Commence Radicalization!
The Angry Black Lady Chronicles welcomes you to the first installment of our book chat. We will be reading and discussing Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a chapter per week.
Background and links on the life and work of Saul Alinsky can be found here. Rules for Radicals can be purchased or downloaded here, found at your friendly local bookseller, or viewed as a .pdf at this link.
Without further ado, let’s begin with the Prologue.
THE REVOLUTIONARY FORCE today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, “Burn the system down!” They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book. These words are written in desperation, partly because it is what they do and will do that will give meaning to what I and the radicals of my generation have done with our lives.
The Prologue reminds us that Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals at a very specific moment. It was first published in 1971, and the Prologue makes it abundantly clear that Alinsky felt the events of the recent past necessitated this book. His first major book, Reveille for Radicals, was published in 1946, and it had served as a kind of textbook for a generation or more of budding organizers.
But as America was lurching through the upheavals of the 1960s, it felt as if the world was coming to an end, and the world that would replace it was still murky. It was a moment of tremendous “generation gap”. College students were protesting the continuing war in Vietnam even as others of their generation were being conscripted to fight it, though notably the burden was falling on their peers for whom the education track and its potential of deferments was not an option. Their parents were either trying desperately to be hip and keep up with their kids, or else they were clutching their Bibles and American flags and looking at their own children with disgust.
For someone like Alinsky, who was quite clearly feeling his own mortality even while writing the book (he died the following year), and who chronologically could be the grandfather of the youth who comprised this movement, it was simultaneously exciting to see the potential for tremendous change this youth-based movement represented and depressing to see how many mistakes they had already made. He understood why they would rally around ideas like “Don’t trust anyone over 30″ even as he knew he had lessons to teach them. He had the long vision to anticipate the backlash they would experience, and was full of regrets for the extent to which his own generation and the one that followed his had failed to lay the groundwork that would make their revolution possible.
They are now the vanguard, and they had to start almost from scratch. Few of us survived the Joe McCarthy holocaust of the early 1950s and of those there were even fewer whose understanding and insights had developed beyond the dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxism. My fellow radicals who were supposed to pass on the torch of experience and insights to a new generation just were not there.
So he poured out this book to say: Yes, and. Yes, I appreciate what you are feeling, and you are not the first to feel it. Yes, the country needs to change profoundly, and it won’t happen quickly enough to satisfy you. Yes, you can make a new world, and this elder has wisdom and insight that can help you succeed if you will just listen.
Remember we are talking about revolution, not revelation; you can miss the target by shooting too high as well as too low. First, there are no rules for revolution any more than there are rules for love or rules for happiness, but there are rules for radicals who want to change their world; there are certain central concepts of action in human politics that operate regardless of the scene or the time. To know these is basic to a pragmatic attack on the system.
Even in the Prologue, Alinsky begins to point out the errors this new generation of radicals was making in its assault on the traditional values and symbology of the nation in which they lived.
These rules make the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one who uses the tired old words and slogans, calls the police ”pig” or “white fascist racist” or “motherfucker” and has so stereotyped himself that others react by saying, “Oh, he’s one of those,” and then promptly turn off… Even the most elementary grasp of the fundamental idea that one communicates within the experience of his audience and gives full respect to the other’s values would have ruled out attacks on the American flag. The responsible organizer would have known that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag while the flag, itself, remains the glorious symbol of America’s hopes and aspirations, and he would have conveyed this message to his audience.
And here Alinsky lays out the central premise that distiguishes organizers from activists.
As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be, it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.
Starting from where the world is also means recognizing that this time and this place is different from any others in the past, and the techniques that succeeded in one nation at another time in history will not serve us here today.
Thus, to a generation that was convinced that the system had to be destroyed, and destroyed now, his counsel was to stay the course, work within the system, and guide people to make incremental changes through their own involvement and empowerment, so that they could taste for themselves the possibility that there could be a better way, and realize that they actually had the power to achieve it.
Discussion
Reading the Prologue, do you feel that its depiction of a world on the verge of coming apart at the seams is relevant today?
Do you see echoes of the 1960s youth movement in the Arab Spring, and here at home with the Occupy movement? What would Alinsky say they are doing right, and where have they gone wrong?
The distinction between activists and organizers is one that informs much of the tension between the Obama administration and its footsoldiers on the one hand, and the polemicists, online petition writers, and academic critics on the other — the war between pragmatists and purists. How does that distinction resonate for you in your online and offline political experience?
Alinsky writes that his answer to the young people who felt shut out by the Democrats in 1968 Chicago is to return next time as the delegates. To a significant degree, they did, and the 1972 convention gave us McGovern and an overwhelming landslide for Richard Nixon. Did Alinsky give them bad advice?
RELATED POSTS
- Who’s Afraid of Saul Alinsky? The Man, His Work, and His Influence
- Angry Black Book Chat: Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
I think Alinsky’s analyses are as important now as they were in the 1960s. From what I’ve gathered so far, “real radicals” aren’t all that radical at all. They know how to communicate effectively, they show respect, they don’t burn the flag in protest, and they don’t walk into an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood eating a ham sandwich. All of this makes complete sense, of course, if only you can ask yourself, “What is the most effective way to change someone’s mind about this or that political/economic/social issue?” Offending them from the get-go isn’t the answer.
