Posted by
Phoenix Lady on Friday, February 06, 2009 2:04:30 PM
I've read a lot of comments that Mr. Alinsky "worshipped" Lucifer, aka Satan, as a result of his dedication in "Rules for Radicals." However, it would appear, if you read the entire dedication page, that that is actually not the case. For those who haven't read the page, or the book (which I highly recommend), here it is:
"Where there are no men, be thou a man." --Rabbi Hillel
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils were I to make a whore of my soul..." --Thomas Paine
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins--or which is which), 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." --Saul Alinsky
Based on my reading of the book as a whole, particularly the following quote, I think Mr. Alinsky was making an ironic point, not saying Lucifer should be considered a hero.
"The organization has to be used in every possible sense as an educational mechanism, but education is not propaganda. Real education is the means by which the membership will begin to make sense out of their relationship as individuals to the organization and to the world they live in, so that they can make informed and intelligent judgments. The stream of activities and programs of the organization provides a never-ending series of specific issues and situations that create a rich field for the learning process.
"The concern and conflict about each specific issue leads to a speedily enlarging area of interest. Competent organizers should be sensitive to these opportunities. Without the learning process, the building of an organization becomes simply the substitution of one power group for another." [Bold emphasis mine.] "Rules for Radicals," page 124-125.
We all know Lucifer was an egotist. Like our "Dear Leader," he was a charismatic speaker able to charm fully a third of the Heavenly Host to his cause. But remember what Milton quoted him as saying. "'Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." In other words, unable to truly supplant the Establishment (due to its--shall we say--unique nature), he and his minions allowed the force of gravity (i.e. lack of levity) to pull them all down into the singularity we call Hell, the ultimate pout--and the ultimate navel gazing.
While Mr. Alinsky has been called many names by folks in the Establishment (however that happens to be defined at any given time), he actually is a libertarian in that he truly believed and respected the dignity of every individual. Collectivists (being egotists at root, as defined by Mr. Alinsky in my last post) have no respect for individual dignity.
The reason Mr. Alinsky wrote "Rules for Radicals" was, in part, to counter the tendency of all societies to discourage and penalize ideas and writings that threaten the ruling status quo. As he says, "Once the American Revolution was done with, we can find very little besides the right of revolution that is laid down in the Declaration of Independence as a fundamental right; seventy-three years later Thoreau's brief essay on 'The Duty of Civil Disobedience'; followed by Lincoln's reaffirmation of the revolutionary right in 1861 (1st Inaugural). There are many phrases extolling the sacredness of revolution--that is, revolutions of the past. Our enthusiasm for the sacred right of revolution is increased and enhanced with the passage of time. The older the revolution, the more it recedes into history, the more sacred it becomes. Except for Thoreau's limited remarks, our socity has given us few words of advice, few suggestions of how to fertilize social change."
Instead, those in power constantly "attack all revolutionary ideas and action for change as immoral, fallacious and against God, country, and mother," with the threat of dire punishment for anyone who would even think of going up against the status quo. Sound familiar?
I think the reason Mr. Alinsky is so thoroughly linked to the socialists and communists is because, as he put it, "The Have-Nots of the world, swept up in their present upheavals and desparately seeking revolutionary writings can find such literature only from the communists, both red and yellow. Here they can read about tactics, maneuvers, strategy and principles of action in the makings of revolutions. Since in this literature all ideas are imbedded in the language of communism, revolution appears synonymous with communism." ("Rules for Radicals," page 7-8.)
He goes on to add, "We have permitted a suicidal situation to unfold wherein revolution and communism have become one. These pages are committed to splitting this political atom, separating this exclusive identification of communism with revolution. If it were possible for the Have-Nots of the world to recognize and accept the idea that revolution did not inevitably mean hate and war, cold or hot, from the United States, that alone would be a great revolution in world politics and the future of man. This is a major reason for my attempt to provide a revolutionary handboot not cast in a communist or capitalist mold, but as a manual for the Have-Nots of the world regardless of the color of their skins or their politics. My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and to use it. I 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." (pages 9-10.)
The point is, he recognizes that the word "revolution" has been high-jacked, whether deliberately or not, by the ideology of communism, when it's primary meaning is to break the structures created by those who previously gained power through revolution, in order to enable the creation of new structures. Revolutions are usually not violent, and thus usually are unseen by most people not directly involved. (In economics, for instance, the equivalent of revolution is the concept of creative destruction in the market place. Corporate raiders like Carl Ichann often use Mr. Alinsky's rules to take over companies in order to "deliver value to the shareholders" by cleaning out the deadwood and creating lean, mean, fighting machines.) In fact, Mr. Alinsky's whole purpose is to show us how to initiate change without violence (or with violence used only as a last resort).
Again, I strongly recommend reading the book yourself.
Next time, I'll share Mr. Alinsky's thoughts on the qualities a good community organizer must have (and why our Fearless Leader fails big time when it comes to showing any of these qualities).