HomeGroupsTalkMoreZeitgeist
Search Site
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Loading...

Rules for Radicals (1971)

by Saul D. Alinsky

Other authors: See the other authors section.

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
2,143427,390 (3.55)13
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.… (more)
Loading...

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

» See also 13 mentions

Showing 1-5 of 41 (next | show all)
The book describes the conceptual framework for a very practical mechanics of radical political resistance and transformation. It offers a view of what politics is that is somehow cynical because it is boiled down to amplifying polarised issues to creare the energy for action.

I am not an expert in political writing but I found the book at the same time a source of great insight, as is a damning review of how little independent intelligence plays a role in self determination.

In light of information society’s exposure to manufacturing of different issues, this work takes on a dark tone in that it as much a guide to the tactics of manipulatrd world views as it is guide to resistance.

I think we can do better... ( )
  yates9 | Feb 28, 2024 |
Borrowed from Jacob. So far fascinating. Feel very pretentious reading it on the train (but it's so interesting!).

I read way too many books at the same time. ( )
  caedocyon | Feb 23, 2024 |
Regardless of which side you might be, this is a must-read!
  atrillox | Nov 27, 2023 |
1CRules for Radicals 1D is a useful and revealing exposition of the art of community organizing by someone who was effective at it. The late Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) not only presents a set of maxims for the person trying to persuade people to become more politically active, but he illustrates his points with examples from his own career (while warning readers not to try to reenact the exact same tactics but to try to extract the principles behind them). A particularly well taken point is that it is crucial to understand the people one works with and what their experience has been. Alinsky was trying to impress this upon a couple of would-be community organizers over a meal at a diner. Seeing that they didn 19t understand what he was telling them, Alinsky demonstrated his point through an experiment: He predicted that if he gave the waiter an order that was not exactly what was on the menu, the waiter would inevitably get the order wrong. His prediction was correct because the restaurant 19s simple, fixed menu was a routine with which the waiter was familiar; forcing him outside of his usual experience complicated his already busy routine and made it more likely that he would not be able to communicate a special order to the kitchen. Now imagine an audience of people who do not need to buy what you are selling and imagine talking over their heads about things they are not familiar with, and you have lost them.

Alinsky advises his radical students to remain flexible and maintain a sense of humor. Flexibility allows the strategist or tactician to look at the bigger picture as well as the situation immediately confronting him and adjust his responses. Alinsky seems to imply that he is so skilled, he can turn his strategy on a dime, but I would take that with a grain of salt; changing tactics is easier than changing strategy, which is more a back-to-the-drawing-board proposition.

Keeping a sense of humor is always valuable both to one 19s own health and to keeping one 19s opponent off balance and audience amused. Alinsky notes the importance, too, of making the campaign interesting to the actors, the people actually carrying out the campaign, those whom one is organizing and trying to keep organized. Doing the same protest over and over or for an extended period of time will result in people dropping out and going back to their work-a-day lives. The classic example of keeping the participants interested was the 1Cfart-in 1D that Alinsky staged 14or threatened to stage; it isn 19t always easy to tell the difference since he writes as vividly about his plans as he does about the realization of them 14in Rochester New York in the 1960s. Eastman Kodak was seen as not hiring enough African-Americans so someone brought in Alinsky. By this point in his career, Alinsky had such a reputation that his very approach was enough to send shock waves through the political and economic hierarchy of the city. Alinsky recognized that this made his opponents vulnerable. They were attacking him before he had done anything; they were hysterical and off-balance. By having African-Americans go to the city 19s vaunted symphony and have a fart-in to clear the concert hall of the comfortable and respectable, Alinsky alleges that he rocked the city and amused both the participants and the larger audience.

Like all good agitators/community organizers, Alinsky seems to have had a sense that there are three components to the guerilla theater that he arranged: the participants, the opponents, and the audience. Not that he was always clear that the audience is not necessarily the same as the opponents, but he seems to have at least intuited that sometimes, particularly when he discusses the middle class and his goal of at least persuading them to have enough sympathy for his goals not to oppose radical change.

One thing that floored me was that for someone who intuitively gets one of Mohandas K. Gandhi 19s more subtle principles (The organizer is in control, not the opponents; they must be made to respond to the agenda set by the organizer.), Alinsky has an utterly oversimplified view 14not to say an erroneous one 14of what Gandhi did. First, he calls Gandhi 19s method 1Cpassive resistance. 1D As Gandhi said, he was never in favor of 1Cpassive 1D anything. Second, Alinsky focuses only on the general acquiescence of Hindus in India after more than a century of increasing British domination of their country. Alinsky flippantly says that Gandhi merely noted that the Indians tended to sit, so he said, 1Cinstead of sitting there, why don 19t you sit over here and while you 19re sitting, say 18Independence Now! 19 1D (p. 42) and thereby obstructed the British. In historical fact, Gandhi had to damp down a lot of violent tendencies in his followers. (Indeed, he was ultimately assassinated by a fellow Hindu!)

