To Have or To Be: Difference between revisions
An Avatar.Global Resource
Created page with "{{navmenu}} <h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1> <blockquote class="definition"> '''To Have or To Be ''' (date) is a book by Author Name.<ref>insert chicago notes ref, link to online version if available</ref> It [insert description with references to LP concepts where appropriate] </blockquote> ==Concept Map== ===Key Terms=== <!-- key concepts in the book --> To Have or To Be > {{#ask:Is a key term::To Have or To Be|format=ul}} <!-- Related term..." |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
[ | === Introduction — "The Great Promise, Its Failure, and New Alternatives" === | ||
''Erich Fromm, To Have or to Be? (1976), pp. 1–12.''<ref>Erich Fromm, ''To Have or to Be?'' (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 1–12.</ref> | |||
==== The End of an Illusion ==== | |||
The [[Great Promise]] of the industrial age — unlimited progress, domination of nature, material abundance, maximum happiness, unrestricted freedom — operated as a secular religion, replacing the City of God with an "Earthly City of Progress." In LP terms, this religion of Progress is the legitimating ideology of the [[Regime of Accumulation]]: the structured system through which an [[Accumulating Class]] extracts Labour Value, propped up by a [[Mode of Reproduction]] (schools, media, religion, family) that naturalizes its logic. | |||
The Promise has failed on four counts: unrestricted satisfaction of desire does not yield well-being; individuals have become cogs in bureaucratic machines, manipulated by government, industry, and mass media; progress remains confined to rich nations while the global gap widens; and technical progress has produced ecological destruction and the threat of nuclear annihilation. | |||
==== Why Did the Great Promise Fail? ==== | |||
The failure rests on two psychological premises built into industrialism — in LP terms, the operating ethics of the Regime: | |||
# [[Radical Hedonism]] — the doctrine that life's aim is maximum pleasure, defined as satisfying any desire one happens to feel. Fromm contrasts this with the classical "Masters of Living", who distinguished subjectively felt wants from ''objectively valid needs'' whose fulfillment produces genuine well-being. This maps directly onto the SpiritWiki distinction between [[Seven Toxic Needs]] and [[Seven Essential Needs]], needs whose sufficient satisfaction is required for a human being to mature, stay healthy, and realize full potential. Modern consumer society is history's largest hedonist experiment; the data are in, and it produces lonely, anxious, depressed, dependent people. The premise persists because the Regime requires it: twentieth-century capitalism runs on maximal consumption and growth, to the detriment of all life and even the planet. | |||
# [[Unlimited Egotism]] — the claim that selfishness and greed produce harmony and collective welfare. False: the egoist's character — insatiable, antagonistic, envious — guarantees class war and, globally, international war. "Greed and peace preclude each other." | |||
These premises required an eighteenth-century rupture: economic behavior was severed from ethics, the economy became an autonomous machine, and the operative question shifted from "What is good for Man [sic]?" to "What is good for the growth of the system?" The system then legitimized itself with a false anthropology — egotism, selfishness, and greed declared innate. Fromm reverses this: these traits are ''products'' of social circumstances, not natural drives. (Maslow, cited approvingly on the SpiritWiki, reached the same conclusion: such impulses are "acquired and not instinctive," sick reactions to frustrated needs. This is the Regime's core ideological move: manufacture a damaged, compliant character structure, then call it human nature. | |||
==== The Economic Necessity for Human Change ==== | |||
The character structure the system breeds is pathogenic — it produces sick people and, aggregating upward, a sick society. Fromm adds a second, harder argument from the Club of Rome reports (Meadows et al.; Mesarovic and Pestel): only drastic global economic change can avert catastrophe, and that change is possible only given "a new ethic and a new attitude toward nature" (p. 9). Human transformation is no longer merely an ethical demand but a survival condition:<blockquote>"For the first time in history the physical survival of the human race depends on a radical change of the human heart. However, a change of the human heart is possible only to the extent that drastic economic and social changes occur that give the human heart the chance for change and the courage and the vision to achieve it." (p. 10)</blockquote> | |||
==== Is There an Alternative to Catastrophe? ==== | |||
