BWorld 57, Eric Hoffer, Machiavelli and Duterte

* This is my article in BusinessWorld yesterday.

Mass movements and electoral mobs for “real change” promise the moon and the stars for the people, and many supporters are mobilized by that promise of change from the state, change from the outside, never mind changing the behavior of individuals from within based on existing laws and continuing evolution of voluntary and civil society.

The philosophy and sociology of mass movements including the rise of Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, and Stalin in Russia was aptly discussed by Eric Hoffer (1898-1983), an American philosopher, known more for his first book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951).

Among the important points that Eric Hoffer discussed in The True Believer which have resonance and relevance to the current electoral campaigns in the Philippines are the following:

“The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the single-handed defiance of the world.”

“The permanent misfits can find salvation only in a complete separation from the self; and they usually find it by losing themselves in the compact collectivity of a mass movement.”

“The fact that mass movements as they arise often manifest less individual freedom than the order they supplant, is usually ascribed to the trickery of a power-hungry clique that kidnaps the movement at a critical stage and cheats the masses of the freedom about to dawn.”

“However, the freedom the masses crave is not freedom of self-expression and self realization, but freedom from the intolerable burden of an autonomous existence. They want freedom from “the fearful burden of free choice,” freedom from the arduous responsibility of realizing their ineffectual selves and shouldering the blame for the blemished product. They do not want freedom of conscience, but faith -- blind, authoritarian faith. They sweep away the old order not to create a society of free and independent men, but to establish uniformity, individual anonymity and a new structure of perfect unity.”

In earlier political rallies during the campaign period, front-runner Rodrigo Duterte declared,

“I am a dictator? Yes it is true. If you don’t like it then don’t vote for me.”

“If you put me there (presidency), I will finish (all the criminals) off.” (Feb. 24, 2016, Philippine Daily Inquirer)

Until now, the details of his economic, social, and foreign policies are still blurred as he continues his single-issue campaign to stop criminality and government corruption. And many of his supporters laud that absence of details, even the details how he can stop criminality in his self-imposed period of three to six months upon assuming the presidency. He and many of his supporters laud at the endless expletives and cuss words that normally come from his mouth.

He also reiterated his plans to form a revolutionary government in his rally last April 27, 2016: “Magtatayo ako ng bagong gobyerno... Magrebolusyon ako kapag nandoon na ako kasi hindi na ito para sa tao. Hindi ito kayang solusyonan ng Konstitusyon natin.” (I will put a new government... create a revolution if I’m there because this is not for the people. This cannot be solved by our Constitution).

When former President Cory Aquino declared a revolutionary government in 1986, she abolished the Batasan (parliament) and the Marcos 1973 Constitution, created a Constitutional Commission that drafted a new Constitution that was ratified in 1987. So Duterte’s plan, if he pursues it if he wins, should be along that line: abolish Congress, create a new Constitution.

An Italian Renaissance era philosopher, historian, and politician Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is often cited by many observers and academics for his advice on political preservation and cunning.

Machiavelli’s book The Prince (1513) is well known and among the ideas that he articulated in that book discussing the role of deception and instilling fear are the following:

“Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.”

“...he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.”

“Men are so simple of mind, and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived.”

“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”

“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.”

Davao Mayor Duterte has explicitly instilled this culture of fear and violence in many of his campaign sorties.

“Kayong mga KMU, medyo pigilan muna ninyo ang labor union. Ako na ang nakikiusap sa inyo. Magkasama tayo sa ideolohiya. Huwag ninyong gawin iyan kasi sisirain mo ang administrasyon ko. Kapag ginawa ninyo iyan, patayin ko kayong lahat. Ang solusyon dito patayan na. Eh pakiusapan mo, ayaw eh.” (You in the KMU, please control your union activities. I am pleading with you. We are one in ideology. Do not do that because you will destroy my administration. If you do that, I will kill all of you. The solution here is killing. You plead and they won’t listen.) -- Feb. 11, 2016, GMA news

“’Pag i-impeach ako, sabi ni Trillanes, eh ‘di isara ko ‘yang Congress. Eh ‘di wala nang mag-impeach sa akin... Sabihin ng congressman, ‘Bakit mo naman kami isara?’ Eh p -- ina, impeach-impeach kayo diyan.” (If they will impeach me, according to Trillanes, then I will close Congress. Then no more impeachment. If congressman ask, ‘why will you close us?’, it’s because you initiate impeachment.) -- April 28, 2016, GMA news

And in his chat with CPP Founder Joma Sison, still based in Utrecht, Netherlands, he proudly announced that “for the first time, merong Leftist president... follow the path of socialism. I’m a socialist. Though I am not a member of CPP, I belong to the Left.” -- April 30,2016, InterAksyon.com

Like his passion for the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and Saul Alinsky (this column’s paper last week), Duterte also has affinity for some or many ideas of Machiavelli and Eric Hoffer. Instill a culture of fear and violence, use deception whenever possible, promise a nirvana of forced collectivism, coerced uniformity and equality under socialism and fascism.

