What do you think?
Rate this book
Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals
First published in 1971, Rules for Radicals is Saul Alinsky's impassioned counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change and know “the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one.” Written in the midst of radical political developments whose direction Alinsky was one of the first to question, this volume exhibits his style at its best. Like Thomas Paine before him, Alinsky was able to combine, both in his person and his writing, the intensity of political engagement with an absolute insistence on rational political discourse and adherence to the American democratic tradition.
Audio CD
First published December 31, 1971
1672 people are currently reading
21240 people want to read
About the author
Saul D. Alinsky
20 books172 followersSaul David Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. His organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across North America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 969 reviews
June 25, 2016
Freely admitting I did not read this "thing" in detail(please note I said "in detail" not that I hadn't read it)...this is not my first brush with this small yet putrid tomb oops, I mean tome. I graduated high school in 1970...was cursed for wearing my dress army greens...and had friends who bought/buy into the poison Alinsky (a hero to many of the current administration in the white house) spews. From the opening appeal to Lucifer through it's "the ends justify the means" attitude it turns my stomach.
A quote:
"Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "does the End justify the Means?" but always has been "Does this particular end justify this particular means?""
page 47 in ISBN# 978-0-679-72113-0 (from back cover of book)
In spite of the reference to Thomas Paine at this book's opening the writer had little or no idea of what this country stands for and was meant to be. (The reference is apparently meant to be due to the fact that Paine was a "rabble rouser". The ideas expressed bear no resemblance to any espoused at America's founding). Like Walter Lippmann he appeals to a group that sees itself as an elite (ideally) ruling class. He buys into a "the end justifies the means" outlook and freely advises things like shutting your enemy up when you can't defeat their arguments.
I'm sure some will roll their eyes and shriek at my posting here expressing disgust at my "closed mindedness" and "provincial attitude"...right. Don't feel too bad, the government in power espouses and operates by the ideas expressed here. May we all survive it.
Yes I know that I usually walk a little more lightly when I disagree with the ideas a book expresses, but upon reflection I "thought and felt" that where this book is concerned that might not be the wisest way. After all, if you agree with this book, I doubt I'll change your mind. All I can do is try to make sure that anyone who reads it does it with an open and alert mind and doesn't go into it with the "dewy eyed outlook seeing it in the rosy glow" it's proponents project for it. I've dealt with the "if you disagree with us your weird (and yes other names and epithets)" attitude for years now...what's one more instance?
By the way, I do recommend a reading of this to at least get the ideas espoused. As I'm apparently part of what he refers to as "the enemy" I need to know the thoughts to some extent. My rating is for attitude and the amount of hate and condescension spewed here.
A quote:
"Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "does the End justify the Means?" but always has been "Does this particular end justify this particular means?""
page 47 in ISBN# 978-0-679-72113-0 (from back cover of book)
In spite of the reference to Thomas Paine at this book's opening the writer had little or no idea of what this country stands for and was meant to be. (The reference is apparently meant to be due to the fact that Paine was a "rabble rouser". The ideas expressed bear no resemblance to any espoused at America's founding). Like Walter Lippmann he appeals to a group that sees itself as an elite (ideally) ruling class. He buys into a "the end justifies the means" outlook and freely advises things like shutting your enemy up when you can't defeat their arguments.
I'm sure some will roll their eyes and shriek at my posting here expressing disgust at my "closed mindedness" and "provincial attitude"...right. Don't feel too bad, the government in power espouses and operates by the ideas expressed here. May we all survive it.
Yes I know that I usually walk a little more lightly when I disagree with the ideas a book expresses, but upon reflection I "thought and felt" that where this book is concerned that might not be the wisest way. After all, if you agree with this book, I doubt I'll change your mind. All I can do is try to make sure that anyone who reads it does it with an open and alert mind and doesn't go into it with the "dewy eyed outlook seeing it in the rosy glow" it's proponents project for it. I've dealt with the "if you disagree with us your weird (and yes other names and epithets)" attitude for years now...what's one more instance?
By the way, I do recommend a reading of this to at least get the ideas espoused. As I'm apparently part of what he refers to as "the enemy" I need to know the thoughts to some extent. My rating is for attitude and the amount of hate and condescension spewed here.
November 20, 2016
I read Alinsky for the first time in graduate school, and pulled his books off the shelf again upon hearing that Barack Obama studied and was influenced by Alinsky in his days as a community organizer.
The book is as good as I remembered, and freshened upon re-reading by the ability to apply some of the discussion to Obama's campaign and early days in office. Alinsky was an organizer--a passionate pragmatist with a sense of humor, willing to compromise at any turn or use any means by which to achieve better standards of living for workers and the poor. A fascinating read and a fascinating man.
From the book: "The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice."
The book is as good as I remembered, and freshened upon re-reading by the ability to apply some of the discussion to Obama's campaign and early days in office. Alinsky was an organizer--a passionate pragmatist with a sense of humor, willing to compromise at any turn or use any means by which to achieve better standards of living for workers and the poor. A fascinating read and a fascinating man.
From the book: "The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice."
December 31, 2008
Total hogwash. This is simply moral relativism clothed in political sophistry. Following the path of all relativistic philosophies, Alinsky contradicts himself constantly throughout the book. He argues the "duality of all phenomena" and then goes on to describe the status quo as intolerable. He makes statements like "He who fears corruption fears life" and then attacks the Pentagon for corrupt practices during the Vietnam war.
You can certainly see how The One drew much of his campaign philosophies and tactics from this school of thought. Alinsky encourages manipulation of communities for the "good of the people". He proposes that the Community Organizer should ferment dissatisfaction in a community for the sole purpose of using the dissatisfaction to his own purposes.
Overall, an inside look at how the Far Left has been able to slowly shift the public perception of this country further in line with their own views. Sadly for them, public perception does not always reflect the reality of the situation and in the end this book simply advocates tactics designed to induce chaos over constructive social community-building. I wouldn't waste my time reading this book unless my description sounds appealing.
You can certainly see how The One drew much of his campaign philosophies and tactics from this school of thought. Alinsky encourages manipulation of communities for the "good of the people". He proposes that the Community Organizer should ferment dissatisfaction in a community for the sole purpose of using the dissatisfaction to his own purposes.
Overall, an inside look at how the Far Left has been able to slowly shift the public perception of this country further in line with their own views. Sadly for them, public perception does not always reflect the reality of the situation and in the end this book simply advocates tactics designed to induce chaos over constructive social community-building. I wouldn't waste my time reading this book unless my description sounds appealing.
June 25, 2012
It’s very appropriate for Alinsky to dedicate this book to Satan. Like Satan, Alinsky mixes God’s word with his own lies to craft his socialist evil.
He warns those he calls “Have’s” to watch out for their “Have Not” neighbor because they’ll kill him and take what he has. Then he says the “Have Not” is justified in doing so. Well Alinsky, based on your stupid logic, the “Have” is also justified in killing the “Have Not” in defense. Alinsky states just the opposite. His stupid logic also says nothing about what happens when the “Have Not’s” become the “Have’s.” If those at the bottom of society become the leaders and the leaders become the bottom of society, they are then justified in killing the new leaders. It forms an endless circle of revolution. Under such a system, we’d be surrounded by anarchy – think Haiti.
Alinsky is also confused about mixing world politics and United States of America politics as if they were one in the same. He fails to understand most injustice in the world is due to evil dictatorial and socialist leaders like him controlling a majority of countries.
This book is so full of satanic logic and stupidity it is difficult to read. I guess this is the type of logic one starts to believe after doing a lot of drugs. I guess that explains the Clinton’s and Obama’s love of Alinsky.
He warns those he calls “Have’s” to watch out for their “Have Not” neighbor because they’ll kill him and take what he has. Then he says the “Have Not” is justified in doing so. Well Alinsky, based on your stupid logic, the “Have” is also justified in killing the “Have Not” in defense. Alinsky states just the opposite. His stupid logic also says nothing about what happens when the “Have Not’s” become the “Have’s.” If those at the bottom of society become the leaders and the leaders become the bottom of society, they are then justified in killing the new leaders. It forms an endless circle of revolution. Under such a system, we’d be surrounded by anarchy – think Haiti.
Alinsky is also confused about mixing world politics and United States of America politics as if they were one in the same. He fails to understand most injustice in the world is due to evil dictatorial and socialist leaders like him controlling a majority of countries.
This book is so full of satanic logic and stupidity it is difficult to read. I guess this is the type of logic one starts to believe after doing a lot of drugs. I guess that explains the Clinton’s and Obama’s love of Alinsky.
May 18, 2025
2/10.
Alinsky admits who he serves on the very first page of this book. He serves "the very first radical . . . the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer". What is Lucifer known for? Negating the truth. As Mephistopheles says in Goethe's Faust:
“I am the spirit that negates.
And rightly so, for all that comes to be
Deserves to perish wretchedly;
'Twere better nothing would begin.
Thus everything that your terms, sin,
Destruction, evil represent—
That is my proper element.”
Yes, Destruction. That is what Alinsky advocates. He will die for the Open Society, the society where the evil property-owners and desire-repressors go to waste. But how do we get there? We must destroy everything. The "mass of our people . . . must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future". Break up the families, enflame the war of sexes, send every race against every other race, inflate the currency, raise the head of green Envy — this is how revolution shall be achieved.
Against all these oppressions shall come out "the people" like a blossoming flower. Ever virtuous, ever fighting their oppressors, the lowly, downtrodden masses are Alinsky's people. Instead of faith in the Trinity, Alinsky has faith in the People. They are naturally good and their abilities have been stifled by the Whites, heterosexuals, and business owners. Releasing the power, the unfettered rage of the people is the only solution. They must be alerted to their oppression. Alinsky "has one conviction — a belief that if people have the power to act, in the long run they will, most of the time, reach the right decisions".
The people are in a slumber right now. They must be changed, be moved. How so? Alinsky explains: "Change means movement. Movement means friction". Friction — yes, we must rub the flint and steel together to start a fire. This fire shall burn the sluggish middle class and their morality up. But it will all be alright, for "in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation". In the bonfire of the Great Cause, many shall have to be sacrificed. But — no worries — in the end, we shall have Peace, Love, and Happiness.
Those opposing us may be good men and women, but that does not matter. The organizer (Alinsky) must become a "political schizoid". He must act like a true believer, a Crusader for the Good in public, while acknowledging reality's complexities in private. He must create a Manichaean struggle of Good and Evil and convince men "that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil". Thus he will inflame their repressed anger, letting it loose and creating the necessary "friction" needed for revolution.