Why the paralysis? Fromm offers three explanations: leaders stage conferences and resolutions that anesthetize conscience while changing nothing; system-generated selfishness makes leaders value personal success over social responsibility — greed "makes people stupid" even about their own interests; and the required changes feel so drastic that people prefer future catastrophe to present sacrifice (Koestler's warm-villa anecdote). A fourth cause motivates the book: the belief that no alternatives exist beyond corporate capitalism, Soviet-style socialism, or technocratic "fascism with a smiling face" — a belief sustained because nobody has seriously studied or tested new social models. The book's task is that analysis: the two modes of existence, ''having'' and ''being'', as the foundation for a New Man [sic] and a New Society — or, in LP terms, the replacement of the Regime of Accumulation with a system oriented to needs satisfaction and connection. | |||
=== PART ONE - UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING AND BEING === | |||
=== Chapter I — "A First Glance: The Importance of the Difference Between Having and Being" === | |||
''Erich Fromm, To Have or to Be? (1976), pp. 15–27'' | |||
==== Setup ==== | |||
Common sense says having is natural: one must have things to live; a person can be "worth a million dollars." Yet the great Masters of Living — Buddha, Jesus, Master Eckhart, Marx — made the having/being alternative central: the goal is to ''be'' much, not to ''have'' much. Fromm's thesis: having and being are two fundamental modes of experience whose respective strengths determine individual character and social character (p. 16). | |||
==== The Having Mode ==== | |||
'''Definition:''' in the having mode, one's relationship to the world is "one of possessing and owning, one in which [one wants] to make everybody and everything, including [oneself], [one's] property" (p. 24). Possession extends beyond things to knowledge, people, ideas, feelings. | |||
Three illustrations: | |||
* '''The flower test''' (pp. 16–19). Tennyson plucks the flower "root and all" to understand it — and kills it. Basho only looks carefully, letting it live; Goethe transplants it. Tennyson relates in the having mode (possession, even of knowledge); Basho and Goethe in the being mode. | |||
* '''Language''' (pp. 20–22). Western speech increasingly replaces verbs with nouns: "I have a problem" for "I am troubled"; "I have insomnia" for "I cannot sleep." Activities cannot be possessed, only experienced; noun-speak eliminates the experiencing ''I'' and replaces it with an owned ''it'' — a marker of alienation. Marx and Engels made the same point against Bauer: turn love into a noun, a "goddess," and the loving person becomes a worshiper of an idol. | |||
* '''Etymology''' (pp. 22–23). Many languages lack "to have" (Hebrew: ''jesh li'', "it is to me"). Benveniste: "I have" develops with private property; societies with functional property — possession for use — do without it. Having is historical, not natural. | |||
'''Consuming as having''' (pp. 26–27). Incorporation is the archaic form of possession; consumerism is its unlimited modern form — "swallowing the whole world." Consumption relieves anxiety but demands ever more, since each act quickly loses its satisfactoriness. The modern consumer's formula: ''I am = what I have and what I consume'' (p. 27). | |||
==== The Being Mode ==== | |||
Fromm distinguishes two senses (p. 24): | |||
# '''Being as aliveness and authentic relatedness to the world''' — the mode "in which one neither has anything nor craves to have something, but is joyous, employs one's faculties productively, is oned to the world" (pp. 18–19). This is precisely the terrain of the SpiritWiki's Seven Essential Needs, and in particular the seventh need, Connection — which splits into [[Outer Connection]] (authentic relatedness to other people, community, and nature — Basho "one-ing" himself with the flower) and [[Inner Connection]] (alignment of the Bodily Ego with one's Spiritual Ego, the highest Self). '''The having mode starves both, undermines, destroys well being:''' possessions substitute for relatedness, and the experiencing self disappears into what it owns. | |||
# '''Being as essence versus appearance''' — from the Indo-European root ''es'': "that which is authentic, consistent, true" (p. 24). To say something ''is'' refers to its true nature, not its deceptive surface. | |||
'''Being is becoming.''' Against Parmenides, Plato, and the scholastics (being as permanent substance), Fromm sides with Heraclitus, Hegel, and the Buddha: "Living structures can be only if they become; they can exist only if they change" (p. 25). There is no being that is not at the same time becoming. This maps onto the SpiritWiki's concept of [[The Unfolding]] — the cosmos itself as the ongoing unfolding of consciousness, an eternal process rather than a fixed creation. | |||
Fromm's being-mode person is a local instance of that cosmic process: alive, changing, growing — a verb, not a noun. | |||
==== Chapter Two and Three ==== | |||
=== PART TWO - ANALYZING THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MODES OF EXISTENCE === | |||
=== PART THREE- THE NEW MAN AND THE NEW SOCIETY === | |||
== Notes == | == Notes == | ||
Latest revision as of 04:58, 27 August 2026
To Have or To Be