The “real change” that Mr. Duterte promises is change for the worst.

Between the fireworks of political uncertainties and economic instability created by his pronouncements and promises vs the bland certainty and boring stability of the current leadership and its electoral team, the latter is a lot more tolerable especially if we value our political freedom, market efficiency, and tolerance for human rights.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a Fellow of SEANET and Albert del Rosario Institute (ADRi), and member of the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia. minimalgovernment@gmail.com

--------------

See also: 

BWorld 54, Rice farming, trading, smuggling and electioneering, April 15, 2016 

BWorld 55, FIT-All, renewables and elections 2016, April 23, 2016 

BWorld 56, Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky and Duterte, April 30, 2016 

Lion Rock 3: The New Poor, Free Poor and Eric Hoffer, October 30, 2012 

Fat-Free Econ 29: Anti-capitalism, Fanaticism and the Poor, November 05, 2012 

Pol. Ideology 49: Machiavelli, The Prince, Liberality and Meanness, September 11, 2013

Pol. Ideology 45: Left Intellectualism Means Abandonment of Socialism

Last July 1-2, 2013, I butted in the fb posting of a friend – fellow UP Diliman and UP Sapul alumni, also a fellow Rotarian – Raffy Aquino, a lawyer. Our exchanges below. Posting with permission from him and Louie, thanks guys.

Meanwhile, photos below, some of the known student activists in UP Diliman in the early to mid-80s (the late Ferdinand Marcos was still the President) that I can remember. top to borrom, left to right:
Raffy Aquino and Lean Alejandro; Fidel Nemenzo, David Celdran and Sarge Colambo; Noe Pangilinan and Malou Mangahas. The last two were former editor in chief of the Philippine Collegian, the student paper in UP Diliman.

This is four pages long including the photos, enjoy.

Raffy Aquino

27 years ago, in 1986, a year before I finally left Diliman, in an article published in the Collegian shortly after that historic February --

"An apparent component of a progressive counter-culture is intellectual ferment at the classroom level. A perennial criticism hurled at the leadership of the student movement is its neglect of the classrooms as arenas of struggle. The criticism presupposes that should committed students religiously attend their classes, they will be able to competently defend, assert, and convince their classmates and teachers of the superiority of their ideas. The presupposition is not always a valid one. This underscores the need for the “intellectualization” of the student movement as a precondition for a progressive counter-culture at the grassroots level. The movement must engage in a tremendous amount of theoretical work, technical study, and social research. A general knowledge of what the progressive current stands for will no longer suffice. This knowledge will have to be broken down into its component parts and expressed in precise and concrete language. The student movement must systematically forge linkages with progressive sections of the faculty, technocracy, the professional sector, and the rest of the intelligentsia, and thereafter, exploit these linkages to “intellectualize” itself by further amassing and creating progressive knowledge."

Wala na yatang saysay ang mga hangaring ganito.

Top of Form

Louie Checa Montemar meron pa naman... kasi mas lumalabas na nga sa iba't ibang porma ang social concern at sociological imagination, at lalong wala namang monopolyo ang mga "tibak" na talaga sa dalumat ng "relevance". 

Nonoy Oplas Raffy, if student activists will click to that harsh intellectualization of the movement, none will become left-leaning. If you talk about more personal responsibility (they cannot even be responsible in their studies and regularly flunk), they will be drawn to desist and dislike more government responsibility. The main reason why such activism remains noisy is because they dislike harsh intellectualization but only stupidization of old slogans and advocacies. Sige, debate na. 

Fat-Free Econ 29: Anti-capitalism, Fanaticism and the Poor

* This is my article yesterday in TV5's news portal,
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/47182/fat-free-economics--anti-capitalism-fanaticism-and-the-poor
----------

HONG KONG - One of the good things of our time, a daydream just a few decades ago, is the ease in communication among people from different countries and continents, the ease in getting information in just minutes without leaving our house or office. Online news portals like Interaksyon.com is one such product.

