caedocyon's review against another edition
4.0
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.
I read way too many books at the same time.
bloodyfool0's review against another edition
4.0
"The revolution of our times", this phrase will be remembered for a very very long time.
A very intriguing book along with very intriguing tactics for raising hell. You can fully appreciate that the establishment will be furiously trying to undermine Alinsky's efforts and to condemn his doctrines.
It is radical thought but Alinsky makes the point of galvanising the masses into a call for action. The practical aspect is not many can organise yet alone lead such masses into action. Dynamism of the individual and the harnessing of similar frustrations along with timing are crucially important in a successful call to revolt.
Alinsky is not in my opinion a radical, but he does make the point to vent at the establishment, there are ways and means to achieve your goals. They don't have to be violent, however, the establishment will nearly always portray them as such.
A very intriguing book along with very intriguing tactics for raising hell. You can fully appreciate that the establishment will be furiously trying to undermine Alinsky's efforts and to condemn his doctrines.
It is radical thought but Alinsky makes the point of galvanising the masses into a call for action. The practical aspect is not many can organise yet alone lead such masses into action. Dynamism of the individual and the harnessing of similar frustrations along with timing are crucially important in a successful call to revolt.
Alinsky is not in my opinion a radical, but he does make the point to vent at the establishment, there are ways and means to achieve your goals. They don't have to be violent, however, the establishment will nearly always portray them as such.
rumbledethumps's review against another edition
1.0
In a nutshell, Alinsky believes the end justifies the means. Not only that, but he believes one is acting irresponsibly if one does not use whatever means necessary to achieve what might be a greater good. Putting one's own squeamishness and ethical beliefs ahead of achieving that greater good is behaving selfishly.
The problem is that this attitude just continues the vicious circle of American politics today, with each side escalating tactics in attempts to achieve their own ends, and then justifying deplorable behavior with post hoc reasoning.
The problem is that this attitude just continues the vicious circle of American politics today, with each side escalating tactics in attempts to achieve their own ends, and then justifying deplorable behavior with post hoc reasoning.
amittaizero's review against another edition
5.0
Who's afraid of Saul Alinsky?
There's a footnote in the book, an excerpt from The National Observer in 1967. The article says of Alinsky:
"His basic philosophy, as he has often stated, is that the poor, who lack the money or authority to challenge the 'power structure,' must use the only weapon they have at their command - people and publicity."
That's basically the gist of the entire book.
That's pretty much it. He peppers the book with his own experiences in organizing. He writes about the importance of understanding the values of others and communicating within their experience.
He's not vague or abstract or academic but plain-spoken, conversational, and frank.
So why is Alinsky such an effective boogeyman?
He wasn't a communist, and he says only unflattering things about communism in the book.
Certainly, he writes that his purpose is: "to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life."
Do we (in 2018) live in circumstances that give us the chance to live by values that give meaning to life? Seventeen years of war, an epidemic of mass shootings, climate change, and a rigged economic system tell me that no, we don't.
Never once in the book does he call for violence, or government overthrow, or anything of the sort.
He calls for revolution, yes, but a revolution achieved by working with what we have where we are. A revolution made by radicalizing the middle class, especially the lower middle class. Be mindful that this was the early 1970s - but Alinsky writes prophetically of the lower middle class.
Of the lower middle class he describes a frustrated group who have "struggled all their lives for what relatively little they have." Unfulfilled and frustrated "they are a fearful people, who feel threatened from all sides: the nightmare of pending retirement and old age with a Social Security decimated by inflation; the high cost of long-term illness" and on and on.
Alinsky goes on: "Seeking some meaning in life, they turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the 'American' faith."
He calls them, as they were called even then, "the 'silent majority," who "now, are hurt, bitter, suspicious, feeling rejected and at bay. This sick condition in many ways is as explosive as the current race crisis. Their fears and frustrations at their helplessness are mounting to a point of a political paranoia which can demonize people to turn to the law of survival in the narrowest sense."
But we, and by "we" I mean those who like myself hope against hope, didn't reach out to the lower middle class.
Someone else did.
There's a footnote in the book, an excerpt from The National Observer in 1967. The article says of Alinsky:
"His basic philosophy, as he has often stated, is that the poor, who lack the money or authority to challenge the 'power structure,' must use the only weapon they have at their command - people and publicity."
That's basically the gist of the entire book.
That's pretty much it. He peppers the book with his own experiences in organizing. He writes about the importance of understanding the values of others and communicating within their experience.
He's not vague or abstract or academic but plain-spoken, conversational, and frank.
So why is Alinsky such an effective boogeyman?
He wasn't a communist, and he says only unflattering things about communism in the book.
Certainly, he writes that his purpose is: "to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life."
Do we (in 2018) live in circumstances that give us the chance to live by values that give meaning to life? Seventeen years of war, an epidemic of mass shootings, climate change, and a rigged economic system tell me that no, we don't.
Never once in the book does he call for violence, or government overthrow, or anything of the sort.
He calls for revolution, yes, but a revolution achieved by working with what we have where we are. A revolution made by radicalizing the middle class, especially the lower middle class. Be mindful that this was the early 1970s - but Alinsky writes prophetically of the lower middle class.
Of the lower middle class he describes a frustrated group who have "struggled all their lives for what relatively little they have." Unfulfilled and frustrated "they are a fearful people, who feel threatened from all sides: the nightmare of pending retirement and old age with a Social Security decimated by inflation; the high cost of long-term illness" and on and on.
Alinsky goes on: "Seeking some meaning in life, they turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the 'American' faith."
He calls them, as they were called even then, "the 'silent majority," who "now, are hurt, bitter, suspicious, feeling rejected and at bay. This sick condition in many ways is as explosive as the current race crisis. Their fears and frustrations at their helplessness are mounting to a point of a political paranoia which can demonize people to turn to the law of survival in the narrowest sense."
But we, and by "we" I mean those who like myself hope against hope, didn't reach out to the lower middle class.
Someone else did.
kcjulia's review against another edition
5.0
I will admit that I'm a "process" nerd - obsessed with the how, rather than the why, of social and political movements. In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky tries to distill his talent for community organizing into something that can be passed on to future generations of organizers. I'm not certain that he succeeds, but the effort itself is a fascinating window into his beliefs and core values. Lots of memorable anecdotes and an intriguing last chapter on organizing the middle class. Should be read within its historical context.
the_zach_who_reads's review against another edition
2.0
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.