The criticism that the infamous Saul Alinsky receives is rooted in an ideological disdain for socialism or communism. Rather than recognize that the “rules” outlined in the Alinsky’s magnum opus are shrewd or at worst, cunningly devious, Rules for Radicals is essentially maligned as stratagem for those at the vanguard of the evil specter of communism and socialism seeking to pull wool over the masses eyes and lead them leash in hand unknowingly into continual forays against an established democratic system or plurality of institutions. Could this possibly be true?
Of course one would only need a witty observer and a handful of comrades to assess the political currents and manipulate people’s good will into fighting for something that may harm them. That individual would not need Alinsky’s book to do so, although it does provide sound and pragmatic tactics to accomplish said goals. That being said, so too can that same individual, in cooperation with like-minded partners, use this text to organize for the benefit of the people themselves. One must not fall into the trap of mistaking the tactics for desired outcomes. People shouldn’t just organize because they can, as it is not a good in, and, of itself.
The rules for radicals are essentially guidelines for those seeking change in an established order. It follows from the unassailable premise that there is class of individuals whom compose the majority of a society and through their valiant efforts alone are incapable of affecting change in their communities, let alone a nation. Alinksy confirms what many already know: power either comes in the form of money or large groups of individuals. Is one to sit idly by and watch their nation become a kleptocracy governed by aristocratic families, or should one participate in an association of their choosing that fights for the things they believe is right but would not be recognized unless the organization establishes democratic assertiveness? We do not criticize...