The masses shall be promised the most lovely goods for their struggle: "goals must be phrased in general terms like 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity', 'Of the Common Welfare,' 'Pursuit of Happiness,' or 'Bread and Peace'". In this manner, no one will be able to oppose our goals. They will appear as outmoded curmudgeons. Remember, soldiers: "you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments". From "The Haves", as Alinsky calls them, spawn "exploiting employers, slum landlords, police shakedowns, [and] gouging merchants". "The Have Nots" just want a pittance! Yes, Have Nots, you have nothing and can gain everything! Racially, socially, criminally, sexually, and familially oppressed and repressed, ye shall be let loose! Let the hounds out! Bite, bite hounds! Consume the vile bourgeoisie!
Alinsky, hound-trainer par excellence, knows how to train his boys. Dogs can lose their sense if they don't have an immediate goal, or if they think about the infinite challenges to come. "With experience" comes "the knowledge that the resolution of a particular problem will bring on another problem. The organizer may know this, but he doesn't mention it". No, no! Don't distract the hounds! The enemy is right in front of them, so let them loose! They will become hungry another day, but don't tell them that. Alinsky "knows too well that what we fight for now as matters of life and death will soon be forgotten, and changed situations will change desires and issues". That's no problem for someone whose desire is never satiated. The flames of Envy and Rage give Alinsky and his master, the Devil, a smile.
But Alinsky assures us that you must "respect the dignity of the individual you are working with". A true gentleman! But we can't respect anyone whose "programs violate the high values of a free and open society". That would be traitorous! We must stop those patriarchal beasts! Our society shall be the freest ever imagined without those bothersome scum. They shall be nowhere to be seen, nowhere to be heard, locked up in prisons of iron and thought — that is our Freedom.
Now onto the tactics of how our Freedom shall be achieved. First rule: "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this". Continually call them out on the discrepancy between their morality and their actions. Second rule: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon". You cannot counterattack ridicule. Mock religion, mock the family, mock any position that is against yours. Mock relentlessly. Remember: "the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil".
Third rule: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it". Hounds do not respond well to abstract objects. Their brains aren't capable of it. They must have a specific target. Use specific instances of oppression to rile up the masses and send them as a battering ram into the System. Burn. Loot. Maul. The opposition shall be reduced to rubble.
When we look at the rubble, the fallen buildings and broken windows, the stolen goods and ransacked stores, we shall smile. We have shaken the daylight out of the inertial masses. No longer can they spend their days immersed in material pleasures. We have done what the organizer must do: "stir up dissatisfaction and discontent". Remember: "the first step in community organization is community disorganization". We have done it. Disorganized, distraught, disoriented, and diseased, the population is ready for revolution. Bring forth the Open Society!
Alinsky admits who he serves on the very first page of this book. He serves "the very first radical . . . the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer". What is Lucifer known for? Negating the truth. As Mephistopheles says in Goethe's Faust:
“I am the spirit that negates.
And rightly so, for all that comes to be
Deserves to perish wretchedly;
'Twere better nothing would begin.
Thus everything that your terms, sin,
Destruction, evil represent—
That is my proper element.”
Yes, Destruction. That is what Alinsky advocates. He will die for the Open Society, the society where the evil property-owners and desire-repressors go to waste. But how do we get there? We must destroy everything. The "mass of our people . . . must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future". Break up the families, enflame the war of sexes, send every race against every other race, inflate the currency, raise the head of green Envy — this is how revolution shall be achieved.
Against all these oppressions shall come out "the people" like a blossoming flower. Ever virtuous, ever fighting their oppressors, the lowly, downtrodden masses are Alinsky's people. Instead of faith in the Trinity, Alinsky has faith in the People. They are naturally good and their abilities have been stifled by the Whites, heterosexuals, and business owners. Releasing the power, the unfettered rage of the people is the only solution. They must be alerted to their oppression. Alinsky "has one conviction — a belief that if people have the power to act, in the long run they will, most of the time, reach the right decisions".
The people are in a slumber right now. They must be changed, be moved. How so? Alinsky explains: "Change means movement. Movement means friction". Friction — yes, we must rub the flint and steel together to start a fire. This fire shall burn the sluggish middle class and their morality up. But it will all be alright, for "in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation". In the bonfire of the Great Cause, many shall have to be sacrificed. But — no worries — in the end, we shall have Peace, Love, and Happiness.
Those opposing us may be good men and women, but that does not matter. The organizer (Alinsky) must become a "political schizoid". He must act like a true believer, a Crusader for the Good in public, while acknowledging reality's complexities in private. He must create a Manichaean struggle of Good and Evil and convince men "that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil". Thus he will inflame their repressed anger, letting it loose and creating the necessary "friction" needed for revolution.
The masses shall be promised the most lovely goods for their struggle: "goals must be phrased in general terms like 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity', 'Of the Common Welfare,' 'Pursuit of Happiness,' or 'Bread and Peace'". In this manner, no one will be able to oppose our goals. They will appear as outmoded curmudgeons. Remember, soldiers: "you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments". From "The Haves", as Alinsky calls them, spawn "exploiting employers, slum landlords, police shakedowns, [and] gouging merchants". "The Have Nots" just want a pittance! Yes, Have Nots, you have nothing and can gain everything! Racially, socially, criminally, sexually, and familially oppressed and repressed, ye shall be let loose! Let the hounds out! Bite, bite hounds! Consume the vile bourgeoisie!
Alinsky, hound-trainer par excellence, knows how to train his boys. Dogs can lose their sense if they don't have an immediate goal, or if they think about the infinite challenges to come. "With experience" comes "the knowledge that the resolution of a particular problem will bring on another problem. The organizer may know this, but he doesn't mention it". No, no! Don't distract the hounds! The enemy is right in front of them, so let them loose! They will become hungry another day, but don't tell them that. Alinsky "knows too well that what we fight for now as matters of life and death will soon be forgotten, and changed situations will change desires and issues". That's no problem for someone whose desire is never satiated. The flames of Envy and Rage give Alinsky and his master, the Devil, a smile.
But Alinsky assures us that you must "respect the dignity of the individual you are working with". A true gentleman! But we can't respect anyone whose "programs violate the high values of a free and open society". That would be traitorous! We must stop those patriarchal beasts! Our society shall be the freest ever imagined without those bothersome scum. They shall be nowhere to be seen, nowhere to be heard, locked up in prisons of iron and thought — that is our Freedom.
Now onto the tactics of how our Freedom shall be achieved. First rule: "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this". Continually call them out on the discrepancy between their morality and their actions. Second rule: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon". You cannot counterattack ridicule. Mock religion, mock the family, mock any position that is against yours. Mock relentlessly. Remember: "the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil".
Third rule: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it". Hounds do not respond well to abstract objects. Their brains aren't capable of it. They must have a specific target. Use specific instances of oppression to rile up the masses and send them as a battering ram into the System. Burn. Loot. Maul. The opposition shall be reduced to rubble.
When we look at the rubble, the fallen buildings and broken windows, the stolen goods and ransacked stores, we shall smile. We have shaken the daylight out of the inertial masses. No longer can they spend their days immersed in material pleasures. We have done what the organizer must do: "stir up dissatisfaction and discontent". Remember: "the first step in community organization is community disorganization". We have done it. Disorganized, distraught, disoriented, and diseased, the population is ready for revolution. Bring forth the Open Society!
January 6, 2009
The first time I read this book was when I was sixteen. Since then, I have given away and replaced the book several times. Alinsky, who was active in both Chicago (where I lived for over ten years) and Rochester, NY (where I grew up and live now), was a terrific community organizer. The language is a little dated - definitely sexist by today's definitions - but it's a great reminder to those of us who get discouraged about fighting on unlevel playing fields. The playing fields have never been level, and yet average citizens can gain political power if they only get organized.
August 9, 2007
There are definite aspects of Alinsky's book that are getting a little outdated. It's interesting to read the final chapters, and see his hope for what essentially has become the responsible investment movement - a large part of which is students on campuses getting their schools to divest from companies involved in business with unethical political regimes - and to know the limits of that movement, and its failure to cause 'a middle class revolution' like the one he envisions. But then, his hopes for the shareholder proxies movement is much more radical than responsible investment, and perhaps the problem is just that the latter was co-opted and transformed into the former.
I also feel that underlying Alinsky's whole outlook are patriarchal and hierarchical values, and a potentially harmful instrumentalist reasoning which, while perhaps realistic in its view of why humans often act in some of the negative ways that we do, obscures the source of much of the goodness in us. Also, a lot of his analysis stems from what are basically equivocations in terms. He rails against people who get bogged down in academic discussions of 'means and ends,' but that's no reason to get sloppy with one's thinking. Furthermore, a lot of his examples of 'ends' are really only a 'means' disguised as such... meaning they should be up for debate, and not taken for granted, as they seem to be. He also talks about nations as though they were individual actors, which is just oversimplistic and leads to some really shallow statements.
Obviously, however, for anyone familiar with the organizing work that he did in Chicago and elsewhere during the middle of the last century, Alinsky knows a lot about how to bring people together for social change. Rules for Radicals captures a lot of his thinking on how to organize people, much of which is still valuable. But as he says himself, some tactics can't be repeated once they become part of the experience of the establishment which you are fighting, and so many of his tactics have been used enough that I think they really don't have the potential to be as effective as they once were.
I also feel that underlying Alinsky's whole outlook are patriarchal and hierarchical values, and a potentially harmful instrumentalist reasoning which, while perhaps realistic in its view of why humans often act in some of the negative ways that we do, obscures the source of much of the goodness in us. Also, a lot of his analysis stems from what are basically equivocations in terms. He rails against people who get bogged down in academic discussions of 'means and ends,' but that's no reason to get sloppy with one's thinking. Furthermore, a lot of his examples of 'ends' are really only a 'means' disguised as such... meaning they should be up for debate, and not taken for granted, as they seem to be. He also talks about nations as though they were individual actors, which is just oversimplistic and leads to some really shallow statements.
Obviously, however, for anyone familiar with the organizing work that he did in Chicago and elsewhere during the middle of the last century, Alinsky knows a lot about how to bring people together for social change. Rules for Radicals captures a lot of his thinking on how to organize people, much of which is still valuable. But as he says himself, some tactics can't be repeated once they become part of the experience of the establishment which you are fighting, and so many of his tactics have been used enough that I think they really don't have the potential to be as effective as they once were.
January 28, 2009
Ah, for the simpler days of radicalism, when you could get your college friends together for an impromptu rally, and no one had an excuse why they couldn't come.
That's not really what this book is about, but, having been written in 1971, it did inspire in me a bit of nostalgia for the kind of activism that was widespread then and is now alive and well only in places like San Francisco.