As soon as I started reading I could understand why Alinksy was and is still still seen as a threat to the status quo. He’s preaching infiltration of the system. When you’re not a long-haired hippie burning an American flag on the corner, you’re not easily detected. For those with all the power, all the money, all the control, that’s a scary thought: facing an opposition that isn’t wearing a name tag or an arm band but very well may be working in the mail room of your corporation. I’m hooked.
Funny, Alinsky was writing for contemporary youth … who became those fucking the system … necessitating use of Alinsky’s tactics.
Admittedly, I’ve been too busy to read the assignment, but in glancing over the questions, it would follow that there is definitely some rhyming between the dissidence of the 1960s and the social change being driven today. But this generation is more connected, and therefore more likely to be effective, IMO.
As for the ’72 DNC and McGovern, I’ll let the more senior members of the community comment, but if there had been the level of understanding and connectivity that we have today, perhaps it would’ve been a different outcome. Also, see the first point about petulant Boomers [no offense to non-petulant Boomers].
One thing that separates this generation from the ones Alinsky was referencing is that they “rejected their materialistic backgrounds…” and opposed the notion of being “just a voter carrying a credit card,” whereas today…well…you know. Even poor people have iPhones and $1,500 computers.
Sorry but I have disagree with this a bit. I knew plenty of so called radicals in the ’60′s who lived on mom &pop’s dime while smoking reefer and pontificating. They may not have had credit cards and iPhones but they did not have to work for a living. It’s easy then as now to “reject materialism” if you don’t need to worry about where that “material” (Food etc.) is coming from.
It’s very popular in RW circles to read Alinsky to unearth the left’s secrets. Also, they’re still fighting the culture wars of the 1960s, so for them it’s completely au courant.
I was interested in this comment about generations because my perception (as a Gen Xer) is that many of the worst and most petulant on the left are actually Boomers rather than young people. Where were they during the Reagan years? Inequality has been increasing since the early 1970s. It would have been much easier to reverse it then than now, yet some of these people are acting like they just woke up to it in January 2009.
I think the younger generation today would do well to read Alinsky and also think about the errors of the last 40 years. If they do this, they have a chance to be more successful than OWS has been so far. I think many of the failures of OWS have come from copying the methods of the past that have not been successful for the left (and letting themselves be used by certain Professional Left types trying to attach themselves to the cause).
You made a really good point that some of the worst on the Left are Boomers, not young people. As to what the Boomers were doing, some just continued to do what they always did which wasn’t much, some joined the “establishment” made money & became Republicans, some found other causes to effectively work for, some just survived, raised families and did their best.
Just my 2 pesos…
McGovern was a decent but ineffective candidate who picked the wrong man for VP. DNC came out of the gate with baggage from the convention, Nixon and the RNC were already laying the ground work for a lot of what we have now & they savaged McGovern.
The prologue alone should be mandatory reading for the anarchist wing of the #OWS movement. In fact, somebody should send Naomi Wolfe a copy.
I feel as thought there will always be a faction of purists who will never be sated – this particular generation just happens to have direct influence from the previous one. They’ve never been able to see their visions fully realized, and it kills them.
Did Alinsky nail where they’re blowing it – or what?
Most Americans agree with #OWS that banks have too much influence and wealth is too concentrated, leading to corruption of our political system. But most Americans don’t agree that the most important issue that needs to be resolved is the right to squat indefinitely in public spaces while beating drums. Which one has #OWS become about?
Exactly! I have too many issues with OWS to go into here except to say that they could have been and still could be more effective than they are but they are going to have to get off their asses to do it.
As to the query regarding the distinction between activism vs organizing, I think Al Giordano said it best: “If it doesn’t involve knocking on doors, making phone calls or otherwise proactively communicating with people demographically different than you, it’s not organizing. If it doesn’t involve face-to-face building of relationships, teams, chains of command, and, day-by-day, clear goals to measure its progress and effectiveness, it’s not organizing. If it happens only on the Internet, that’s not organizing either.
Much of the left has failed to head the above.
Do you think the Puritopians resent the fact that those very techniques propelled Barack Obama into the White House without their support? It feels that way to me.
I completely feel that way, Allan. The president had achieved what the left puritains had only pontificated about for the last 40 years: building a largely grass roots organization to take the reins of political power. And they cannot abide by the fact that he did it without their approval.
Obama’s success is also threatening to those who insist the entire system is a failure, hopelessly corrupt and unresponsive to the will of the people.
I must admit that prior to President Obama, I was drifting towards assuming a “hopelessly corrupt” system. It is his presidency that has revived my faith and brought me back from the abyss ;-)
I watched Obama reach out to the “netroots” when he was a Senator, and get his hand slapped for doing so. Its always seemed to me that he decided to forgo working with them and built his own grassroots movement focused on organizing rather than activism. I believe they resented the hell out of that (and his subsequent success) and it is a big part of the reason for their attacks.
Thanks for that anticdote, Smartypants.It’s not a surprise, either. The “nutroots” aren’t exactly known for their intelligence. PBO understands that organizing works-activism doesn’t.
I believe that Obama decided to run for two reasons: (1) the disaster of the Bush years created the first credible opportunity in American history for a black man to get elected President and (2) the campaign of Howard Dean showed that you could organize an effective nationwide campaign without access to the political machinery of the national party (which was effectively locked up by the Clintons). In other words, Obama learned from the netroots what worked and combined it with his experience as a community organizer to create a hybrid organization.
Good point, Chris.
