about religious fundamentalism, political revolutions, and social revolutions.#

Among these "whys and hows" are the primary questions of why a person may want to join a mass-movement and how a mass-movement should be run if it is to be effective. But, before I write about the content of the book I'd like to comment on its character and form.#

The book reminds me very much of an old European treatise or personal philosophy dissertation, it is very much like Democracy in America in this regard. The structure is largely uninterrupted and seems to flow, while being divided into four parts, then chapters with smaller sections. Often these sections are only a single sentence. All these sections have unique numbers that are often referred to by the text itself. In addition to this style of division, there are many quotes and references to the author's ideals of great minds. These are often surprising and interesting.#

General Comments#

About half-way through the book I was very intrigued by the author's lack of knowledge about Soviet Russia and focus on Hitler. I then realized that the book was first published in 1951. I found this to be a useful data point when thinking about the book's commentary.#

One of the other things about the book that I thought was particularly ingenious is how Hoffer divides the life of a mass-movement into an 'active' and 'passive' phase. The 'active' phase is when it is growing and has not "won" yet. This is where his investigation lies primarily. The 'passive' phase is when the mass-movement has become the norm and it begins to defend and stabilize itself--often leading to future movements. Thus, every institution is the stable form of some "mass-movement." I will write more on this later on at the same place as Hoffer.#

A note of caution, the book really is a book of "thoughts." It does not offer more than verbal persuasion and appeal to the intellect. It does not offer rigorous or scientific study. It does not, however, make outrageous claims or contradict itself. The only sin I have seen is a slight bias in favour of America and against prying to much into the passive stage of mass-movements. But, this second problem is not within the stated scope any ways.#

The reader is expected to quarrel with much that is said in this part of the book. He 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 help to formulate new questions. "To illustrate a principle," says Bagehot, "you must exaggerate much and you must omit much." [p. 60]

Part 1. The Appeal of Mass Movements#

I. The Desire for Change#

The core personality problem that leads to the appeal of mass-movements is the lack of complete responsibility. The idea that a person is not responsible for the conditions of his or her own life:

There is in us a tendency to locate the shaping forces of our existence outside ourselves. Success and failure are unavoidable related in our minds with the state of things around us. Hence it is that people with a sense of fulfillment think it a good world and would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change. The tendency to look for all causes outside ourselves persists even when it is clear that our state of being is the product of personal qualities such as ability, character, appearance, health and so on. [p. 6]

It is for this reason that mysticism is often the partner of mass-movements, some sort of justification for why your problems are not your own must be engineered. And because this is false, it must venture into the land of make-believe.

II. The Desire for Substitutes#

A mention of how to measure the passive stage and a comparison with "practical" organizations:

The fact remains that a practical concern cannot endure unless it can appeal to and satisfy self-interest, while the vigor and growth of a rising mass movement depend on its capacity to evoke and satisfy the passion for self-renunciation. When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in possessing and preserving the present. It ceases then to be a movement and becomes an enterprise. [p. 13]

A brilliant description of the modern day bleeding heart liberal:

The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often holding on for dear life. Take way out holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless. [p. 14-15]

However, I think it needs a bit of tempering. What self is to be esteemed in the selfless individual? It shows that those who preach selfless do not want to practice it themselves, they only want the appearance of being the most selfless, and thus in the seat of greatest power over others.

III. The Interchangeability of Mass Movements#

Part 2. The Potential Converts#

IV. The Role of the Undesirables in Human Affairs#

V. The Poor#

The poor are often so intricately attached to mass-movements because of their strength in numbers, they are useful assets and thus strategy as evolved towards pleasing them. (Cite: The demagogues of Rome.) So, a movement will try to preach towards their desires, which is often equality. Any equality generally, even equality in poverty: (Read the last quote here.)

Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority.

Equality without freedom creates a more stable social pattern than freedom without equality.

This last statement, about the stability of equality, is questionable. A response to it, which I will not write now, would include a questioning of what definition of stability, as well as a reference towards the history of societies with equality, or rather that tried to attain the ideal of equality.

 

Also in this section, the author makes a comment that I think is very important. He says that mass-movements need not be true to be successful. (See above about the requirement of pandering to mysticism.)