Alinsky is not anywhere near that idealistic. He was a down-and-dirty--and extremely effective--organizer who had, I believe, little patience for the typical young, idealistic activist ubiquitous in the 1960s. He describes here the qualities it takes to be a good community organizer, the way to communicate with your people (of the utmost importance), and the tactics to use against the Establishment (whom he calls "the Haves"). He uses a lot of examples that draw in the reader and make things clear. He certainly was the man to write this book at the time he wrote it.
I have only one problem with the book, but it's a big one. Maybe it's my natural pessimistic and cynical outlook on life, and maybe I'm wrong, but I find it hard to believe that many of the sorts of tactics Alinsky describes, or, indeed, any tactics, would work against the military-industrial-congressional complex today. Both corporations and governments are so powerful today that they have almost unlimited ability to stonewall any attempt by the unwashed masses to change them. He talks about getting groups of people to go to Chicago's City Hall and make their demands. I don't know how it was in the '60s, but I very much doubt Richie Daley is going to let any group of citizens get close enough to him or his aldermen to make demands these days. He also talks about stockholders signing their proxies over to community groups so those groups can then attend shareholders' meetings. What major company in America would allow this sort of thing today, what with the Patriot Act and all to hide behind, even if the community groups could scrape together the required travel funds?
Don't get me wrong--I liked the book, and I like how Alinsky describes the mechanics of community organization, its strengths and its weaknesses. It just seems more of a historical document to me than one that can be truly helpful in today's fight against injustice. But then, I'm hardly out there on the front lines, so what the hell do I know?
Alinsky was (apparently) a master organizer--he flew by the seat of his pants but was always ready with a new and inspired tactic or a witty comeback to his detractors. I wish I could be like that, but I don't think I have the kind of optimism in the face of any odds that it takes to be an effective activist organizer. Maybe one of you out there does.
That's not really what this book is about, but, having been written in 1971, it did inspire in me a bit of nostalgia for the kind of activism that was widespread then and is now alive and well only in places like San Francisco.
Alinsky is not anywhere near that idealistic. He was a down-and-dirty--and extremely effective--organizer who had, I believe, little patience for the typical young, idealistic activist ubiquitous in the 1960s. He describes here the qualities it takes to be a good community organizer, the way to communicate with your people (of the utmost importance), and the tactics to use against the Establishment (whom he calls "the Haves"). He uses a lot of examples that draw in the reader and make things clear. He certainly was the man to write this book at the time he wrote it.
I have only one problem with the book, but it's a big one. Maybe it's my natural pessimistic and cynical outlook on life, and maybe I'm wrong, but I find it hard to believe that many of the sorts of tactics Alinsky describes, or, indeed, any tactics, would work against the military-industrial-congressional complex today. Both corporations and governments are so powerful today that they have almost unlimited ability to stonewall any attempt by the unwashed masses to change them. He talks about getting groups of people to go to Chicago's City Hall and make their demands. I don't know how it was in the '60s, but I very much doubt Richie Daley is going to let any group of citizens get close enough to him or his aldermen to make demands these days. He also talks about stockholders signing their proxies over to community groups so those groups can then attend shareholders' meetings. What major company in America would allow this sort of thing today, what with the Patriot Act and all to hide behind, even if the community groups could scrape together the required travel funds?
Don't get me wrong--I liked the book, and I like how Alinsky describes the mechanics of community organization, its strengths and its weaknesses. It just seems more of a historical document to me than one that can be truly helpful in today's fight against injustice. But then, I'm hardly out there on the front lines, so what the hell do I know?
Alinsky was (apparently) a master organizer--he flew by the seat of his pants but was always ready with a new and inspired tactic or a witty comeback to his detractors. I wish I could be like that, but I don't think I have the kind of optimism in the face of any odds that it takes to be an effective activist organizer. Maybe one of you out there does.
April 17, 2014
I've been meaning to get around to Alinsky for years, and am so glad I finally borrowed a copy of this book from a friend.
The thing I appreciate most about this book is that he is so practical. I often get impatient with philosophical/ethical discourses about right and wrong and actions and consequences. The fact of the matter is, people are motivated by self-interest, and if you want to bring about a successful movement for justice, you have to appeal to that.
I think it is important to balance books like this with ones that are more ideologically centered, such as Freire. But this is really brilliant, and will certainly bear rereading.
I especially enjoyed Alinsky's discussion about the rules behind the question of whether means justify an end. I especially appreciated these bits:
"... in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of 'personal salvation'; he does't care enough for people to be 'corrupted' for them..... The means and ends moralists... are the ones Jacques Maritain referred to in his statement, 'The fear of soiling ourselves by entering the context of history is not a virtue, but a way of escaping virtue.' The non-doers were the ones who chose not to fight the Nazis in the only way they could have been fought.... The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means."
Practical. I like it.
The thing I appreciate most about this book is that he is so practical. I often get impatient with philosophical/ethical discourses about right and wrong and actions and consequences. The fact of the matter is, people are motivated by self-interest, and if you want to bring about a successful movement for justice, you have to appeal to that.
I think it is important to balance books like this with ones that are more ideologically centered, such as Freire. But this is really brilliant, and will certainly bear rereading.
I especially enjoyed Alinsky's discussion about the rules behind the question of whether means justify an end. I especially appreciated these bits:
"... in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of 'personal salvation'; he does't care enough for people to be 'corrupted' for them..... The means and ends moralists... are the ones Jacques Maritain referred to in his statement, 'The fear of soiling ourselves by entering the context of history is not a virtue, but a way of escaping virtue.' The non-doers were the ones who chose not to fight the Nazis in the only way they could have been fought.... The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means."
Practical. I like it.
January 22, 2022
Newt Gingrich is criticizing Barack Obama by associating him with Saul Alinsky. Read this book if you want to know what Mr. Alinski thought and how he organized people without power to make their lives better.
I am not sure if Saul said, "Power to the people!" but I am sure that is what he meant. This book is a classic for community organizing.
**********
I have just finished listening to this book in the audible version in early 2022. The book was published in 1971 shortly before the author died in 1972. I graduated with an MSW from the Stony Brook school of social welfare in 1989 supposedly with a specialization in community organization. I thought at the time that I probably knew about as much about community organizing as any of the teachers at that school. I don’t believe that Saul Alinsky was ever mentioned in any of the classes I took there.
Now that I have listened to this book I am honestly not sure if I ever read it. It sat on my bookshelf along with reveille for radicals for many years. This book makes me wish I had a better memory for the details from reading. I think it is a most impressive book and it is not impressive because I agree with everything that he says. It is impressive because I think he raises a lot of issues that 50 years later still could generate a good discussion by people who are trying to make the world a better place.
The author was and is controversial. I wish I had the opportunity in my life to study more about how to do community organizing and change the masses. I wish I had a place and a group of people where I could discuss and debate what this old community organizer shared in this outstanding book.
I am not sure if Saul said, "Power to the people!" but I am sure that is what he meant. This book is a classic for community organizing.
**********
I have just finished listening to this book in the audible version in early 2022. The book was published in 1971 shortly before the author died in 1972. I graduated with an MSW from the Stony Brook school of social welfare in 1989 supposedly with a specialization in community organization. I thought at the time that I probably knew about as much about community organizing as any of the teachers at that school. I don’t believe that Saul Alinsky was ever mentioned in any of the classes I took there.
Now that I have listened to this book I am honestly not sure if I ever read it. It sat on my bookshelf along with reveille for radicals for many years. This book makes me wish I had a better memory for the details from reading. I think it is a most impressive book and it is not impressive because I agree with everything that he says. It is impressive because I think he raises a lot of issues that 50 years later still could generate a good discussion by people who are trying to make the world a better place.
The author was and is controversial. I wish I had the opportunity in my life to study more about how to do community organizing and change the masses. I wish I had a place and a group of people where I could discuss and debate what this old community organizer shared in this outstanding book.
July 6, 2012
Rules for Radicals is the 48 Laws of Power written for the power hungry with a conscience. Alinksy was the liaison for many civil rights, union and student causes in the late 50's and 60's and though most of his efforts were temporal, he immortalized the tactics in this book. He teaches how to implement your radical agenda without using radical tactics, how to disarm with words and media as opposed to arms and Utopian rhetoric.
What's most impressive about Alinsky is how his books become more relevant with each technological advancement. Rules for Radicals was written long before the internet, cable news, social networking, blogs or cell phones. Yet, if one wants to truly take advantage of those tools, there is not a better handbook for getting the most out of them.
At the end of life, Alinsky came upon one for of social protest and leverage that has gone underappreciated: the use of stock proxies. His premise was that large charities and universities could use their massive stock portfolios to wield influence over policy in the companies they invested in. For some reason, this never got off the ground. Now as the market tanks and the tax payers are infusing monoliths with cash, that option is back on the table. It will be interesting to see if Alinsky gets a second time in the spotlight because of it.
What's most impressive about Alinsky is how his books become more relevant with each technological advancement. Rules for Radicals was written long before the internet, cable news, social networking, blogs or cell phones. Yet, if one wants to truly take advantage of those tools, there is not a better handbook for getting the most out of them.
At the end of life, Alinsky came upon one for of social protest and leverage that has gone underappreciated: the use of stock proxies. His premise was that large charities and universities could use their massive stock portfolios to wield influence over policy in the companies they invested in. For some reason, this never got off the ground. Now as the market tanks and the tax payers are infusing monoliths with cash, that option is back on the table. It will be interesting to see if Alinsky gets a second time in the spotlight because of it.
July 13, 2010
This is a book that I didn't want to read, but knew that I ought to read. During the 2008 presidential campaign, people were talking about it so much that one got the sense that maybe it wasn't necessary to read it--you already knew what was in it. But that's always a mistake. It's always better to go to the source. And actually, although the people on the talk radio stations that I listened to were taking about it a lot, people in mainstream media probably weren't talking about it enough, or else the 2008 elections might have turned out differently. Finally when I was toward the end of Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, and she mentioned a particular Alinsky tactic(numerous frivolous lawsuits to wear down an opponent) that had been used against her(or so she thought) I thought, "This is it. I have to get this book and read it, no more excuses." (As it turns out, I don't think that that particular tactic is from Alinsky, or at least from this book. It may be in his other book, Revielle for Radicals)
I had heard of Alinsky before. When I was in the libertarian movement, somebody--I don't remember who--that I heard speak quoted this book extensively. Looking back on it, it's hard to believe that a libertarian could share any common ground with Alinsky, in view of his apparent contempt for the free market. But I won't dwell on that now.