Moreover, it is one thing to merely sit in the way of British rule, but quite another for row after row of men to walk deliberately into club-bearing guards, each row of these men allowing themselves to be beaten half to death without resistance. On page 41, Alinsky expresses the unexamined opinion that Gandhi 19s method 1Cwould never have had a chance against a totalitarian state such as the Nazis, 1D but no one should make the mistake of thinking that Gandhi 19s approach was not dynamic enough to be adaptable to different and arguably more difficult circumstances. 1CNon-violent non-cooperation 1D 14as Gandhi 19s approach is properly called 14can be applied flexibly, something that the self-styled master of flexibility, Alinsky, ought to but here seems not to understand. (It also infuriates me when my fellow conservatives 14and this is but one reason I hesitate to call them fellows 14discount Gandhi 19s achievement by saying that it was the gentleness of the British that made Gandhi 19s success possible; you couldn 19t have sold that to the survivors of the Amritsar Massacre of 1919, where a British general had his men fire on an unarmed meeting of Indians and murdered over 350 and wounded some 1,500.) You might also notice that unlike Alinsky, Gandhi did not worry about making his protests 1Cfun 1D for his followers; there was nothing fun about getting beat up or murdered. Gandhi 19s followers knew that there were real life-and-death issues at stake.

What I perceive as a lack of respect for Gandhi (hmm, Alinsky 19s rivalry with a true master?) leads me also to comment on a possibly troubling lack of respect for the communities Alinsky nominally served. As in the great fart-in, Alinsky seems to have little concern for the human dignity of the cogs in his escapades. It isn 19t just the indignity of using bodily functions as a form of protest (Alinsky almost did this again at an airport by planning to stage a run on airport restrooms, but his opponents caved at the mere threat; Alinsky seems disappointed not to have actually had the chance to execute it.), but Alinsky seems to distrust the persistence of the community, assuming they will drop out if not amused or otherwise stimulated, even going to the length of feeding the Rochester Symphony protesters baked beans to ensure that they would expel gas virtually on cue. In this, Alinsky inadvertently raises several questions, not least of which is, why did those who supposedly (but not necessarily?) called him to Rochester need him to goose their motivation to get them to engage in a protest for concessions they supposedly felt they needed from the city 19s largest employer?

Consider these quotations from 1CRules for Radicals 1D:

1CPeople cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by ALL of the people. 1D Saul D. Alinsky, 1CRules for Radicals, 1D p. xxv (emphasis in original though in italics rather than all capitals).

1CI will argue that the failure to use power for a more equitable distribution of the means of life for all people signals the end of the revolution and the start of the counterrevolution. 1D Ibid., p. 10.

Most unsettling about the book is Alinsky 19s crypto-ideology. Alinsky is one of those who would claim not to have an ideology, but those are always the people who not only have one but have a bad one because they have never examined their premises. Alinsky offers a simple analysis by dividing the world into Haves and Have-Nots, with the addition of the middle class, whom Alinsky calls the 1CHave-a-Little, Want Mores. 1D At root, Alinsky 19s assumption is that the only way that the Have-Nots and Have-a-Little, Want Mores (so awkward a term that Alinsky himself stops using it after the first chapter) can get more is by employing his services to help protest until the Haves give away their power to the less fortunate; in other words, Alinsky assumes that society is a static, zero-sum game where individual effort does not play a role in the poor and middle class rising above the economic circumstances life has dealt them at the outset, and getting 1CMore 1D of what they 1CWant 1D always means agitating for it, not earning it. This is a Marxist assumption. (It is a socialist assumption, but Marx long ago virtually wiped all other socialist theorists off the map, so that it is his view that informs most central planners whether Marxist or progressive.)

Alinsky, in his final chapter on how to drum up support for radical change among the middle class, seems to assume that he and others like him can set the agenda for middle-class demands for concessions from government to, for example, fund political campaigns so that middle-class candidates can run for office on the taxpayers 19 dime. (This policy, as eventually enacted, tends to fund wealthy incumbent politicians at taxpayer expense; yet another leftist dream with unintended opposite consequences.) Nowhere does Alinsky show an understanding that what makes people middle-class 14indeed, what makes many people whose income does not suggest middle class label themselves middle class anyway 14is the belief that they can do better if the government gets out of their way than they can if they scream until the government gives them something for nothing. A recurring refrain in this book is Alinsky 19s wonder at why the world as it is does not make sense to him. Even when he swerves into a partial answer, he doesn 19t get it. In a footnote on page 170, Alinsky notes that one of the concessions made by the Xerox Corporation was to launch a collaboration with an Alinsky-founded protest group to build a factory owned and managed by African-Americans. This idea could work if the factory went on to produce instead of expecting that Xerox would subsidize the factory whether it produced or not. One way of helping those who have been left out of the capitalist system might be to help them to become effective practitioners of capitalism, but such a possibility never occurred to Alinsky except when he swerved into it by accident. Although turning accidents into advantages was a talent that Alinsky cultivated his whole career, in this case he did not recognize it as a goal in itself. This was because his (crypto)-ideology prohibited it.