Well Chris, I will not dispute you too much but just a little. Some in the DNC were all happy and prepared to “groom” Obama to possibly run in 2016 but supported Hillary Clinton for 2008. President Obama, for whatever reason decided to jump the starting gun, as it were and ran early.
I don’t mean to be negative but I think she would have lost the GE. The Clintons just have too much baggage and Bill is a liability. We saw this play out in the primary. Hillary has been stellar as SOS, just imho.
Our Prez is a consummate “community organizer.” I just don’t think any of his critics, detractors or skeptics realized that for President Obama, his “community” is the whole world.
I think the same things as you. I also think it was Dick Durbin who “drafted” Obama to run in 2008 instead of waiting until 2016 which I suspect was the original plan.
I’ve never heard that, and really, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If Clinton won in 2012 then she would be running in 2016. Why would they be grooming someone to run in 2016 if they already had someone planned for it?
Hillary 2008-2016 and then Obama for 2016. I’m thinking they planned to have him for her VP. Just my guess. I don’t really know.
Gah. My reading comprehension sometimes goes south. All apologies.
My first thought is to see how much Alinsky was informed by Reinhold Niebuhr – who I believe is the one that originated the idea of separating “the world as it is” from “the world as we want it to be.”
For years now I’ve been thinking that the left simply wants to adopt the methods of our predecessors and not think through the principles beneath them to develop strategies for today. Its why I don’t buy in to the kinds of protests they organize these days.
With all the tools we have at our disposal, it seems to me that we could invent some new ways of actually having an impact if we concentrated more on the principles of what we’re trying to accomplish.
I guess what that means is that its time to study “Rules for Radicals!”
One final postscript: This is fabulous writing Allan.
First of all, thanks for stopping by, and from a writer of your gifts, that is a deeply valued compliment.
Second, a quick search of the text finds a footnote citing Niebuhr in the second chapter, Of Means and Ends. Your instincts are sound.
I’m enjoying this. One thing I learned when we trying organize farm workers is you definitely have to start where people actually are rather then trying to drop kick them to where you want them to be. We heard over and over: “You must be in their space and fully empathic to their needs, wishes & limitations. Do this are and you are effective. Forget this and you fail.” My job was mostly helping people with language and reading skills to empower them as agents of the changes they wanted. I learned a lot.
I’m not much of a debater and I tend to avoid people who just talk over me & who cannot be moved. That’s my failing. When I canvass, which I love because the one on one really works for me, and I meet people like this I tell them to “have a nice day” and move on.
I’ve learned to engage people by asking them questions like:
“What do you want and need? How would this look to you? What do you think you could do to get this? And then I really listen close to what they say. Most of the time they talk themselves right into where I would like them to go.
This works for me. I think I will be learning a lot here to help me with GOTV. Just a couple of thoughts…. This isn’t the ’60′s anymore, new age, new times but some people are still stuck back there. It’s a complex world that changes every day. Those who will not adapt and be led will be dragged.
Thanks for this and the opportunity to participate.
I wouldn’t call that a weakness. You sound like you have low tolerance for foolishness. Those people you described are a waste of time. It sounds like a great strategy to me. Why debate one when you can have ten with one conversation? It’s the “smart people” that have turned me off with trying to help.
Thanks. I really admire people who can debate well even with difficult people. I know my limitations. I get too emotional and if I’m really angry I tend to cry. This is real sucky debate tactics, and as a woman makes me look stupid and ineffectual.
Agreed, Vic. I remember trying to debate a rabid Tea Party guy at the local supermarket once. He wasn’t worth my time, so I just let him go. Some people are just stuck in their foolishness and that’s it.
I understand your point, Aquagranny. I’m not that great of a debater, either. Which is probably why, if I do any volunteering for the PBO campaign, I’ll do telephone calls. You can’t see them, and there’s no big threat.
Phone banking is so important, and you’re right, it’s pretty painless. These days you get a lot of answering machines and no answers, and when you’re calling for OFA, you’re generally calling a fairly specifically targeted list. You’re mainly just trying to classify the voter as a yes, no or undecided so that others can follow up on the ground later in the campaign as I describe in my comment below. I would explain to my volunteers that getting a no, or even a “number has been disconnected” message helped the campaign, because we could then remove it from the lists and not waste more time trying it again later.
I second vic78′s observations. Organizers focus on persuading the persuadable. When I was doing GOTV canvassing for OFA in Nevada, my walk lists showed the addresses where the campaign had already identified an Obama supporter, someone who was undecided, or a home that no one had been able to reach by other contact methods.
My mission at the supporters’ homes was to make sure they knew about early voting or had definite plans to get to the polls. At the undecided homes, to engage in the conversations you describe, and at the unknown homes, to find out if there were any of the supporters or undecideds.
If someone at such a home told me Obama was a Muslim, or if their yard was full of signs for GOP candidates, I just moved on to the next house. Spending any time with them would be a waste of my time.
I had a wonderful conversation with an undecided voter at one home. The lady of the house was pleasant, older, seemed well-read and educated, and seemed genuinely torn. This was a small mining town 100+ miles outside of Reno where most people are Republicans, and she probably voted for many GOPers in her time.
As she talked, she mentioned that she always wished Colin Powell had run for President. Now I knew that was her way of saying that she wasn’t prejudiced against African-Americans, and I also knew that Powell was going to appear on Meet the Press the next morning, and the buzz was that he would endorse Obama.