To Have or To Be (date) is a book by Author Name.[1] It [insert description with references to LP concepts where appropriate]
Concept Map
Key Terms
Related LP Terms
Non-LP Related Terms
Overview
Introduction — "The Great Promise, Its Failure, and New Alternatives"
Erich Fromm, To Have or to Be? (1976), pp. 1–12.[2]
The End of an Illusion
The Great Promise of the industrial age — unlimited progress, domination of nature, material abundance, maximum happiness, unrestricted freedom — operated as a secular religion, replacing the City of God with an "Earthly City of Progress." In LP terms, this religion of Progress is the legitimating ideology of the Regime of Accumulation: the structured system through which an Accumulating Class extracts Labour Value, propped up by a Mode of Reproduction (schools, media, religion, family) that naturalizes its logic. The Promise has failed on four counts: unrestricted satisfaction of desire does not yield well-being; individuals have become cogs in bureaucratic machines, manipulated by government, industry, and mass media; progress remains confined to rich nations while the global gap widens; and technical progress has produced ecological destruction and the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Why Did the Great Promise Fail?
The failure rests on two psychological premises built into industrialism — in LP terms, the operating ethics of the Regime:
- Radical Hedonism — the doctrine that life's aim is maximum pleasure, defined as satisfying any desire one happens to feel. Fromm contrasts this with the classical "Masters of Living", who distinguished subjectively felt wants from objectively valid needs whose fulfillment produces genuine well-being. This maps directly onto the SpiritWiki distinction between Seven Toxic Needs and Seven Essential Needs, needs whose sufficient satisfaction is required for a human being to mature, stay healthy, and realize full potential. Modern consumer society is history's largest hedonist experiment; the data are in, and it produces lonely, anxious, depressed, dependent people. The premise persists because the Regime requires it: twentieth-century capitalism runs on maximal consumption and growth, to the detriment of all life and even the planet.
- Unlimited Egotism — the claim that selfishness and greed produce harmony and collective welfare. False: the egoist's character — insatiable, antagonistic, envious — guarantees class war and, globally, international war. "Greed and peace preclude each other."
These premises required an eighteenth-century rupture: economic behavior was severed from ethics, the economy became an autonomous machine, and the operative question shifted from "What is good for Man [sic]?" to "What is good for the growth of the system?" The system then legitimized itself with a false anthropology — egotism, selfishness, and greed declared innate. Fromm reverses this: these traits are products of social circumstances, not natural drives. (Maslow, cited approvingly on the SpiritWiki, reached the same conclusion: such impulses are "acquired and not instinctive," sick reactions to frustrated needs. This is the Regime's core ideological move: manufacture a damaged, compliant character structure, then call it human nature.
The Economic Necessity for Human Change
The character structure the system breeds is pathogenic — it produces sick people and, aggregating upward, a sick society. Fromm adds a second, harder argument from the Club of Rome reports (Meadows et al.; Mesarovic and Pestel): only drastic global economic change can avert catastrophe, and that change is possible only given "a new ethic and a new attitude toward nature" (p. 9). Human transformation is no longer merely an ethical demand but a survival condition:
"For the first time in history the physical survival of the human race depends on a radical change of the human heart. However, a change of the human heart is possible only to the extent that drastic economic and social changes occur that give the human heart the chance for change and the courage and the vision to achieve it." (p. 10)
Is There an Alternative to Catastrophe?
Why the paralysis? Fromm offers three explanations: leaders stage conferences and resolutions that anesthetize conscience while changing nothing; system-generated selfishness makes leaders value personal success over social responsibility — greed "makes people stupid" even about their own interests; and the required changes feel so drastic that people prefer future catastrophe to present sacrifice (Koestler's warm-villa anecdote). A fourth cause motivates the book: the belief that no alternatives exist beyond corporate capitalism, Soviet-style socialism, or technocratic "fascism with a smiling face" — a belief sustained because nobody has seriously studied or tested new social models. The book's task is that analysis: the two modes of existence, having and being, as the foundation for a New Man [sic] and a New Society — or, in LP terms, the replacement of the Regime of Accumulation with a system oriented to needs satisfaction and connection.