These are all products of entrepreneurship, innovation, risk taking and capitalism. The profit motive under this system has pushed and inspired so many individuals and private enterprises to keep innovating and improving on previous products and models, which benefit us, consumers. And yet we hear plenty of sentiments and proposals to abandon capitalism, the profit motive and enterprise competition, to be replaced by socialism or state ownership of various means of production, or other hybrid of such system. Or at least to have plenty of government regulation, taxation and prohibition.

Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, wrote this in his book, The Anticapitalistic Mentality (1956, Libertarian Press, Inc.):

"The characteristic feature of modern capitalism is mass production of goods destined for consumption by the masses. The result is a tendency towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living, a progressing enrichment of the many. Capitalism deproletarianizes the 'common man' and elevates him to the rank of a 'bourgeois'.

"On the market of a capitalistic society the common man is the sovereign consumer whose buying or abstention from buying ultimately determines what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Those shops and plants which cater exclusively or predominantly to the wealthier citizens’ demand for re-fined luxuries play merely a subordinate role in the economic setting of the market economy. They never attain the size of big business. Big business always serves—directly or indirectly—the masses."

Mises’ book is among the e-books and long articles that we read before coming to this famous Freeport economy for the “Populism, Reading Club Salon” organized by the Lion Rock Institute, a free market think tank in this city.

There were two sessions yesterday, one on “Anti-capitalist mentality and the religion of the all-powerful government”, and on “Fanaticism and mass movement.” Mises’ book, along with Friedrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (1944) and Robert Nozick’s Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? (1998) were the reading materials in session one. Two books were the background materials for session two, Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer (1951) and Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book.

Eric Hoffer wrote:

"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 is he 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 people’s business.

"This minding of other people’s business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor’s shoulder or fly at his throat."

When I was an undergraduate student at UP Diliman in the 1980s when Marcos was still in power, believing in the writings of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Tse Tung was rather common among many activists. Mao for instance, wrote or quoted in his “Little Red Book” these things:

"Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history; such is the history of civilization for thousand years. To interpret history from this viewpoint is historical materialism.

"In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles that oppress the black people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals, and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people."

Having abandoned Marxism and belief in socialism nearly two decades ago, I realized how hateful and inciting to violence those words were.

The discussion yesterday was lively. There were several explanations why there is high anti-capitalist or anti-free market sentiment among people in various societies. Like the itch to regulate and control other people, high belief in forced collectivism as against allowing more individual freedom and diversity, the social engineering mindset, the desire to have forced equality in society, and the corresponding expansion in the legislation and institutionalization of various “rights” and entitlements.

There is a difference between equality of social and economic outcome, and equality before the law or simply the rule of law. The former calls for equality among people regardless of their industriousness or laziness while the latter is to have the same set of laws apply equally to unequal people. Thus, the law on stealing should apply equally to all, from the rich to the poor.

Today’s sessions will be on “The New Left” and “Propaganda” and we are done. This small group round table discussion will be followed by a big conference on Tuesday and Wednesday also on populism and welfarism, to be sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom in another hotel in this city.

The desire for more populist and entitlement policies has corrupted individual values. Some people would rather be professional street demonstrators and political rabble-rousers than become efficient entrepreneurs who create various goods and services that people need. In addition, politicians tend to pander to the noise of this group of people and hence, public spending tends to rise much faster than public revenues, resulting in ever-rising public debt that is creating havoc and discomfort in several rich and welfarist economies.

(Thanks to Janice Fung and Wilson Li of LRI for these photos)

See also:
Fat-Free Econ 26: US Public Debt and the November Elections, October 10, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 27: Sin Tax and Nannyism, October 22, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 28: Poverty, Planning and Populism, October 29, 2012

Welfarism 22: Populism and Anti-Capitalism, LRI Forum, HK, October 05, 2012

Welfarism 24: Letter to Sens. Cayetano and Pangilinan on Solo Parents Welfare, October 23, 2012

Welfarism 25: The New Poor, Free Poor and Eric Hoffer, October 30, 2012

Welfarism 26: Leftism and Populism by Intellectuals, LRI Forum, November 05, 2012

Lion Rock 3: The New Poor, Free Poor and Eric Hoffer

* This is my article today in the online magazine,
http://thelobbyist.biz/index.php/perspectives/less-government/item/116-the-new-poor-free-poor-and-populism
-------------

There are different causes of poverty, there are different types of the poor, and there are different aspirations by the poor. Thus, “fighting poverty” as if there is only one type of the poor, or as if the poor have only one aspiration, often results in expanding the lot of the poor, or creating new poor.