Two things vie for most surprising insights that I had while reading this book: After his lack of understanding of Gandhi, a second was how useful and thoughtful Alinsky 19s approach to tactics and short-term strategy are, although the best of this kind of thinking could be gleaned from a careful reading of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Alinsky 19s attitude toward the middle class is not naked on every page, but he despises the values of the middle class and allows that lumpen middle-class radicals are right in their rejection of middle-class values, which are unrecognizable as Alinsky enumerates them: 1Cmaterialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. 1D More than half of these modifiers refer to qualities and ideologies that the middle class has opposed 14has had to oppose and could not help but oppose 14since its inception! These are rather the values of an empire based on cronyism and patronage, not the free republic envisioned by the Enlightenment that grew out of the middle-class and capitalist revolutions of the early modern era. As Hayek points out in 1CThe Road to Serfdom, 1D it is precisely out of liberal capitalism that the humane values of charity and tolerance came. (Even as a lapsed Christian, I must admit that Hayek is incomplete in not crediting the Judeo-Christian tradition with the inculcation of these values, but he is right that liberal capitalism shaped them into their modern, ecumenical and even humanistic forms and, ironically, gave them as an intellectual heritage to the founders of the various socialisms that oppose the very well-springs of their professed concern with social welfare.)

Much of what Alinsky has to say is valuable to anyone trying to effect social or political change, no matter what their politics. I am afraid I cannot remember who it was, but someone involved in training leaders of the TEA Party has said that he gave them Alinsky 19s book and emphasized to them the benefit of reading it. The book is difficult to read if you disagree with something on just about every page, but understanding this system for motivating people in politics is useful even if it should not be regarded as the final word on the subject. Reading this book will also help anyone who wants to understand our current president, Barack Obama. He was taught to be a community organizer with this book as the text, and he taught a course in community organizing using this book as his text. (Every time the president or one of his surrogates talks about how he has fought for the middle class, I think of how this book shows both a misunderstanding of and contempt for the middle class and reinforces and breeds that misunderstanding and contempt in everyone who has taken Alinsky 19s work to heart.) ( )
  MilesFowler | Jul 16, 2023 |
"All action is already permissible."
The so-called modern radical [organizer] has presumably read Alinsky, though not intuited this message. It comes down to us to ask the subsequent question: "Is it effective?" Even artificiality more than sincerity, even obscurity more than glory. The potentates of the so-called modern popular movement would do well to recall the concept of "community organization" were they capable of such a feat. Alas, those who tireless maintain a posture toward a future justification of violence (obviously functioning as psychological catharsis) would do well to remember Alinsky has already answered this question ere 30 years. Yet it remains a powerful delusion that so-called (measured) 'violence for a cause' could ever overawe the Reactionary (so-called counter-revolutionary) who already rejoices in it for its own sake and can find a greater cause as it suits him.

We are reminded of the unforgettable (apocryphal) words of Beauvoir: "The weak have never triumphed over the strong." And to understand what this means when taken on the basis of each passing moment. ( )
  Joe.Olipo | Jun 4, 2023 |
Showing 1-5 of 41 (next | show all)
no reviews | add a review

» Add other authors (1 possible)

Author nameRoleType of authorWork?Status
Saul D. Alinskyprimary authorall editionscalculated
Jay J. Smith StudioCover designersecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed

Belongs to Publisher Series

You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
People/Characters
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Epigraph
Dedication
First words
What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.
Quotations
To pander to those who have no stomach for straight language, and insist upon bland, non controversial sauces, is a waste of time... I do not propose to be trapped by tact at the expense of truth.

Last words
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Blurbers
Original language
Canonical DDC/MDS
Canonical LCC

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English (4)

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.

No library descriptions found.

Book description
Haiku summary

Current Discussions

None

Popular covers

Quick Links

Rating

Average: (3.55)
0.5
1 8
1.5 1
2 20
2.5 2
3 49
3.5 11
4 66
4.5 2
5 36

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

 

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 203,209,874 books! | Top bar: Always visible