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. Where new creeds vie with each other for the allegiance of the populace, the one which comes with the most perfected collective framework wins. Of all the cults and philosophies which competed in the Graeco-Roman world, Christianity alone developed from its inception a compact organization. [p. 41]

VI. Misfits#

VII. The Inordinately Selfish#

VIII. The Ambitious Facing Unlimited Opportunities#

IX. Minorities#

X. The Bored#

XI. The Sinners#

The author makes this great comment concerning how both the oppressed and the oppressors are vulnerable to mass-movements:

The sardonic remark that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels has also a less derogatory meaning. Fervent patriotism as well as religious and revolutionary enthusiasm often serves as a refuge from a guilty conscience. It is a strange thing that both the injurer and the injured, the sinner and he who is sinned against, should find in the mass movement an escape from a blemished life. Remorse and a sense of grievance seem to drive people in the same direction. [p. 53]

And at the conclusion of the part, it becomes that everyone and anyone who is not attached to reality is vulnerable to a mass-movement. This makes me think that mass-movements will never cease as long as passive movements are still alive. Why? The passive movements retain their attachment to mysticism and thus cultivate this propensity in those under their grasp, thus they prepare their minds for the next rising mass-movement.

Reality seems to be the antidote.

Part 3. United Action and Self-Sacrifice#

XII. Preface#

XIII. Factors Promoting Self-Sacrifice#

The author wonders about why self-sacrifice is a desirable thing for some humans. His resolution is that when a human is in extreme peril, it needs something great than itself to hold on to:

The unavoidable conclusion seems to be that when the individual faces torture or annihilation, he cannot rely on the resources of his own individuality. His only source of strength is in not being himself but part of something mighty, glorious and indestructible. Faith here is primarily a process of identification; the process by which the individual ceases to be himself and becomes part of something eternal. Faith in humanity, in posterity, in the destiny of one's religion, nation, race, party, or family--what is it but the visualization of that eternal something to which we attach the self that is about to be annihilated? [p. 64]

This idea melds well with the notion that governments do not create wars, but that they are created by wars. And George Orwell's explanation in The Lion and The Unicorn that socialism and state control of industry can always beat the free-market in times of crisis and war. (He was referring to England being unprepared to battle Germany because its capitalists could not make a profit yet.)

 

In this chapter, one of my problems with the book first appears: The author's refusal to admit that democracy is itself a mass-movement that seeks to annihilate the individual by making him a fly and commanding him by the "representatives of the mass."

The spokesmen of democracy offer no holy cause to cling to and no corporate whole to lose oneself in. [p. 87]

XIV. Unifying Agents#

One of the unifying agents described is hatred. Hoffer explains that the best subject of hate is "the devil" and preferably the foreign devil. An interesting comment on Americans:

It is easier to hate an enemy with much good in him than one who is all bad. We cannot hate those we despise. The Japanese had an advantage over us in that they admired us more than we admired them. They could hate us more fervently than we could hate them. The Americans are poor haters in international affairs because of their innate feeling of superiority over all foreigners. An American's hatred for a fellow American (for Hoover or Roosevelt) is far more virulent than any antipathy he can work up against foreigners. It is of interest that the backward South shows more xenophobia than the rest of the country. Should Americans begin to hate foreigners wholeheartedly, it will be an indication that they have lost confidence in their own way of life. [p. 96]

Another agent may be persuasion, or propaganda, but Hoffer has doubts:

The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already "know." [p. 105]

Completely unrelated question: Can advertising force people to buy something?

The last I think I will mention, suspicion:

Collective unity is not the result of the brotherly love of the faithful for each other. The loyalty of the true believer is to the whole--the church, party, nation--and not to his fellow true believer. True loyalty between individuals is possible only in a loose and relatively free society. [p. 125]

Part 4. Beginning and End#

XV. Men of Words#

XVI. The Fanatics#

XVII. The Practical Men of Actions#

XVIII. Good and Bad Mass Movements#

It is here that Hoffer asserts that some mass-movements are generally seen as good, the American, French, and Protestant Revolutions, despite the bloodshed of their 'active' phase. This meshes well with Leo Strauss' conception of justice and government--that might (success) makes right and that "the foundation of every city [government] is in crime."

Open Questions#

After reading this book, some questions were left in my mind...#

• Are there "meta-mass-movements", like the establishment of the philosophy of Kant that tries to destroy the individual in spirit, that are the building blocks of other mass-movements (socialism, Communism, totalitarianism, et cetera), and are they interesting?
• If all mass-movements aim to destroy the individual mind, then what of groups resembling mass-movements (in that they are a group aiming for social change), such as the Objectivists and Libertarians, that explicitly champion the importance of the individual man in the present? (Possibly this just means that they are destined to be unsuccessful movements, because a movement requires the doctrine of self-sacrifice?)
• Is it that some of these groups, i.e. the Libertarians, are actually hiding behind the veil of the individual when in fact they are nationalists ("Restore the original glory of the Constitution."), millenarian saviors ("Socialism and Totalitarianism is destroying the globe and it is my legion of saviors and my doctrine that is the only cure!"), or just plain fakes? (After the restoration of anarchy, their goal is to be the strongest man and establish some new government.)