Sometimes one gets the sense of peoples' personalities from their books--their degree of honesty, genuineness, whether or not they would be a pleasant person to spend an evening with whether or not one agrees with them on everything. The sense that I get from Alinsky is that he was probably a fairly nasty man and even his allies did not care for him much personally. I could be wrong of course.
I gained some insights about Barack Obama and several of the Chicago machine members and others in this white house from this book. The first important point is that both of them are economically illiterate. So when Obama makes some of the truly incredible statements he does about jobs creation and so forth, it's because, evidently, he has come from a backgound where people, even leaders, know less about economics than a college sophomore who's had one basic economics class. That's right. Scary, isn't it? Alinsky's worldview is that the world is made up of haves, havenots, and what he calls have-a-little-want-mores, aka the middle class. I will say more about his view of the middle class in a moment, but it is also relevant to the Obama administration. Alinsky believes in zero-sum economics, that is. if somebody is rich it's because somebody else is poor, and vice-versa. When people believe that, it's easier to see how they fall for class warfare b.s. and redistribution of wealth schemes. As far as I could tell, from Alinsky's descriptions of his exploits, none of them involved actually creating anything, only glomming onto wealth created by others(kind of like the current administration's economic policies) He is deliberately vague about his specific beefs with Kodak, one of the companies he mau-maued, claiming it wasn't relevant.
Another striking thing about Alinsky is his naked contempt for the middle class. So when Obama makes some of his outrageous statements, the most famous probably being the one about "bitter" people "clinging to guns and religion", it's not hard to make the connection.
This book, I think, also explains why Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years. Alinsky has little respect for religion, believing that practitioners are largely hypocrites and that established faiths exist to keep the status quo.(This dovetails with his disdain for the middle class, much of which is churched, and this was certainly even more true in 1971 when this book was published.) But he did work with religious leaders on an ad hoc basis. So I think that Obama recognized that Wright was some kind of mover and shaker in Chicago(a sad commentary on Chicago)and that aligning with him could be useful. Later when he had presidntial aspirations, this was no longer the case. What most of us would see as blastant cynicism and hypocrisy, he just saw as strategy. Much was made of his "search" for a faith home in Washington DC. As Rush Limbaugh jokingly pointed out, maybe he couldn't find a pastor that sounded enough like Wright.
to be continued.
I had heard of Alinsky before. When I was in the libertarian movement, somebody--I don't remember who--that I heard speak quoted this book extensively. Looking back on it, it's hard to believe that a libertarian could share any common ground with Alinsky, in view of his apparent contempt for the free market. But I won't dwell on that now.
Sometimes one gets the sense of peoples' personalities from their books--their degree of honesty, genuineness, whether or not they would be a pleasant person to spend an evening with whether or not one agrees with them on everything. The sense that I get from Alinsky is that he was probably a fairly nasty man and even his allies did not care for him much personally. I could be wrong of course.
I gained some insights about Barack Obama and several of the Chicago machine members and others in this white house from this book. The first important point is that both of them are economically illiterate. So when Obama makes some of the truly incredible statements he does about jobs creation and so forth, it's because, evidently, he has come from a backgound where people, even leaders, know less about economics than a college sophomore who's had one basic economics class. That's right. Scary, isn't it? Alinsky's worldview is that the world is made up of haves, havenots, and what he calls have-a-little-want-mores, aka the middle class. I will say more about his view of the middle class in a moment, but it is also relevant to the Obama administration. Alinsky believes in zero-sum economics, that is. if somebody is rich it's because somebody else is poor, and vice-versa. When people believe that, it's easier to see how they fall for class warfare b.s. and redistribution of wealth schemes. As far as I could tell, from Alinsky's descriptions of his exploits, none of them involved actually creating anything, only glomming onto wealth created by others(kind of like the current administration's economic policies) He is deliberately vague about his specific beefs with Kodak, one of the companies he mau-maued, claiming it wasn't relevant.
Another striking thing about Alinsky is his naked contempt for the middle class. So when Obama makes some of his outrageous statements, the most famous probably being the one about "bitter" people "clinging to guns and religion", it's not hard to make the connection.
This book, I think, also explains why Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years. Alinsky has little respect for religion, believing that practitioners are largely hypocrites and that established faiths exist to keep the status quo.(This dovetails with his disdain for the middle class, much of which is churched, and this was certainly even more true in 1971 when this book was published.) But he did work with religious leaders on an ad hoc basis. So I think that Obama recognized that Wright was some kind of mover and shaker in Chicago(a sad commentary on Chicago)and that aligning with him could be useful. Later when he had presidntial aspirations, this was no longer the case. What most of us would see as blastant cynicism and hypocrisy, he just saw as strategy. Much was made of his "search" for a faith home in Washington DC. As Rush Limbaugh jokingly pointed out, maybe he couldn't find a pastor that sounded enough like Wright.
to be continued.
June 28, 2009
Alinsky was a tactical genius, but when it gets to foundational issues he is beyond sophomoric. A hard leftist, who did not know where he was going or why, but he was the kind of driver who knew how to make good time.
October 11, 2010
Alinsky was the left side of a two headed system approved Jewish Hydra operation out of Chicago. On one side you had Strausser who spawned the Neo-Con cabal that ruled the white house from 2000-2008. On the other side you had Alinsky who either influenced or in some cases out and out mentored people like Hilary Clinton, Cesar Chavez, Barry Satoro Obama, Bill Ayers, etc, etc. So their little globalist Marxist operation was quite succesful no doubt.
Alinsky for all his notoriety for rabblerousing really pushed the idea that "radicals" should infiltrate the system and then take it over. He also pushes the idea of ridiculing and mocking your enemies. This is one thing the left has over the right big time. They have found a way to present themselves as being hip, cool and funny as well as presenting their opponents as stiff and unfashionable. Alinsky really isn't that funny compared to say, Jon Stewart, but he gets off a few good ones here and there. Such as when he says "If you look at television commercials you get the picture that American society is largely dedicated to ensuring that no odors come from our mouths or armpits." He also talks about problems that tend to pop up in political operatives that he traineds personal lives. From maritial and family problems to developing neurotic worrying tendencies. His solution was to drive home the point that 9 times out 10 whatever it is you worry about the most never happens and to have fun at what your doing.
Some of the tactics in this book are outdated but I think most are still effective today. You wouldn't even have to be a little Marxist globalist lowlife like Alinsky was to use them either. As big of a group of controlled opposition idiots as they are the tea baggers have incorporated some of Alinskys methods. Even George Lincoln Rockwell did things that seemingly were pulled from Alinskys playbook.
Alinsky for all his notoriety for rabblerousing really pushed the idea that "radicals" should infiltrate the system and then take it over. He also pushes the idea of ridiculing and mocking your enemies. This is one thing the left has over the right big time. They have found a way to present themselves as being hip, cool and funny as well as presenting their opponents as stiff and unfashionable. Alinsky really isn't that funny compared to say, Jon Stewart, but he gets off a few good ones here and there. Such as when he says "If you look at television commercials you get the picture that American society is largely dedicated to ensuring that no odors come from our mouths or armpits." He also talks about problems that tend to pop up in political operatives that he traineds personal lives. From maritial and family problems to developing neurotic worrying tendencies. His solution was to drive home the point that 9 times out 10 whatever it is you worry about the most never happens and to have fun at what your doing.
Some of the tactics in this book are outdated but I think most are still effective today. You wouldn't even have to be a little Marxist globalist lowlife like Alinsky was to use them either. As big of a group of controlled opposition idiots as they are the tea baggers have incorporated some of Alinskys methods. Even George Lincoln Rockwell did things that seemingly were pulled from Alinskys playbook.
June 27, 2010
Alinsky's classic about organizing in America is a fascinating work which is in many ways timeless. I found it inspiring and it definitely got me thinking about the often overlooked possibilities for creativity within collective action. In our modern era of letter-writing campaigns, call-in campaigns, and even protests, we can forget that "realistic radicals" have a much broader arsenal of rhetoric and media-grabbing actions (that can be more effective and more fun for their cadres to participate in).
Alinsky sets out a moral foundation that holds no purpose greater than the pursuit of a participatory democracy. Other than that, he suggests all morals are relative, citing several historical examples of movements that claimed the moral high ground, but were willing to compromise depending on the stakes.
From there he uses many anecdotes to basically lay out his "rules" for effective organizing (that is, goal oriented, realistic means to take power from the "Haves" and to EMPOWER to the "Have-Nots"). A great read for the would be organizer, or even those who prefer to sit on the side-lines but may not mind being shaken up a bit.
Alinsky sets out a moral foundation that holds no purpose greater than the pursuit of a participatory democracy. Other than that, he suggests all morals are relative, citing several historical examples of movements that claimed the moral high ground, but were willing to compromise depending on the stakes.
From there he uses many anecdotes to basically lay out his "rules" for effective organizing (that is, goal oriented, realistic means to take power from the "Haves" and to EMPOWER to the "Have-Nots"). A great read for the would be organizer, or even those who prefer to sit on the side-lines but may not mind being shaken up a bit.
February 26, 2015
Alinsky's message was never received in a significant sense. The Tactics weren't employed. The goals were not achieved. There was no Movement or revolution for which he made these rules. I don't think the Tactics would be effective if they were employed. They might have some effect against some low-level bureaucrats in the 1970's but the powers that be are insulated from Alinsky and his ways.
(Prologue) "What I have to say in this book is not the arrogance of unsolicited advice. It is the experience and counsel that so many young people have questioned me about through all-night sessions on hundreds of campuses in America. It is for those young radicals who are committed to the fight, committed to life."
Unsolicited advice is not necessarily arrogant. Don't excuse yourself for your ideas.
Was the call for action only from campuses, not from all the people to which this book ostensibly gives rules? Is this actually a message from campuses, to the "Have-Nots" and the "Have-a-Littles"? Did the fight take only place in late night college campuses and never leave?
(Chapter: The Purpose) "A major revolution to be won in the immediate future is the dissipation of man's illusion that his own welfare can be separate from that of all others." I agree with this, but how can anyone honestly think that the Tactics help achieve this goal?
I am pro-community organization. I see value in the actions taken by Cesar Chavez and some actions taken by Sinn Féin, for example. But Alinsky's plan is disproportionate. His Tactics don't match his goals. I think Alinksy would classify me as a "means-and-ends moralist", que je suis un bourgeois ou non (Chapter: Of Means and Ends). Ce est le travail d'un sophiste.