So I told her, “You know, Powell is a great man and I agree with you. Oh, did you know he’s going to be on Meet the Press tomorrow? I hope you have a chance to tune in and hear what he has to say, because they say he’s going to endorse someone for the Presidency.”
When I walked away from that house, I knew my time had been well spent.
I recently engaged my apolitical, Catholic boss in a conversation about politics. I wasn’t exactly canvassing…more just getting a feel for where he’s at so as to understand how the silent (non-Tea Party) conservatives feel. I opened by asking him who he was going to vote for.
His answer: NOT OBAMA. The smirk that accompanied the remark was telling.
He went on to explain to me, with some prodding, what it is about conservatism that he likes. He mentioned family values, views on small government, low spending, the elimination of the welfare state.
I didn’t push him, because I knew that if I started spewing details of Obama’s record he’d gloss over and dismiss it as some liberal’s rehearsed sales pitch. Also, I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve, or in my facial expressions, so I didn’t want him to think I was baiting him only to turn his arguments around and trash the GOP’s record on spending, small government, family values, etc. I thanked him and left it at that, opening the door for a future conversation.
I took the approach right out of Rules for Radicals. Usually I’d laugh at his ignorance of what the GOP has become. Instead, I let him tell his side. In the next conversation, I think I can be collected enough to cite the reasons he’s going to support a Republican in 2012 and tactfully insert a few things to think about: such as Obama’s work with Republicans to rein in the deficit, cut spending, and eliminate the bureaucracy in D.C.
You can’t go slow in a conversion with everyone, and you probably fail 9 times out of 10 even when you have the time, but I’m making my boss a pet project, to test the method and see what impact I can have.
This is a delicate process and I admire your patience. Many Latinos are also conservative especially on issues of women’s choice, LGBT rights etc. The concept of “Family Values” means a lot because family and community are intrinsic to our culture. Latinos may hear “Family Values” from Repubs and think that this means the same to them as it does to the Latino community.
It then becomes a gentle process of bringing some Latinos to really understand what those two words actually mean to Repugnants.
However, given the Repugnant actions of the last two years and some really vile words. I think my job will be much easier this year.
that’s fantastic. please keep us posted. you may liberalize him yet!
I would like to know what the boss feels about why supporting Obama doesn’t support family values. After all, the guy is still married to his first wife, whom he obviously adores, and makes sure there’s time in his schedule to spend with his kids. And seems to have his mother-in-law living with him at least part of the time. Where’s the threat to family values?
“Family values” is a nebulous concept created by the GOP to confuse the voters, QED!
This was my first time reading any Alinsky, and I can see the influence it has had on PBO’s style of politicking, and how OWS has missed the boat by starting where they would like to be, and not where they’re at.
Alinsky’s answer to the question of “You still want us to work in the system?” is profound, and where I find the OWS movement now. In order to institute real change, you have to have some skin in the game. Sometimes you lose, although you can always brush the dirt off and learn how to organize better. I feel like the squatting in camps idea hasn’t born fruit, so somebody needs to organize better and try again. It seems as though they’re gonna try self pity and psychosis before reorganizing and making an impact on real legitimate politics. Which to me, is gathering a responsible and intelligent group to draft some legislation they can lobby for. Until then, they’re an eyesore to the general public, and have done very little to further discourse in the past few months.
That said, OWS is lost, but not a failure. They need community organization to make a real impact. Here in HI they sit on the corner and hold signs, and little else. It would be nice to see them engaging people in some way, rather than merely sitting around all day.
I look forward to reading more with you folks!
[Alinsky’s answer to the question of “You still want us to work in the system?” is profound, and where I find the OWS movement now. In order to institute real change, you have to have some skin in the game. Sometimes you lose, although you can always brush the dirt off and learn how to organize better. I feel like the squatting in camps idea hasn’t born fruit, so somebody needs to organize better and try again. It seems as though they’re gonna try self pity and psychosis before reorganizing and making an impact on real legitimate politics. Which to me, is gathering a responsible and intelligent group to draft some legislation they can lobby for. Until then, they’re an eyesore to the general public, and have done very little to further discourse in the past few months.]
GREAT comment. And you’re absolutely right. OWS has furthered the national discourse a little bit, but not much. IMO, OWS is nothing more than a re-run of the failed “strategy” of the anti-war movement in the late 1960′s. I can’t repeat this enough-they FAILED. They did not end the Vietnam War. They did reach SOME of their goals, but not ALL of them. Alienating the general society does nothing to change it. All it does is harden their attitudes towards you and your cause. When you attempt to “work within the system” attitudes change. Just look at the LGBT movement for an example. There were many of us who wondered why we continued protesting when it didn’t seem that protesting was working. So, some of those people founded the Human Rights Campaign, and others decided to “work within the system”. Is it perfect? No. But-the LGBT movement is further along than most thanks to the people who got the notion that protesting is nice, but really does nothing to further your cause. It’s not protesting that needs to be done-it’s ORGANIZING. Alinsky understood this.
The LGBT movement has been rather fractured over the years, with lots of arguing about strategy and tactics, but what ended up happening is that groups of people who agreed on a particular strategy got together and started pursing it, instead of trying to convince everyone else their strategy was best.
