Must we?

"The vigor of a mass movement stems from the
propensity of its followers for united action and
self-sacrifice. When we ascribe the success of a
movement to its faith, doctrine, propaganda,
leadership, ruthlessness and so on, we are but
referring to instruments of unification and to
means used to inculcate a readiness for self-
sacrifice. It is perhaps impossible to understand
the nature of a mass movement unless it is
recognized that their chief preoccupation is to
foster, perfect and perpetuate a facility for
united action and self-sacrifice." -- Eric Hoffer

Isn't politics the culmination of the mass
movement? What about it's offspring, war?

Re-written below. Note the difference and how
the meaning doesn't change:

The vigor of a political movement stems from the
propensity of its followers for united action and
self-sacrifice. When we ascribe the success of a
political movement to its faith, doctrine, propaganda,
leadership, ruthlessness and so on, we are but
referring to instruments of unification and to
means used to inculcate a readiness for self-
sacrifice. It is perhaps impossible to understand
the nature of a political movement unless it is
recognized that their chief preoccupation is to
foster, perfect and perpetuate a facility for
united action and self-sacrifice.

And this says nothing of the victims on the outside
just minding their own business.

But Eric's quote is better because it covers much
more terrain. The only reason I pointed to a specific
application is because I doubt most can see it.