I do not agree with Alinsky on the nature of power in America, but I do believe there existed and continues to exist many of the problems he diagnoses, "materialistic decadence of the status quo" among them. I also don't like the absoluteness of his many statements like "The myth of altruism as a motivating factor in our behavior could arise and survive only in a society bundled in the sterile gauze of New England puritanism and Protestant morality and tied together with the ribbons of Madison Avenue public relations. It is one of the classic American fairy tales." (Chapter: A Word About Words)
The discussion about being an organizer is too much of a caricature. It bounces between universally broad human behavior and absurdly specific analogies:
-ordering at a restaurant,
-captain talking to passengers on a plane,
-hanging out with hotel worker,
-humorous Moses anecdote,
-fictional dialogues between organizer and leaders where the organizer succeeds
(Chapter: In the Beginning) "People hunger for drama and adventure, for a breath of life in a dreary, drab existence. One of a number of cartoons in my office shows two gum-chewing stenographers who have just left the movies." Apathy and banality are being cured by movies, people just want to be entertained, who cares in the context of this book? The innate desire for adventure and drama is not going to spur these characters into following Sinn Féin.
(Chapter: In the Beginning) I'm not sure I agree with anything he says here. "The Have-Nots have a limited faith in the worth of their own judgments. They still look to the judgments of the Haves." I think the chapter in which this is said is a recipe for paternalism from an organizer. I actually understood the Indians he was talking to and I thought Alinksy was ignorant in his dialogue. Alinsky is only literal when it suits him. He seemed to get stuck on a very specific thing and say that the Indians were wrong because they couldn't explain what they meant in the terms Alinsky wanted, all to spur them to organize in some specific way they perhaps hadn't considered or watned to before. I know this dialogue is being presented as a message and it's not in the book for me to analyze line-by-line, but I know what the Indians meant when they tried to distinguish between the way they behave and the way they perceive the white man behaving. Alinsky is very dismissive of the Indian's statements, which I think had meaning, by making even more universal and abstract statements like "mankind from time immemorial has always organized, regardless of what race or color they In the Beginning were, whenever they wanted to bring about change". And this is someone who is writing books about communicating with people. He always excuses himself after he swears too. Later the Indians tell the bad-guy bureaucrats that Alinsky scrappin' around and swearing at them was cool because he was treating them equally by talking to them as equals. Alinsky didn't wax poetic about Hannibal Barca to the Indians. Yeah, I get that the bureaucrats don't do anything to help the Indians, but this Alinsky character is paternalistic and dismissive as well in a different way, even if his ultimate intention is to subvert the bureaucrats. Alinsky also admits to seeking power and with power comes responsibility. Let's hope that when an organizer reaches power, they don't mess it up and they keep the goal of revolution in mind when the enemies have been defeated. Imagine if someone became president of the USA who was inspired by Alinsky and he realized that the tyep of change Alinsky makes rules for in this book is way out of the world's reach, and then got caught red-handed using a prior president's NSA program to spy on Americans exercising freedom of speech.
Alinsky in dialogue with Have-Nots doesn't go around quoting Hannibal or Heraclitus or talk about mountain climbers, General W.T. Sherman, Nazi tank tactics, Christian prophets removing themselves to the wilderness, but he does in this book. He seems to seek a lot of credibility by quoting all sorts of famous authors and major modern civil rights leaders. But also invoke a little thrill seeker here, a little pre-Socratic philosopher there. He's such an assuming person. Alinsky characterizes his audiences so generally. The people who read the books want to hear Heraclitus. The Indians want to hear swear words.
He wants the organizer to assume that jailing is good because it will be well-received from a perception standpoint (Chapter: Tactics): "Jailing the revolutionary leaders and their followers performs three vital functions for the cause of the Have-Nots: (1) it is an act on the part of the status quo that in itself points up the conflict between the Haves and the Have-Nots; (2) it strengthens immeasurably the position of the revolutionary leaders with their people by surrounding the jailed leadership with an aura of martyrdom; (3) it deepens the identification of the leadership with their people since the prevalent reaction among the Have-Nots is that their leadership cares so much for them, and is so sincerely committed to the issue, that it is willing to suffer imprisonment for the cause." Can revolutionaries, the non-leaders, gain a lot from being jailed? If they are jailed en masse does it help the cause, either on an individual basis, family basis, caste basis, national basis? I am not convinced, and why should I be? He says that "an aura of martyrdom" is a "vital function" for "Have-Nots." This is absurd.
Also, the path to jail is not explained. Which laws to break and which laws not to are not clear. He says martyr but doesn't recommend dying for the cause. Remember, he's talking to college students. They can't die. They have too much to live for.
(Chapter: In the Beginning) "Self-respect arises only out of people who play an active role in solving their own crises and who are not helpless, passive, puppet-like recipients of private or public services." Alinsky sleeps well at night because he has plenty of self-respect. Everyone I know receives public or private services and has no intention of letting either go. I support many different types of civic participation and community building but I think Alinsky's statements are sloppy. Some people do not have a deficiency of self-respect because they get paid by a private or public employer. I get his very general and delicate overall point but it's poorly expressed.
One can only beat up the bureaucrats to which one has access. Alinsky beats up bureaucrats over the course of the book (doesn't even deny it, see ridicule in his rules, sheer shock value) and in some sense, I think he can get specific things done on a community level that might benefit people, but this is in no way a means for a broader revolution and it will be a recipe for failure to just start yelling at people. I think a lot of Marxists have tried to beat up Weberians in similar ways, and have not made any headway in doing so. I wonder if Alinsky is the reason why I've encountered some abrasive radicals.
If I'd never heard of Alinsky before, I would have been able to place him his time and place in history based on the general ideas and tone of language his Tactics chapter. I see a lot of reactive and emotive Tactics rather than knowledge and education-based Tactics. I think Alinsky thinks it's too much to ask. It would be a nice tool, but maybe the organizer needs to be able to be someone without knowledge.
Polarization is one of Alinsky's Tactics. I don't think this is a good means of change whether you're dealing with Alinsky's various "enemies" or your own enemies. I don't like the good and evil approach. What exactly is the plan for the enemies once they've been defeated? Less conspicuous consumption. Will they gave upon the radical victors and say, "I should have been more like them."
The Tactics could be used as anti-power by the right or left wing. I do not think the right wing is particularly susceptible to these Tactics and I don't think the left would be any better at employing them than the right would be. Tabloid journalism could even benefit from these Tactics.
(Chapter: The Genesis of Tactic Proxy) "Proxies can be the effective path to the Pentagon." Subverting the proxy process would not be effective, but massive "shareholder" revolts would get some notice, but it would never change the goals or behavior of corporations. Reading this chapter was a surreal experience. This is absurdity and sarcasm rather than a real tactic: "There will even be "fringe benefits." Trips to stockholders' meetings will bring drama and adventure into otherwise colorless and sedentary suburban lives. Proxy organizations will help bridge the generation gap, as parents and children join in the battle against the Pentagon and the corporations."
The About the Author section of this book, the edition I read at least, is very pretentious.
(Prologue) "What I have to say in this book is not the arrogance of unsolicited advice. It is the experience and counsel that so many young people have questioned me about through all-night sessions on hundreds of campuses in America. It is for those young radicals who are committed to the fight, committed to life."
Unsolicited advice is not necessarily arrogant. Don't excuse yourself for your ideas.
Was the call for action only from campuses, not from all the people to which this book ostensibly gives rules? Is this actually a message from campuses, to the "Have-Nots" and the "Have-a-Littles"? Did the fight take only place in late night college campuses and never leave?
(Chapter: The Purpose) "A major revolution to be won in the immediate future is the dissipation of man's illusion that his own welfare can be separate from that of all others." I agree with this, but how can anyone honestly think that the Tactics help achieve this goal?
I am pro-community organization. I see value in the actions taken by Cesar Chavez and some actions taken by Sinn Féin, for example. But Alinsky's plan is disproportionate. His Tactics don't match his goals. I think Alinksy would classify me as a "means-and-ends moralist", que je suis un bourgeois ou non (Chapter: Of Means and Ends). Ce est le travail d'un sophiste.
I do not agree with Alinsky on the nature of power in America, but I do believe there existed and continues to exist many of the problems he diagnoses, "materialistic decadence of the status quo" among them. I also don't like the absoluteness of his many statements like "The myth of altruism as a motivating factor in our behavior could arise and survive only in a society bundled in the sterile gauze of New England puritanism and Protestant morality and tied together with the ribbons of Madison Avenue public relations. It is one of the classic American fairy tales." (Chapter: A Word About Words)
The discussion about being an organizer is too much of a caricature. It bounces between universally broad human behavior and absurdly specific analogies:
-ordering at a restaurant,
-captain talking to passengers on a plane,
-hanging out with hotel worker,
-humorous Moses anecdote,
-fictional dialogues between organizer and leaders where the organizer succeeds
(Chapter: In the Beginning) "People hunger for drama and adventure, for a breath of life in a dreary, drab existence. One of a number of cartoons in my office shows two gum-chewing stenographers who have just left the movies." Apathy and banality are being cured by movies, people just want to be entertained, who cares in the context of this book? The innate desire for adventure and drama is not going to spur these characters into following Sinn Féin.
(Chapter: In the Beginning) I'm not sure I agree with anything he says here. "The Have-Nots have a limited faith in the worth of their own judgments. They still look to the judgments of the Haves." I think the chapter in which this is said is a recipe for paternalism from an organizer. I actually understood the Indians he was talking to and I thought Alinksy was ignorant in his dialogue. Alinsky is only literal when it suits him. He seemed to get stuck on a very specific thing and say that the Indians were wrong because they couldn't explain what they meant in the terms Alinsky wanted, all to spur them to organize in some specific way they perhaps hadn't considered or watned to before. I know this dialogue is being presented as a message and it's not in the book for me to analyze line-by-line, but I know what the Indians meant when they tried to distinguish between the way they behave and the way they perceive the white man behaving. Alinsky is very dismissive of the Indian's statements, which I think had meaning, by making even more universal and abstract statements like "mankind from time immemorial has always organized, regardless of what race or color they In the Beginning were, whenever they wanted to bring about change". And this is someone who is writing books about communicating with people. He always excuses himself after he swears too. Later the Indians tell the bad-guy bureaucrats that Alinsky scrappin' around and swearing at them was cool because he was treating them equally by talking to them as equals. Alinsky didn't wax poetic about Hannibal Barca to the Indians. Yeah, I get that the bureaucrats don't do anything to help the Indians, but this Alinsky character is paternalistic and dismissive as well in a different way, even if his ultimate intention is to subvert the bureaucrats. Alinsky also admits to seeking power and with power comes responsibility. Let's hope that when an organizer reaches power, they don't mess it up and they keep the goal of revolution in mind when the enemies have been defeated. Imagine if someone became president of the USA who was inspired by Alinsky and he realized that the tyep of change Alinsky makes rules for in this book is way out of the world's reach, and then got caught red-handed using a prior president's NSA program to spy on Americans exercising freedom of speech.
