RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:37 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Revolutions are invariable started by those who have much and want
more..." "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer

That is not a quote by Hoffer. You mashed/made up the quote to say
what you wanted to say. Wot a surprise. Hoffer actually said,
"Our frustration is greater when we have much and want more than when
we have nothing and want some. We are less dissatisfied when we lack
many things than when we seem to lack but one thing."

Gee, that really does put a different spin on things, doesn't it?
This may help you understand Hoffer.
http://xrdarabia.org/2010/04/11/tran...g-eric-hoffer/

Hoffer was a master of the sound bite, though - I just wish you had
exercised more care in making up one of his quotes. His real quotes
were pips, such as:
“A soul that is reluctant to share does not as a rule have much of its
own. Miserliness is here a symptom of meagerness.”
or
“We used to think that revolutions are the cause of change. Actually
it is the other way around change prepares the ground for revolution.”
or this
"Even in the freest society power is charged with the impulse to turn
men into precise, predictable automata. When watching men of power in
action it must be always kept in mind that, whether they know it or
not, their main purpose is the elimination or neutralization of the
independent individual - the independent voter, consumer, worker,
owner, thinker - and that every device they employ aims at turning man
into a manipulatable 'animated instrument,' which is Aristotle's
definition of a slave."

And dozens of of other scholarly treatises. I'd be interested in
either seeing your counter examples or an apology for asserting my
statements were foolish.

Counter examples? When you can't even get your own examples
straight? Please.

I cannot help pointing out the foolishness in your statements. It's
one of my weaknesses.


You're sorta right. My memory is admittedly porous and when I submitted the
original quote I couldn't find my copy of his book (again, the porous
memory). (I'll renew my quest and offer up the next paragraph.) The tenor of
the exact quote you found does, however, support my point that revolutions
are started and maintained by those who have something already substantial
and want more.

As for not getting my own examples straight, I notice you snipped the two
exact quotes of the post with which you find so much wrong. So far, I'm
batting 66% while you're still at zero. Again, if you can offer a popular
uprising started and consisting of the poor and downtrodden, I'd be happy to
hear of it (the slave rebellion by Spartacus doesn't count).

To reprise: The poor are not the impetus nor the sustaining force (usually)
behind revolutions. I say "usually" because they may be recruited by the
elites to help in the work. Here, I'm thinking of the Indian quest for
independence (Ghandi, et al). While the poor certainly contributed to the
multitudes, they weren't fed by two fishes and five loaves of bread. The
powerful actually bankrolled the non-violent agitation.