Thus you have groups pursuing change through legislation, others through the courts, and still others focusing on organizing and building relationships, as well as those who just show up to picket and sign online petitions. Without meaning to, this “all of the above” approach has ended up advancing the cause as much or more than if we had all settled on one approach. If DADT wasn’t undone by Congress, it was facing some serious legal challenges. As Congress is weighing an overturn of DOMA, it’s been dealt a blow by the DoJ.
The answer isn’t always to unify behind a single strategy, but instead to tackle on many fronts simultaneously.
Right, Allen. There’s been a lot of people who have problems with HRC over their tactics. However, HRC has done a lot of good. So have others who chose other ways to organize. Thing is, we ARE organized. When we need to, we protest. Otherwise, we organize. I’m not saying protest can’t work, but if all you DO is protest, you’re going to be ignored. That’s why Dr. King was such a genius. He realized that organization AND protest was the best way to reach his goal. So does Alinsky.
I have never thought of the LGBT movement working on three fronts, but its true, and that makes sense looking back at the recent achievements made possible by our fearless leader. keeping pressure on the legislative and judicial fronts are absolutely necessary, and the only way to create substantial change in the legal system, while appealing to individuals in the community and throughout the country is the only way to change the culture, and public opinion.
the one thing that i’ve loved with the LGBT movement is their sense of humor when approaching serious and sensitive issues.
alinsky wrote in the prologue-
“humor is essential, for through humor much is accepted that would have been rejected if presented seriously”
i think that is why the average american isn’t just siding with gay people, they’re falling in love with them as a part of our daily lives, our culture, and the world. the “gay agenda” is working, but not for the reasons republicans would think.
this pretty much sums up my entire blogging style. aside from making serious subjects more palatable to my readers, i use humor to keep myself from going batshit crazy (crazier.)
and THAT is why we love you imani.
every single day, you (or one of your wonderful minions) brings us the truth wrapped in various shades of humor.
to me, yours is the most informative blog online, because your wit keeps me engaged with current topics i’d be otherwise overwhelmed by.
excellent comment. i have equal contempt for the third party folks as i do for the “not gonna vote” folks. they whine about a duopoly while doing nothing to make a third party feasible.
nader is the biggest offender. he’s had 30 years to turn the green party into a political force. he’s done jackshit except to pop up in election years and fuck everything up.
you deal with the world as it is. “burning it down” is just pseudo-revolutionary bullshit. and it’s unrealistic. if the intent is truly to burn the government down, these clowns need to either make friends with right-wing and heavily-armed militias or stop living in a fantasy world. the government has tanks. the emos have patchouli oil. you’re not burning down shit. you’re just making it difficult for the rest of us to move the country forward inch by inch.
alinsky talks about having to open up the lines of communications with those whom you hope to convince of your position. a lot of the OWS folks can’t even open up lines of communications with folks who are already on their side. they prefer to say dumb shit like “well, we’ll be here fighting for your rights.” sure you will.
thanks for moving the national conversation. it was great for a while until it became all about camping and jane hamsher making occupy supply beer cozies and what not.
the whole thing irks me.
[you deal with the world as it is. “burning it down” is just pseudo-revolutionary bullshit. and it’s unrealistic. if the intent is truly to burn the government down, these clowns need to either make friends with right-wing and heavily-armed militias or stop living in a fantasy world. the government has tanks. the emos have patchouli oil. you’re not burning down shit. you’re just making it difficult for the rest of us to move the country forward inch by inch.]
ABL, thank you for saying this. You said it better than I’ve been trying to.
you deal with the world as it is.
Accepting this little statement, which is obviously and trivially true, is the source of the whole conflagration we call politics and culture war and activism and ‘ideological disputes’. It’s only because people don’t deal with the world as it is, and instead adopt self-servingly false pictures of the world, that progress is so hard to come by.
Not just progress, of course. But acceptance of the truth as well.
acceptance of the truth is the hardest part of political discourse. it is in our nature to hold on to preconceived notions of reality, but it is also in our nature to learn through experience and perception. i think that is why choosing the battles we undertake, and prioritizing them for their impact or value to the country as a whole is one of the most important skills one can have “politically” (which is why i’m still laughing at the grinch’s call for a moon base – sorry newt, we don’t really NEED one).
This is why President Obama has been so deliberate in his choice of battles, and why history will look at him as the master of holding his cards close, and until they’re most useful. He shows the public, explaining why his ideas make sense, while the opposition poo poos any idea from his side of the aisle, crying wolf about socialism, and planning a lunar vacation.
anyways, we’re winning. ideas cannot be stopped, especially good ones that hold weight.
acceptance of the truth is the hardest part of political discourse.
Word. And it’s amazing, to me anyway, to witness the intellectual contortions some people put themselves thru to maintain their false self-serving pre-conceptions. If I could invent a meter to gauge this reality-reconstructing-energy by, I think we’d be blown away by the numbers. For some people :)
Part of the problem is that lots of people want their deeper motives to remain hidden – even from themselves! – in situations where they would otherwise be exposed to the light. So they expend a tremendous amount of energy to reconstruct a story which appears transparent, but becomes so disconnected from reality that only ‘like minded people’ would ever grant that it passes the smell test.