This coming November 3-4, 2012, this writer will be one of the international participants in a  round table discussion on Populism to be held in Harbour Plaza Resort City, Hong Kong. It will be organized by the Lion Rock Institute (LRI), Hong Kong’s first and only free market think tank. There are several thick reading materials that participants must read before attending the round table. Among them is the book The True Believer (NY, Harper and Row, 1951; HarperCollins e-books, 2010) by Eric Hoffer (1902-1983), an American self-educated writer who has published 10 books.

The book discusses the true believer, “the man of fanatical faith who is ready to sacrifice his life for a holy cause”, of certain mass movements, whether religious, cultural or political movements and revolutions. In the early chapters, Hoffer discussed about the five different types of the poor and how they can or cannot be enamored by mass movements. All definitions are directly lifted from his book:

1. The New Poor

Not all who are poor are frustrated. Some of the poor stagnating in the slums of the cities are smug in their decay… It is usually those whose poverty is relatively recent, the “new poor,” who throb with the ferment of frustration. The memory of better things is as fire in their veins. They are the disinherited and dispossessed who respond to every rising mass movement.

In Germany and Italy the new poor coming from a ruined middle class formed the chief support of the Nazi and Fascist revolutions. The potential revolutionaries in present-day England are not the workers but the disinherited civil servants and businessmen.

2. The Abjectly Poor

The poor on the borderline of starvation live purposeful lives…The goals are concrete and immediate. Every meal is a fulfillment; to go to sleep on a full stomach is a triumph; and every windfall a miracle. What need could they have for “an inspiring super-individual goal which would give meaning and dignity to their lives?” They are immune to the appeal of a mass movement.

Misery does not automatically generate discontent, nor is the intensity of discontent directly proportionate to the degree of misery.  Discontent is likely to be highest when misery is bearable; when conditions have so improved that an ideal state seems almost within reach.

3. The Free Poor

Unless a man has the talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, “to be free from freedom.”

Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others.No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority.

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.

4. The Creative Poor

Poverty when coupled with creativeness is usually free of frustration. This is true of the poor artisan skilled in his trade and of the poor writer, artist and scientist in the full possession of creative powers. Nothing so bolsters our self-confidence and reconciles us with ourselves as the continuous ability to create; to see things grow and develop under our hand, day in, day out.

With a fading of the individual’s creative powers there appears a pronounced inclination toward joining a mass movement. Here the connection between the escape from an ineffectual self and a responsiveness to mass movements is very clear.

5. The Unified Poor

The poor who are members of a compact group—a tribe, a closely knit family, a compact racial or religious group—are relatively free of frustration and hence almost immune to the appeal of a proselytizing mass movement. The less a person sees himself as an autonomous individual capable of shaping his own course and solely responsible for his station in life, the less likely is he to see his poverty as evidence of his own inferiority. A member of a compact group has a higher “revolting point” than an autonomous individual. It requires more misery and personal humiliation to goad him to revolt. The cause of revolution in a totalitarian society is usually a weakening of the totalitarian framework rather than resentment against oppression and distress.

Hoffer’s discussion of the Free Poor is particularly striking. The wide and populist demand for various government welfare programs for instance, whether by the administration in power or by traditional opposition parties or by rebel groups, is a move towards instituting forced equality in society. And many poor people and non-poor ideologues and lobbyists like the various consultants on “fighting poverty” programs go along with this tide.

The LRI event will be followed by the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia Conference, to be held in Crowne Plaza Hong Kong Kowloon East Hotel, November 5-7, 2012. The theme,  How Welfare Populism Destroys Prosperity, is very timely with what is going on in Europe, North America and many Asian economies. This big conference will be sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty (FNF) and co-sponsored by LRI. This writer will attend as one of the workshop panel moderators.

The big danger of populism and welfarism is to homogenize and standardize people, to reduce diversity among them and limit people’s spontaneity and innovation and in the process, to drastically restrict individual freedom. Each successful innovation and creativity by individuals as a result of a free society will result in more inequality among the people, something which is looked down upon by the politics of envy.
---------------

* See also
Tax Cut 8: Comparing HK and Philippine Taxes, March 04, 2008
Free Trade 6: Unilateral Free Traders HK, Georgia, Who Else? March 30, 2008
China Watch 10: Is China Still a Communist Country? December 21, 2010
Welfarism 18: Hong Kong's Expanding Government (Lion Rock 1), March 27, 2012
Lion Rock 2: Populism and Anti-Capitalism, LRI Forum, HK, October 05, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 28: Poverty, Planning and Populism, October 28, 2012