Alinsky in dialogue with Have-Nots doesn't go around quoting Hannibal or Heraclitus or talk about mountain climbers, General W.T. Sherman, Nazi tank tactics, Christian prophets removing themselves to the wilderness, but he does in this book. He seems to seek a lot of credibility by quoting all sorts of famous authors and major modern civil rights leaders. But also invoke a little thrill seeker here, a little pre-Socratic philosopher there. He's such an assuming person. Alinsky characterizes his audiences so generally. The people who read the books want to hear Heraclitus. The Indians want to hear swear words.
He wants the organizer to assume that jailing is good because it will be well-received from a perception standpoint (Chapter: Tactics): "Jailing the revolutionary leaders and their followers performs three vital functions for the cause of the Have-Nots: (1) it is an act on the part of the status quo that in itself points up the conflict between the Haves and the Have-Nots; (2) it strengthens immeasurably the position of the revolutionary leaders with their people by surrounding the jailed leadership with an aura of martyrdom; (3) it deepens the identification of the leadership with their people since the prevalent reaction among the Have-Nots is that their leadership cares so much for them, and is so sincerely committed to the issue, that it is willing to suffer imprisonment for the cause." Can revolutionaries, the non-leaders, gain a lot from being jailed? If they are jailed en masse does it help the cause, either on an individual basis, family basis, caste basis, national basis? I am not convinced, and why should I be? He says that "an aura of martyrdom" is a "vital function" for "Have-Nots." This is absurd.
Also, the path to jail is not explained. Which laws to break and which laws not to are not clear. He says martyr but doesn't recommend dying for the cause. Remember, he's talking to college students. They can't die. They have too much to live for.
(Chapter: In the Beginning) "Self-respect arises only out of people who play an active role in solving their own crises and who are not helpless, passive, puppet-like recipients of private or public services." Alinsky sleeps well at night because he has plenty of self-respect. Everyone I know receives public or private services and has no intention of letting either go. I support many different types of civic participation and community building but I think Alinsky's statements are sloppy. Some people do not have a deficiency of self-respect because they get paid by a private or public employer. I get his very general and delicate overall point but it's poorly expressed.
One can only beat up the bureaucrats to which one has access. Alinsky beats up bureaucrats over the course of the book (doesn't even deny it, see ridicule in his rules, sheer shock value) and in some sense, I think he can get specific things done on a community level that might benefit people, but this is in no way a means for a broader revolution and it will be a recipe for failure to just start yelling at people. I think a lot of Marxists have tried to beat up Weberians in similar ways, and have not made any headway in doing so. I wonder if Alinsky is the reason why I've encountered some abrasive radicals.
If I'd never heard of Alinsky before, I would have been able to place him his time and place in history based on the general ideas and tone of language his Tactics chapter. I see a lot of reactive and emotive Tactics rather than knowledge and education-based Tactics. I think Alinsky thinks it's too much to ask. It would be a nice tool, but maybe the organizer needs to be able to be someone without knowledge.
Polarization is one of Alinsky's Tactics. I don't think this is a good means of change whether you're dealing with Alinsky's various "enemies" or your own enemies. I don't like the good and evil approach. What exactly is the plan for the enemies once they've been defeated? Less conspicuous consumption. Will they gave upon the radical victors and say, "I should have been more like them."
The Tactics could be used as anti-power by the right or left wing. I do not think the right wing is particularly susceptible to these Tactics and I don't think the left would be any better at employing them than the right would be. Tabloid journalism could even benefit from these Tactics.
(Chapter: The Genesis of Tactic Proxy) "Proxies can be the effective path to the Pentagon." Subverting the proxy process would not be effective, but massive "shareholder" revolts would get some notice, but it would never change the goals or behavior of corporations. Reading this chapter was a surreal experience. This is absurdity and sarcasm rather than a real tactic: "There will even be "fringe benefits." Trips to stockholders' meetings will bring drama and adventure into otherwise colorless and sedentary suburban lives. Proxy organizations will help bridge the generation gap, as parents and children join in the battle against the Pentagon and the corporations."
The About the Author section of this book, the edition I read at least, is very pretentious.
August 2, 2022
"Recently I was at a luncheon meeting with a number of presidents of major corporations where one of them expressed his fear that I saw things only in terms of power rather than from the point of view of good will and reason. I replied that when he and his corporation approached other corporations in terms of reason, good will, and cooperation, instead of going for the jugular, that would be the day that I would be happy to pursue the conversation. The subject was dropped."
When I was a young lad I remember doing some research on the family computer about Barack Obama. My older sibling was doing a talk about how inspirational he was, and being the curious younger brother, I thought I'd take a look for myself. Being young, and lacking the ability to discern between high and low quality information I fell down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Along my journey I'd been presented with information that informed me that Barack Obama was a communist, a Muslim, and wasn't born in the country he ruled over. Not only this, but during his brief stint as a community organiser, knee deep in the backslapping political culture of Chicago, he became a devotee of Saul Alinsky, another supposedly evil, atheist, and communist. Some of these websites even suggested that he was Satanic, having dedicated his magnum opus to the devil! I don't remember the name of the sites, but I think Glenn Beck's media cesspit was responsible for much of the calumny aimed at the forty fourth president.
Anyway, despite my early foray into fake news, the mythical figure of Saul Alinsky stayed with me. What was so interesting to conservatives about this long dead community organiser? Was he really a secret communist who inspired Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, or was this just a boring factoid blown into a conspiracy theory, akin to the Frankfurt School conspiracy. I've since gained a better grasp on what fake news is, what conspiracy theories look like, and I've fact checked a lot of the insane claims around Alinsky, and I'll be honest, the results were pretty disappointing.
Alinsky was simply a successful community organiser, and he wasn't a communist. Obama may well have read Alinsky, but so what? It makes sense for a community organiser to read Alinsky. Alinsky was a successful organiser, and Obama may have learned a thing or two. Successful people often read about other successful people, and this is a pretty trivial fact. Also, Obama was influenced more by the civil rights struggle than Alinsky, and rather than bring atheist communism to America, Obama rolled out the financial support for the banks that caused the financial crash, oversaw increasing income inequality, and failed to get Americans universal healthcare. If that's the devilish socialist plot of Obama, it doesn't seem very scary or left wing to me.
Furthermore, this book is not a book of evil. A lot of the comments that are removed from their context and made to seem evil are purely provocative (e.g. Alinsky's dedication to Lucifer, Alinsky's claim that this book is the The Prince for the 'have nots'). The advice in this book is also pretty cynical. Despite the promise of advancing democracy, Alinsky simply promotes the idea of appealing to the wants and likes of the community's that the activist serves. This includes for example keeping his pro-abortion stance quiet when working with a Roman Catholic community, or adopting media-friendly tactics and stunts to promote a cause through mass media. He is also anti-ideological, adopting a very micro and realist approach to political change. In fact it is for this reason that Alinsky's best critics were often socialists who thought Alinsky lacked a fully worked out vision of change. "What use was there going into a community and demanding slightly better conditions?" asked the socialists who wanted instead to create a society where such issues would not exist.
I say all of this to make the point that if you're looking to this book to unearth a secret plot to undermine American democracy, you will be sorely disappointed. If instead you're looking for a pretty dated book on community organising written by an experienced organiser who takes themself far too seriously, you won't be disappointed.
When I was a young lad I remember doing some research on the family computer about Barack Obama. My older sibling was doing a talk about how inspirational he was, and being the curious younger brother, I thought I'd take a look for myself. Being young, and lacking the ability to discern between high and low quality information I fell down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Along my journey I'd been presented with information that informed me that Barack Obama was a communist, a Muslim, and wasn't born in the country he ruled over. Not only this, but during his brief stint as a community organiser, knee deep in the backslapping political culture of Chicago, he became a devotee of Saul Alinsky, another supposedly evil, atheist, and communist. Some of these websites even suggested that he was Satanic, having dedicated his magnum opus to the devil! I don't remember the name of the sites, but I think Glenn Beck's media cesspit was responsible for much of the calumny aimed at the forty fourth president.
Anyway, despite my early foray into fake news, the mythical figure of Saul Alinsky stayed with me. What was so interesting to conservatives about this long dead community organiser? Was he really a secret communist who inspired Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, or was this just a boring factoid blown into a conspiracy theory, akin to the Frankfurt School conspiracy. I've since gained a better grasp on what fake news is, what conspiracy theories look like, and I've fact checked a lot of the insane claims around Alinsky, and I'll be honest, the results were pretty disappointing.
Alinsky was simply a successful community organiser, and he wasn't a communist. Obama may well have read Alinsky, but so what? It makes sense for a community organiser to read Alinsky. Alinsky was a successful organiser, and Obama may have learned a thing or two. Successful people often read about other successful people, and this is a pretty trivial fact. Also, Obama was influenced more by the civil rights struggle than Alinsky, and rather than bring atheist communism to America, Obama rolled out the financial support for the banks that caused the financial crash, oversaw increasing income inequality, and failed to get Americans universal healthcare. If that's the devilish socialist plot of Obama, it doesn't seem very scary or left wing to me.
Furthermore, this book is not a book of evil. A lot of the comments that are removed from their context and made to seem evil are purely provocative (e.g. Alinsky's dedication to Lucifer, Alinsky's claim that this book is the The Prince for the 'have nots'). The advice in this book is also pretty cynical. Despite the promise of advancing democracy, Alinsky simply promotes the idea of appealing to the wants and likes of the community's that the activist serves. This includes for example keeping his pro-abortion stance quiet when working with a Roman Catholic community, or adopting media-friendly tactics and stunts to promote a cause through mass media. He is also anti-ideological, adopting a very micro and realist approach to political change. In fact it is for this reason that Alinsky's best critics were often socialists who thought Alinsky lacked a fully worked out vision of change. "What use was there going into a community and demanding slightly better conditions?" asked the socialists who wanted instead to create a society where such issues would not exist.
I say all of this to make the point that if you're looking to this book to unearth a secret plot to undermine American democracy, you will be sorely disappointed. If instead you're looking for a pretty dated book on community organising written by an experienced organiser who takes themself far too seriously, you won't be disappointed.
May 20, 2012
This book must have been recommended to me several dozen times over the course of the past year, from activists from either side if the ideological divide. Written by a rabid political organizer who cut his teeth organizing in the Depression-era south-side Chicago who makes no secret of the fact that he views a worker's revolution as inevitable and something that leftists should constantly work toward, and given that President Obama got his start organizing with the late Alinsky's group back in the 80s, it's understandable why Gingrich started slinging around Alinsky's name in the Republican debates. Union organizers I know swear by this book to no end, some hailing it as a bible for community organizers.