And all too many people these days are olfactory challenged.
intellectual contortionists. ha! the GOP is home to the olympic team of mental gymnasts. hell, they craft the narrative while the average republican has to bend and stretch just to agree with their leadership.
i agree with the notion that many try to keep their own motivations hidden from themselves, whether out of denial or just plain ignorance. it is these individuals that are dangerous to the process, and need to be pointed out, pointed at, and laughed out of politics.
i think most in america don’t have the time to keep up with politics, so they accept, writ large, what the leadership says in one soundbite. whether they lean left or right, it is a dangerous path, because what may sound good, may not be true. but once that soundbite gets out, it’s halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on. much like the perception of Obama signing the ndaa, or OWS being a union scheme to get more democratic votes in the fall.
people simply don’t fact check, they “heard it on the news”.
Yup. Alinsky nailed it to the wall when it came to the failure of the anti-Vietnam movement and the ’60′s far left. Problem is, the Far Left is still too busy trying to look “cool” by rebelling against the so-called “Establishment” which is why they were foolish enough not to take his advice. Their hatred of the Vietnam War soon turned to hatred of this society. When they realized that their ideals meant nothing and that they had to grow up, they either decided to take their ball and go home or they sold out to Ronald Reagan. They were victims of their ideals. Sometimes, being practical is more important than being idealistic. Practicality means that you realize that you have to use what you have in order to reach a realistic goal. Using what you have means working WITHIN the system to get things done. Of course, for some of the late ’60′s far Left, that would have meant trying to act and dress like adults, and I can tell you from having met some of the more hardened hippie types, that would have been impossible.
Which means WE now have the golden opportunity to take the torch handed to us, and leave the Far Left where it belongs-breathing our dust as we do what they failed to do because they were too good to take Alinsky’s wise advice. I’m looking forward to the next chapter-and I hope I made sense here. There was a LOT of information to take in.
Bravo! Nailed it! I still have a few items of clothing from the ’60′s but I wear them for Halloween & when I visit Boulder, Co, lol not when I want people to take me seriously.
I was hoping that made sense. :)
Thing is, people would HAVE taken them seriously if they had worked within the system like Alinsky suggested instead of just going ahead and rioting. I understand they were angry, but the only thing anger does is distract you from the ultimate goal. Taking that anger and using it to achieve your goals is much better than “burn baby burn”.
the first day OWS got press attention, my original thought was “someone needs to buy these people polos.” instead they ran around looking like some punk bands i grew up hanging out with. black shirts, black pants, black shoes. ugh. everything ripped and soiled.
look neat in a crowd that size and you stand out. if everyone looked presentable, in fresh clothes and with their press-time game face on, they would have gotten waaaay more traction from day one. of course no one wants to be a square, or certainly look like one, but they’re preaching to the bell curve and not the margins.
precisely. alinksy says something about the psychology of community organizing — something like if “the squares” aren’t going to listen to you if you have long-hair, then cut your hair.
fact of the matter is, if you look like a scrub, people are going to treat you like a scrub. if you are unkempt, your message gets lost because people are looking at you wondering why you haven’t showered in a week.
of course OWS balked at the notion that they had to “conform, man” while totally ignoring the optics of the movement. just as alinsky says, they’re so concerned about being an individual special snowflake that they’ve placed “i gotta be me” above the goal of the movement which is to sway “ordinary” people who are feeling like everything sucks but who aren’t necessarily going to head down to an occupy location. these people can be reached. let’s hope OWS does more to reach them.
I found elon james’s article about the difference between OWS and Occupy the Capitol to be particular instructive and illuminating. Occupy the Capitol had a plan and they followed that plan. OWS seemed interested only in causing a ruckus and getting arrested. Of course few actually knew that getting arrested is part of the deal when you’re protesting in that fashion.
Oy. OWS is so frustrating.
wow. after reading the article, there may be hope for the “occupy” style of movement. every march i have read about has been a far cry from organized chaos, which is the image they intend to portray. every time i see an occupy camp in the media, i can’t help but think about the anarchy that precedes and follows any attempt at coordinated movement. its just groups of people screaming at the cops with journalists at the fringes trying to get a good picture.
like take back the capitol, OWS could be coordinating with unions and outside groups, having them bussed in, executing multiple marches at one time, and afterward meet up for a final rally, to make the largest impact. optics trumps volume every time. if we saw an image we could empathize with, we’d be more willing to listen. until then, the general public will keep the occupy show on mute until it gets cancelled or tragedy strikes at one of the camps.
Thanks for posting that, ABL. And Elon James is right. Occupy seems to be more interested in screaming, yelling and getting arrested than affecting ANY social change. They still think getting arrested DOES anything?
Yup. They sure have an allergy to conformity. Thing is, “rebellion” isn’t even rebellion anymore. Youth culture has been consumerised to the point of ridiculousness. Occupy doesn’t even realize how ridiculous they look. You look at the civil rights movement, and they did EVERYTHING different. Men were in their best suits. Even the kids dressed up. Occupy would have gotten more notice if they had taken a cue from the civil rights movement rather than the Vietnam War movement of the late ’60′s.
And this is very timely as things are going down in Oakland tonight. Someone had a conversation on Twitter with an Occupy person that is highly germane to this book chat: http://chirpstory.com/li/4020
well, i guess that settles it. destruction of public property is part of the movement, like drum circles and mic checks. destroying a publicly funded civic center isn’t bringing attention to the fact that the private banks made shitty loans and got away with it. it looks like anarchy down there, not action.
i don’t get people’s lack of respect for the flag. they dishonor the freedom they claim to fight for by destroying the symbols that remind us of how far we’ve come.
my generation drives me fucking nuts with this shit. shooting ourselves in the collective feet because we get restless and wanna break stuff. es estupid.