PART ONE - UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING AND BEING
Chapter I — "A First Glance: The Importance of the Difference Between Having and Being"
Erich Fromm, To Have or to Be? (1976), pp. 15–27
Setup
Common sense says having is natural: one must have things to live; a person can be "worth a million dollars." Yet the great Masters of Living — Buddha, Jesus, Master Eckhart, Marx — made the having/being alternative central: the goal is to be much, not to have much. Fromm's thesis: having and being are two fundamental modes of experience whose respective strengths determine individual character and social character (p. 16).
The Having Mode
Definition: in the having mode, one's relationship to the world is "one of possessing and owning, one in which [one wants] to make everybody and everything, including [oneself], [one's] property" (p. 24). Possession extends beyond things to knowledge, people, ideas, feelings.
Three illustrations:
- The flower test (pp. 16–19). Tennyson plucks the flower "root and all" to understand it — and kills it. Basho only looks carefully, letting it live; Goethe transplants it. Tennyson relates in the having mode (possession, even of knowledge); Basho and Goethe in the being mode.
- Language (pp. 20–22). Western speech increasingly replaces verbs with nouns: "I have a problem" for "I am troubled"; "I have insomnia" for "I cannot sleep." Activities cannot be possessed, only experienced; noun-speak eliminates the experiencing I and replaces it with an owned it — a marker of alienation. Marx and Engels made the same point against Bauer: turn love into a noun, a "goddess," and the loving person becomes a worshiper of an idol.
- Etymology (pp. 22–23). Many languages lack "to have" (Hebrew: jesh li, "it is to me"). Benveniste: "I have" develops with private property; societies with functional property — possession for use — do without it. Having is historical, not natural.
Consuming as having (pp. 26–27). Incorporation is the archaic form of possession; consumerism is its unlimited modern form — "swallowing the whole world." Consumption relieves anxiety but demands ever more, since each act quickly loses its satisfactoriness. The modern consumer's formula: I am = what I have and what I consume (p. 27).
The Being Mode
Fromm distinguishes two senses (p. 24):
- Being as aliveness and authentic relatedness to the world — the mode "in which one neither has anything nor craves to have something, but is joyous, employs one's faculties productively, is oned to the world" (pp. 18–19). This is precisely the terrain of the SpiritWiki's Seven Essential Needs, and in particular the seventh need, Connection — which splits into Outer Connection (authentic relatedness to other people, community, and nature — Basho "one-ing" himself with the flower) and Inner Connection (alignment of the Bodily Ego with one's Spiritual Ego, the highest Self). The having mode starves both, undermines, destroys well being: possessions substitute for relatedness, and the experiencing self disappears into what it owns.
- Being as essence versus appearance — from the Indo-European root es: "that which is authentic, consistent, true" (p. 24). To say something is refers to its true nature, not its deceptive surface.
Being is becoming. Against Parmenides, Plato, and the scholastics (being as permanent substance), Fromm sides with Heraclitus, Hegel, and the Buddha: "Living structures can be only if they become; they can exist only if they change" (p. 25). There is no being that is not at the same time becoming. This maps onto the SpiritWiki's concept of The Unfolding — the cosmos itself as the ongoing unfolding of consciousness, an eternal process rather than a fixed creation. Fromm's being-mode person is a local instance of that cosmic process: alive, changing, growing — a verb, not a noun.
Chapter Two and Three
PART TWO - ANALYZING THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MODES OF EXISTENCE
PART THREE- THE NEW MAN AND THE NEW SOCIETY
Notes
Quotes
Relation to LP
[links to lp concepts, analysis]
Author Books
Citation and Legal
The SpiritWiki is a freely available, open-access Knowledge System devoted to health, healing, and reconnection. You may freely use information in the SpiritWiki; citation and attribution are welcomed, but not required. You can help this knowledge system grow by joining its Patreon.
The SpiritWiki is marked CC0 1.0 Universal and in the public domain, free for everyone on the planet to use. Please support its growth.
Footnotes