I wish I felt nearly as passionate after reading it this morning. Alinsky is fiercely passionate, of that there can be no doubt. He dedicated his life to organizing the lesser privileged in our society so that they could be better agents of their own freedom. He had a cunning tactical mind and his books are great attempts to try to share the lessons he learned in decades of organizing. Which really makes it such a shame that he comes off as such an asshole. Examples? I have a couple.
He makes an understandable point that groups you are organizing with need a win from time to time to minimize activist burnout and to show that change is possible. I find no fault with this- it is damned difficult to keep people enthusiastic in the face of constant setbacks and the unceasing apathy of those not involved. However, the tactic he uses as an example is very unsettling to me. In the heavily Catholic population of Chicago's south-side the churches had kicked out an Infant Welfare Society because it was rumored they were offering birth control. Of course, without the aid the society had offered, citizens noticed an uptick in infant mortality. Alinsky knew that all the citizens had to do was to simply ask the society to return, yet coordinated an exceptionally disingenuous march to the group's headquarters, stormed in, demanded that services be returned to this neighborhood, and refused to let the society's spokesperson say anything other than 'yes.' Sure, it was an easy win at a necessary time, but to deliberately mislead the group you are organizing is not an effective way to engender trust and a surefire way to get them to turn on you when your deception is discovered.
Still, there are numerous useful tips for readers willing to overlook Alinsky's less than desirable personality and more than a few things that I'm going to work to bring into my day-to-day work. It's definitely worth the read and easy to see why both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have embraced it as an instruction manual in their efforts to bring their concerns into the national dialogue.
I wish I felt nearly as passionate after reading it this morning. Alinsky is fiercely passionate, of that there can be no doubt. He dedicated his life to organizing the lesser privileged in our society so that they could be better agents of their own freedom. He had a cunning tactical mind and his books are great attempts to try to share the lessons he learned in decades of organizing. Which really makes it such a shame that he comes off as such an asshole. Examples? I have a couple.
He makes an understandable point that groups you are organizing with need a win from time to time to minimize activist burnout and to show that change is possible. I find no fault with this- it is damned difficult to keep people enthusiastic in the face of constant setbacks and the unceasing apathy of those not involved. However, the tactic he uses as an example is very unsettling to me. In the heavily Catholic population of Chicago's south-side the churches had kicked out an Infant Welfare Society because it was rumored they were offering birth control. Of course, without the aid the society had offered, citizens noticed an uptick in infant mortality. Alinsky knew that all the citizens had to do was to simply ask the society to return, yet coordinated an exceptionally disingenuous march to the group's headquarters, stormed in, demanded that services be returned to this neighborhood, and refused to let the society's spokesperson say anything other than 'yes.' Sure, it was an easy win at a necessary time, but to deliberately mislead the group you are organizing is not an effective way to engender trust and a surefire way to get them to turn on you when your deception is discovered.
Still, there are numerous useful tips for readers willing to overlook Alinsky's less than desirable personality and more than a few things that I'm going to work to bring into my day-to-day work. It's definitely worth the read and easy to see why both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have embraced it as an instruction manual in their efforts to bring their concerns into the national dialogue.
February 18, 2008
Alinsky is a social worker who lived and worked in the projects of Chicago in the 1960's. A community activist Alinsky practiced and wrote about non-violent means of confrontation to faciiltate system changes and improve individuals lives. His work, and this book, inspired my own decision to become a social worker for the next thirty years of my life.
Malcolm Watts BA MSW
Visit my writing website:
www.authorsden.com/malcolmwatts
MY NOVEL, POETRY, STORIES AND OPINIONS
Malcolm Watts BA MSW
Visit my writing website:
www.authorsden.com/malcolmwatts
MY NOVEL, POETRY, STORIES AND OPINIONS
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 16, 2010
Rating this GOOD is not accurate. But it is a Must Read unless what's going on now in America os not affecting you, or you don't care.
This is a reread from years ago in my social activist days. Amazing how one can see these techniques in use if our eyes are open.
This is a reread from years ago in my social activist days. Amazing how one can see these techniques in use if our eyes are open.
July 7, 2020
It started strong and then by the end it kind of felt like he was rambling about whatever was on top of his mind. Required reading for organizers though imo and there were a lot of gems once you look past the fact that it was written by a white guy born in 1909.
December 9, 2008
In an amazing start to his book, Alinsky acknowledges "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom--Lucifer." While I wouldn't put Alinsky in the same category as Lucifer, it does make me wonder why he would put radicals in the same category. I guess he has his reasons, and certainly those bomb throwers (Alinsky speaks against) belong to Lucifer.
Parts of the book were pretty slow (the first half.) It seems like he spent a lot of time debating, "Do the ends justify the means?" He says yes in too many words. He spends a lot of time explaining how to gain the trust of the community that one is trying to organize. He describes how to involve the community in the discussion of what to do and how to do it.
I kept waiting for the tactics. Alinsky definitely knows how to irritate people into doing what he wants and he has a sense of humor. He understands what motivates people--the communities he organizes and the groups he is trying to change. One tactic involved buying up some upscale cultural event tickets. Getting together a bunch black people before hand to eat beans for 3 hours and then giving them the tickets to cause a legal disturbance and stink the place up. Just letting news of this idea leak out will cause a disturbance and you may not even have to go through with it. Suddenly the holders of the cultural purse will find money for arts for the disadvantaged youth.
I could tell ACORN leaders had read this book. Another tactic was to picket the slum lord's own home in suburbia, complete with signs stating the tenets' complaints. The neighbors would be all over the this guy to fix up/get heat to his public housing units--not that they cared about the tenets, but they want this mob out of their neighborhood. If you don't have any heat and this guy is taking government money supposedly to provide decent living conditions, that might be a good idea. ACORN took it too far by picketing homes of bankers that would not loan money to bad credit risks. Thanks ACORN for helping to topple our financial industry--you weren't the biggest factor but this is not right.
Alinsky also talks about unions--not just for the trades as had pretty much been the case when Alinsky started organizing. If you take a look at Detroit, you can see that the unions have taken their organizing tactics to the hilt and toppled the car industry.
This book was interesting to read, but I hope the radical organizers don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Parts of the book were pretty slow (the first half.) It seems like he spent a lot of time debating, "Do the ends justify the means?" He says yes in too many words. He spends a lot of time explaining how to gain the trust of the community that one is trying to organize. He describes how to involve the community in the discussion of what to do and how to do it.
I kept waiting for the tactics. Alinsky definitely knows how to irritate people into doing what he wants and he has a sense of humor. He understands what motivates people--the communities he organizes and the groups he is trying to change. One tactic involved buying up some upscale cultural event tickets. Getting together a bunch black people before hand to eat beans for 3 hours and then giving them the tickets to cause a legal disturbance and stink the place up. Just letting news of this idea leak out will cause a disturbance and you may not even have to go through with it. Suddenly the holders of the cultural purse will find money for arts for the disadvantaged youth.
I could tell ACORN leaders had read this book. Another tactic was to picket the slum lord's own home in suburbia, complete with signs stating the tenets' complaints. The neighbors would be all over the this guy to fix up/get heat to his public housing units--not that they cared about the tenets, but they want this mob out of their neighborhood. If you don't have any heat and this guy is taking government money supposedly to provide decent living conditions, that might be a good idea. ACORN took it too far by picketing homes of bankers that would not loan money to bad credit risks. Thanks ACORN for helping to topple our financial industry--you weren't the biggest factor but this is not right.
Alinsky also talks about unions--not just for the trades as had pretty much been the case when Alinsky started organizing. If you take a look at Detroit, you can see that the unions have taken their organizing tactics to the hilt and toppled the car industry.
This book was interesting to read, but I hope the radical organizers don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
June 7, 2014
Freely admitting I did not read this "thing" in detail (please note I said "in detail" I didn't say I hadn't read it.)...this is not my first brush with this small yet putrid tomb. I graduated high school in 1970...was cursed for wearing my dress army greens...and had friends who bought/buy into the poison Alinsky (a hero to many of the current administration in the white house) spews. From the opening appeal to Lucifer through it's "the ends justify the means" attitude it turns my stomach.
A quote:
"Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "does the End justify the Means?" but always has been "Does this particular end justify this particular means?""
page 47 in ISBN# 978-0-679-72113-0 (from back cover of book)
In spite of the reference to Thomas Paine at this book's opening the writer had little or no idea of what this country stands for and was meant to be. (The reference is apparently meant to be due to the fact that Paine was a "rabble rouser". The ideas expressed bear no resemblance to any espoused at America's founding). Like Walter Lippmann he appeals to a group that sees itself as an elite (ideally) ruling class. He buys into a "the end justifies the means" outlook and freely advises things like shutting your enemy up when you can't defeat their arguments.
I'm sure some will roll their eyes and shriek at my posting here expressing disgust at my "closed mindedness" and "provincial attitude"...right. Don't feel too bad, the government in power espouses and operates by the ideas expressed here. May we all survive it.
Yes I know that I usually walk a little more lightly when I disagree with the ides a book expresses, but upon reflection I "thought and felt" that where this book is concerned that might not be the wisest way. After all, if you agree with this book, I doubt I'll change your mind. All I can do is try to make sure that anyone who reads it does it with an open and alert mind and doesn't go into it with the "dewy eyed outlook seeing it in the rosy glow" it's proponents project for it. I've dealt with the "if you disagree with us your weird (and yes other names and epithets)" attitude for years now...what's one more instance?
By the way, I do recommend a reading of this to at least get the ideas espoused. As I'm apparently part of what he refers to as "the enemy" I need to know the thoughts to some extent. My rating is for attitude and the amount of hate and condescension spewed here.
A quote:
"Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "does the End justify the Means?" but always has been "Does this particular end justify this particular means?""
page 47 in ISBN# 978-0-679-72113-0 (from back cover of book)
In spite of the reference to Thomas Paine at this book's opening the writer had little or no idea of what this country stands for and was meant to be. (The reference is apparently meant to be due to the fact that Paine was a "rabble rouser". The ideas expressed bear no resemblance to any espoused at America's founding). Like Walter Lippmann he appeals to a group that sees itself as an elite (ideally) ruling class. He buys into a "the end justifies the means" outlook and freely advises things like shutting your enemy up when you can't defeat their arguments.
I'm sure some will roll their eyes and shriek at my posting here expressing disgust at my "closed mindedness" and "provincial attitude"...right. Don't feel too bad, the government in power espouses and operates by the ideas expressed here. May we all survive it.