[i don’t get people’s lack of respect for the flag. they dishonor the freedom they claim to fight for by destroying the symbols that remind us of how far we’ve come.
my generation drives me fucking nuts with this shit. shooting ourselves in the collective feet because we get restless and wanna break stuff. es estupid.]
And they don’t realize that SOME of us have relatives who died under that flag-myself among them. My uncle Claude was in the battle of Pellaleu Island in World War II. He died there. My father was a Marine during the Korean War (he didn’t get sent to Korea because he was the only living male in his family). We don’t appreciate that shit. If they want to wipe their ass, they should do it with ANOTHER flag.
That’s why I said on my blog that anger is very dangerous to a movement. It’s a two edged sword-sometimes it works towards your cause-but most of the time, unchecked anger does NOT work towards your cause. The President is right to ignore OWS.
Yikes. I read that chirpstory and the report about what happened along with some of the comments on cnn.com, and what struck me is how there was not a single mention from anyone of what OWS stood for besides doing what they want where they want. They’ve totally lost the message of their original purpose. Given what lousy advocates they are, maybe that’s for the best.
First, I love the book.
Second, I understood Alinsky to mean that the difference btwn activists and organizers is one of control.
Activists push an issue or position.
Organizers give people the tools to act collectively, and let those people then determine what issue or position they prioritize or choose.
I think that’s why Alinsky sees his model as more fluid and adaptable. He’s not seeking to control the dialogue or priorities.
Thank you! In a few words, you expressed most all my thoughts on this issue.
[Activists push an issue or position.
Organizers give people the tools to act collectively, and let those people then determine what issue or position they prioritize or choose.I think that’s why Alinsky sees his model as more fluid and adaptable. He’s not seeking to control the dialogue or priorities.]
And that’s a part of the reason organizing works. It’s like that Chinese saying-”Give someone a fish and they will eat for one day; teach them to fish and they will eat for a lifetime.” When you give someone the tools to do something for themselves, they get serious and start working for their ultimate goal. That’s where OWS failed. When you give someone a picket sign with no organization backing them up, there’s no ultimate goal to work for. There’s just “down with _____” and that’s it. That’s why OWS is now ignored. If the people behind OWS had also invited Organizing for America or other groups doing the same thing, and got people to register to vote rather than just stomp around banging drums, it would have been much more of a success.
Exactly Doc! Some of these people can’t seem to get the concept that telling people what they need & just expecting them to jump on board with no real framework and no organization will produce a big FAIL.
We mostly can all agree that our current process of rewarding the greedy and expecting everyone else to pay is an epic FUBAR. But some of these OWS people don’t bother to put themselves in the place of a single mother who might lose her job if she’s late for work or a student who could miss an important exam when they block a road or close a bridge.
In some ways it seems to me that OWS can be as heartless & uncaring for the struggling people they profess to represent as the 1%. Some of what they did seemed so juvenile & purposeless to me and they failed listen to folks like John Lewis who might have given them some direction.
When Occupy Tucson said “they weren’t interested in voting rights or voter registration” that roasted the chili pepper for us! I thought Sis was going to have a stroke, her BP went so high. She said: “How can these estupidos expect to change anything if they don’t get the people out to vote?” She was really pissed and let them know it but they blew her off. They stuck a fork in us and we were both so DONE!
Well, Doc Marten, I don’t know that OWS had the same goal as Alinsky did.
Alinsky says “this is about power: how to get it, how to use it”
What he doesn’t say is what to use it FOR.
He’s leaving that part up to the people he’s organizing.
Nice, Kay. What you say here is both the beauty, but also the criticism, of OWS. I think their message is clear. And since we’re talking about it on this thread, I think they accomplished lots of their goals.
precisely. and i love his response to the people who were so disillusioned by the 68 DNC: essentially, get your asses organized and next time YOU be the delegates.
that’s what pisses me off about these third party folks. they’re not willing to do the work — from the bottom up — that is required to attain political clout. it doesn’t matter how progressive the executive is; if the legislative branch is full of right wing nutbags, then nothing will get done. i get so irritated by the folks who seem to forget that congress exists. for example, those people who are so disappointed in President Obama should be working locally to flip any Senate and House seats they can. Instead, I get the sense they’ve just thrown up their hands and are hoping that after 4-8 years of Republican rule, everyone will be ready for President John Q. Progressive. It just doesn’t work like that. Frustrates me to no end.
I told someone on their FB page who was moaning about dealing with Ronulans and their various and inconsistent arguments against President Obama from the left and right simultaneously: don’t get bogged down in trying to “defend” the administration or explain the challenges of effecting change within a tri-partite system of representative democracy. Instead, flip the script and ask THEM to explain how, precisely, President Paul would end the wars, or the Fed, or legalize drugs, or whatever position they were praising Paul for holding. They won’t be able to do it, they’ll keep changing the subject, but if you stick to that line of questioning, you will exhaust them before they exhaust you.
Allan – this is the technique I use most often. Just had a discussion yesterday with someone who kept repeating “double standards of the media” when it comes to uncovering right wing lies. I had mentioned the crosshairs in Missouri, and he said the OWS were just as bad. I asked him for an example. He didn’t have one. But those who have bought into the right’s storylines don’t really care. They demand you prove a negative, but when you ask them to back up their statements, they ignore/deny/try to minimize it.