And perhaps the biggest questions of them all:#

• Is the study of these "mass-movements" truly the general study of the organization of humans? That is, are lasting organizations by their nature destructive of the individuality of man? This may have support particularly because of the passive phase of mass-movements when they become stable organizations. (I use the word "lasting" to reference Ayn Rand's comment in Philosophy: Who Needs It about the only valuable organizations being ad-hoc temporary committees with a specific and defined purpose. N.B.: I also read this book over the weekend and will review it shortly.)

Peter Lindberg responds to my comment about the worries of urban planning, saying that that particular planner goes much farther than most people do. This is a relaxing thought that the whole industry/study isn't in the direction. Good to know. :)#

Tony Pierce has a new photo essay.#

Brad DeLong on Fahrenheit 9/11: "Much better than your standard Michael Moore movie--largely because he's off-camera most of the time, but also because the smarmy misrepresentation quota is down to 20% and the truth quota is up to 80%. 20% is still too large, however: I wouldn't send anyone to see it who doesn't already know enough to spot the 20%."#

Later, Brad is reminded of when President Bush called a group "the elite" and then "My Base." Do people not realize this is a reference to "al qaeda", which means "The Base" in Arabic?

Local Ranger on Michael More: "Something few people seem to have noticed about Michael Moore, whether they love him or hate him, is that he keeps making the exact same movie over and over. And surprisingly, it gets better every time."#

Rep. Ron Paul, MD on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.#

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

Lance Arthur continues his Guide to Man Grooming.#

Men hate to go shopping. It's something in our DNA. Even I, who spends way too much on shoes and shirts and outerwear, hate stepping into a grocery store. The choices are too many, I think everything's too expensive, I regret getting things I'll never actually use (beets? canned beets? whu huh?) and I walk out feeling like I've been taken.

What men like is hunting. Not necessarily in the "I really need to strap a deer on my Bronco" style of hunting, more in the basic "I have a target in mind and I will search until I locate it and claim it for myself" style. So think of shopping like hunting. You are on a shirt hunt. You are hunting for the juiciest, most satisfying shirt in the shopping wilderness, and nothing but nothing is going to stop you from that goal.

See? Shopping can be manly!

Moxie interviews Michael Moore's proctologist.#

Mox: I understand you have doctor/patient confidentiality to deal with, but can you tell me anything at all about Michael Moore's rectum since he's recently made an ass of himself so publicly?

Ass Dr: Well back in 1996 I sent a team of highly skilled spelunkers into an area of his body where we suspected his ass might be located.

Capitalism and the way it makes incremental improvements on our quality of our lives is fantastic.#

Robert Scoble on a book he's reading.#

Speaking of Chinese, I'm reading a book "1421 The Year China Discovered America" that makes a darn good case that Christopher Columbus didn't discover America. He's done a ton of work that shows that the Chinese were actually here 60 years prior and that Christopher Columbus actually had copies of their maps!

That basically throws out a whole ton of history I learned in elementary school.

The book is a must read, by the way. Even if the conclusion is wrong it gives amazing detail about just how advanced Chinese culture was in the 1420s. I'm halfway through and had trouble putting it down to start blogging.

1. It doesn't matter who may have ran across America before the Spanish did, whether it was Chinese and Nordic people. Why? Because they didn't do anything about it. None of these other people effectively traded with the Native Americans or made any use of their discovery. Often times they just gave up. That is why Christopher Columbus and what he represents is important, not just because he "discovered" a new place.

2. "Even if the conclusion is wrong..." is a terrible motto in my opinion. Would you read a physics book if it presented every untrue theory but gave you great amounts of detail about the people who made them and how they found these things? Of course not. Things that are not true are not valuable from a utility point of view (but they may be interesting as literature or as a history-of-mistakes book.)

3. As for how "advanced" China was, I recommend reading books like The Wealth and Poverty of Nations or Guns, Germs, and Steel where you were learn that while the Chinese did invent many interesting things, they never made any use of them. China's totalitarian government made large ship building illegal and killed any chance of expanding its exploration. Similar measures were made against paper, gunpowder, clocks, and other instruments that China had priority in inventing.

What is more important: an invention without a use or purpose, or an re-discovery of an invention that causes monumental change?