Yes I know that I usually walk a little more lightly when I disagree with the ides a book expresses, but upon reflection I "thought and felt" that where this book is concerned that might not be the wisest way. After all, if you agree with this book, I doubt I'll change your mind. All I can do is try to make sure that anyone who reads it does it with an open and alert mind and doesn't go into it with the "dewy eyed outlook seeing it in the rosy glow" it's proponents project for it. I've dealt with the "if you disagree with us your weird (and yes other names and epithets)" attitude for years now...what's one more instance?
By the way, I do recommend a reading of this to at least get the ideas espoused. As I'm apparently part of what he refers to as "the enemy" I need to know the thoughts to some extent. My rating is for attitude and the amount of hate and condescension spewed here.
June 27, 2007
This is just one of those books that people who are young and on fire should read. It is inspiring and thought provoking if not a little contreversial at times- especially when it was published I imagine.
February 2, 2011
Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky is a terrible book on all accounts: terrible writing and, most importantly,terrible ideas. I'll take his opening remarks and two propositions within the first chapter (not including the Prologue) to make my point.
Alinsky makes these opening remarks: "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be." He refers to those with the desire to change the world as Organizers.
On page 10, Alinksy writes that "the organizer does not have a fixed truth." On page 11, he writes, "The organizer has one conviction, if people have the power to act, in the long run they will, most of the time, reach the right decisions."
Within the absurdities Alinsky piles in this book, perhaps the most irritating is his reckless, thoughtless vocabulary. What exactly is the difference between having a "fixed truth" and having a "conviction?" As if the contradiction of the logic itself were not enough (that the only truth an organizer recognizes is that he does not believe in truth), Alisnky contradicts himself more candidly in the next page by explicitly saying an organizer has one conviction (aka, one fixed truth).
Alinsky attempts to dash-off any intellectual responsibility by immediately saying, “I am not concerned if this faith in people is regarded as a prime truth and therefore a contradiction of what I have already written, for life is a story of contradictions.” (p. 11)
After this point, nothing needs to be analyzed about this book. Alinsky is the epitome of lazy thinking that leads so many people to a self-loathing, mankind-hating, destructive life. Alinsky's adolescent writings and lazy ideas are the perfect parasite which feeds on the efforts of those who thought and fought with sweat and blood to improve life by means of man's creative power. Alinsky is a negative in the progress of man.
Alinsky makes these opening remarks: "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be." He refers to those with the desire to change the world as Organizers.
On page 10, Alinksy writes that "the organizer does not have a fixed truth." On page 11, he writes, "The organizer has one conviction, if people have the power to act, in the long run they will, most of the time, reach the right decisions."
Within the absurdities Alinsky piles in this book, perhaps the most irritating is his reckless, thoughtless vocabulary. What exactly is the difference between having a "fixed truth" and having a "conviction?" As if the contradiction of the logic itself were not enough (that the only truth an organizer recognizes is that he does not believe in truth), Alisnky contradicts himself more candidly in the next page by explicitly saying an organizer has one conviction (aka, one fixed truth).
Alinsky attempts to dash-off any intellectual responsibility by immediately saying, “I am not concerned if this faith in people is regarded as a prime truth and therefore a contradiction of what I have already written, for life is a story of contradictions.” (p. 11)
After this point, nothing needs to be analyzed about this book. Alinsky is the epitome of lazy thinking that leads so many people to a self-loathing, mankind-hating, destructive life. Alinsky's adolescent writings and lazy ideas are the perfect parasite which feeds on the efforts of those who thought and fought with sweat and blood to improve life by means of man's creative power. Alinsky is a negative in the progress of man.
February 12, 2020
Honestly, I wanted to like this. I just think Alinsky might come from a different time. All the truths he lays down seem self-evident, and he spams quotes from famous people as if they will somehow make him feel smarter. I think the onslaught of quotes really detracts from some things he might have had to say. I don't know what kind of hero to the working class this guy was, but he writes like he's jerking himself off. He has a chapter where he talks about how cool it is to have all the magic traits of his supreme organizer, but it feels like he just wants to brag about how awesome he is. His self-righteous attitude and patronizing tone make this feel inaccessible to any person who identifies with the modern left. I picked up the book hoping for practical strategies and came away with abstract, lofty declarations of amorality's necessity. If any part of Alinsky's writing is redeeming it's that sometimes pragmatic steps could be useful for the left. The essential removal of any moral inclinations feels like a lame tradeoff though.
Pragmatism could be useful for the Left today. Maybe someone should take another swing at this topic. Alinsky's advice is indiscernible and largely without hope.
Pragmatism could be useful for the Left today. Maybe someone should take another swing at this topic. Alinsky's advice is indiscernible and largely without hope.
April 17, 2015
All the right wing hullabaloo over Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicaals", published in 1971, is what made me decide to read this--horrors!--book about community organizing. Since I have been involved in community organizing before, it only seemed logical to see if I could find some of the things I learned on the fly in Alinsky's book. And you know what? I did. Accident and necessity sometimes become crossing points where you act before you develop a rationale, and I remember interviewing a Dallas City Council member who was a high muckety-muck banker who was giving us the "let me play you like a fiddle while Rome burns" routine. I immediately took my notes and wrote for the public that, indeed, the banker was THE guy who was going to help the city's homeless population.
I didn't find anything really radical here--radicalism is political action outside the political sphere, that's all--and plenty of really wonderful vignettes from Alinsky's long history of being a community organizer.
I didn't find anything really radical here--radicalism is political action outside the political sphere, that's all--and plenty of really wonderful vignettes from Alinsky's long history of being a community organizer.
November 8, 2018
A really extraordinary book. I remember hearing about Alinsky for the first time years ago when I read Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama, when Obama referred to the fact that he had learned from Alinsky and been influenced by him when he worked as a community organiser in Chicago. I recall having my interest piqued because his work was described as being in the line of Machiavelli and Nietzsche, which is a very unusual thing to hear about a book on political organising. Well the comparisons are justified. This book is very original and refreshing, and has great literary quality regardless of the subject at hand. This book is like The Prince but for the masses as opposed to the powerful, and Alinsky is a great practitioner of Realpolitik without being hidebound by idealism or ideology. Once again I can't help but be struck by the fact that a book published in 1971 illustrates that we are having the same issues and debates today and little has changed. There is a lot of wisdom in this book and it is well worth studying.
September 2, 2017
کتاب را با تصور به این که یک کتاب استراتژی قرص و محکم برای یک فرمانده ی جنگی که در صدد رسیدن به قدرت است خوندم، ولی کتاب اون چیزی نبود که انتظار داشتم، این کتاب که اصلاً با لحن و نوشتار قدیمی نویسنده حال نکردم و به نظرم سخت و دیرفهم برایم بود راجع به این است که چه روش هایی را به کار ببرید که به عنوان یک چپ افراطی که با قوانین مثلاً بانکداری کشور یا یک سازمانی مشکل دارید نیروها و افراد خودتون رو چطور سازماندهی کنید
که تویه این شورشی که به پا کردید به هدفتون و اهداف حزبی تون برسید (به صورت مدنی ولی یه جوری که حال طرف هم بد گرفته بشه هم این که شما و سازمانتون رو نتونه مجازات سخت کنه). یک فصل به اسم تکتیک داره که نویسنده بعد یه عالمه چیز چرت و پرت و مسخره (البته به نظر من) شروع میکنه تند و تند و پشت سرهم 12 تا تاکتیکش رو بیان میکنه، 12 تا تاکتیک رو در زیر آوردم، اصلاً کتاب رو دوست نداشتم، قدیمی و گنگ بود
https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-ali...
مسلماً ریویوی من خوب نیست چون من از این کتاب چیزی نفهمیدم
که تویه این شورشی که به پا کردید به هدفتون و اهداف حزبی تون برسید (به صورت مدنی ولی یه جوری که حال طرف هم بد گرفته بشه هم این که شما و سازمانتون رو نتونه مجازات سخت کنه). یک فصل به اسم تکتیک داره که نویسنده بعد یه عالمه چیز چرت و پرت و مسخره (البته به نظر من) شروع میکنه تند و تند و پشت سرهم 12 تا تاکتیکش رو بیان میکنه، 12 تا تاکتیک رو در زیر آوردم، اصلاً کتاب رو دوست نداشتم، قدیمی و گنگ بود
https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-ali...
مسلماً ریویوی من خوب نیست چون من از این کتاب چیزی نفهمیدم
March 8, 2009
Saul Alinsky presents those of us who talk about change without acting on it with an uncomfortable challenge: you are either actively opposing the establishment or you are siding with it. This challenge struck home with me and inspired me to invest more effort into connecting to local activists and engaging in direct action.
On the other hand, I found Alinsky's discussion of ends and means rather troubling. Alinsky tends to judge actions solely by their ends, and is so certain of the righteousness of those ends that he is willing to justify almost any means. I consider this particular perspective problematic, both from a deontological and a consequential perspective. From the former perspective, I contend that certain means are never justified, regardless of their ends. The torture or murder of innocent persons is one example of an action that I believe could never be justified, even to protect my own life or the life of someone I love. From the latter perspective, I contend that our inability to foresee the outcome of any particular action negates the utility of a teleological justification. The impartial universe is equally likely to cause an action intended to produce a good outcome to produce instead an evil one as it is to cause an action intended to produce an evil outcome to instead produce a good one. Therefore, excluding the inherent morality of an action from your evaluation appears more likely to produce an evil outcome than restricting yourself to actions that you consider morally defensible.
Overall, I found that much of what Alinsky has to say is worth reading, and I recommend that everyone evaluate his thoughts on morality for herself. This book has much to offer the current generation of progressive activists, and I highly recommend it to everyone.
On the other hand, I found Alinsky's discussion of ends and means rather troubling. Alinsky tends to judge actions solely by their ends, and is so certain of the righteousness of those ends that he is willing to justify almost any means. I consider this particular perspective problematic, both from a deontological and a consequential perspective. From the former perspective, I contend that certain means are never justified, regardless of their ends. The torture or murder of innocent persons is one example of an action that I believe could never be justified, even to protect my own life or the life of someone I love. From the latter perspective, I contend that our inability to foresee the outcome of any particular action negates the utility of a teleological justification. The impartial universe is equally likely to cause an action intended to produce a good outcome to produce instead an evil one as it is to cause an action intended to produce an evil outcome to instead produce a good one. Therefore, excluding the inherent morality of an action from your evaluation appears more likely to produce an evil outcome than restricting yourself to actions that you consider morally defensible.
Overall, I found that much of what Alinsky has to say is worth reading, and I recommend that everyone evaluate his thoughts on morality for herself. This book has much to offer the current generation of progressive activists, and I highly recommend it to everyone.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 969 reviews