The real problem I see isn’t in trying to woo those that have picked their team. It is, as Alinsky talks about, getting those who *haven’t* picked a side to come over to yours. There are far more of those than the right would like to admit, and more than OWS and the professional left realize. The “99%” meme is beautiful, because it does set up the playing field. Where OWS missed the mark, in my book, is getting that 99% to realize they ARE the 99%. The folks in the Midwest who can’t pay bills look at the emo-dressed kids with iPads in NYC and think “They’re not like me at all”. And so, the message goes unheard. For all their technological advantage, their social media experience, OWS has missed the fundamental point to all of it: Making the masses feel part of the movement. Instead of “We’re doing this for you”, it should have been “How can we help you?”. That would have resonated.
Good point, Kay. I don’t think they had the same goal either. My personal opinion of them is that they were just so angry they wanted to throw a public temper tantrum. That’s why I pretty much ignored them for the whole time-they were NOT serious about changing things at all. If they want to change things they organize, and instead of occupying Wall Street they occupy a VOTING BOOTH, as ABL put it.
Alinsky’s goal was to organize groups that were disenfranchised. Women, Black people, Hispanic people and so on. So, no-his goal was not the same as OWS. I think OWS wanted to call attention to the silently developing oligarchy in this country. And they DID succeed in that. Problem is, they didn’t even try to bring the “silent majority” to their side. I think that’s what we have been talking about. That said, it’s my feeling that moderates and militants need each other to affect social change. Dr. King did a great deal, but would he have gotten the white power structure ruling this country in the 1960′s to listen to him if Malcolm X hadn’t been glowering at them at the same time? Both sides have their worth. It’s just a matter of channeling the energy of the militants to work for the moderates. Does that make sense?
Excellent sense!
“To a significant degree, they did, and the 1972 convention gave us McGovern and an overwhelming landslide for Richard Nixon. Did Alinsky give them bad advice?”
My immediate response would be, “they were delegates at the wrong convention”. But was it the “wrong” convention? Or should it have been both conventions? I simplify Alinsky’s prologue down to the basic principle of “infiltrate and then influence”. Rush Limbaugh’s overt call for “Operation Chaos” is a good example, in my opinion, of exploiting this basic principle of effecting change in an opposition. Although Limbaugh’s true goal was to simply instill a sense of paranoia and distrust among Democrats, the foundation of “believability” is based on a premise Alinsky establishes regarding the infiltration of the system and playing by the established rules in order to change those rules or, at least, effect the outcome of those rules. A less conspicuous example would be the Ron Paul Libertarians. Actually, it’s a blatantly obvious example, but only after recognizing there are real citizens that are committed to effecting change even if it means an apparent “lapse” in principle on particular issues or associating with individuals that advocate for an opposing view. To some, this might be called “selling out”. But is it really selling out if the goal is to influence the opposing view? Which takes me back to Limbaugh…infiltration is a covert action, inherently “less conspicuous”. Announcing an organized infiltration is only effective in generating suspicion, anger and, of course, fear. In other words, chaos.
To the original question, I answer that the advice was good, but the execution of the plan for reformation was flawed.
I agree. And I would also note that getting more delegates who share your agenda at the convention, even prevailing in your choice for the nominee, is not sufficient to win a general nationwide election. Working several hundred people into the Democratic Party over four years in order to gain access to the convention as delegates will not force the entrenched party machines of the states to throw their energy and enthusiasm behind the candidate they did not want to win. Nor has it persuaded general election voters that your preferred candidate is the best choice for the country.
The Obama team outplayed the Clinton team on the turf of delegate math, even though the Clinton campaign had in its corner the very people who wrote the rules under which the Democratic Party operates!
But equally importantly, they were methodically identifying supporters all across the country and empowering them to lead neighborhood teams who made the phone calls and knocked the doors and did the person-to-person organizing.
Remember that OWS is infiltrated by people who want to destroy it. Also, a lot of the people are just learning (how to get the power to maintain our democracy) and make mistakes. I think OWS has changed the conversation and energized a lot of people so now we need to leverage that, not drop the ball. Many of us have been trying to shine light on ‘socialize the costs, privatize the profits’ style laws for decades. I just watched A Bright Shining Moment, about McGovern’s political career. It was a reflection of this discussion, makes me realize how long this has been going on.
But if OWS is leaderless and driven by the people who comprise it, then those people you describe as infiltrating it to destroy it are part of OWS and their views are just as valid as anyone else’s, aren’t they? Isn’t that a problem? Don’t the Larouchies and Paulbots who show up have the right to persuade the others that their ideas are best? When you say, oh that person over there, who’s here camping out with us and communing with us, he’s not really OWS and we’re not responsible for what he does, then aren’t you defining OWS to your own convenience?
I agree with Linsky in that the rules of engagement vis-a-vis protest movements need to include radicalism and wisdom but disagree that incremental changes to the system is revolutionary or that working within the system produces revolution. From my study of history, it appears that working within the system nets little more than reformation evidenced by the Civil Rights Movement , Womens Movement, etc. These movements did not change either group’s relationship to power though they did produce an improved existence.
I’m coming late to the party, I’m afraid: had to work.
A couple things. First, I think we need to be careful when we talk about the “far left.” Alinsky was on the far left. I’m on the far left. The question is about method. The Spartacists are not the only Marxist group out there, for example. Lots of Marxists are organizers.
More important, and maybe in a different theme than much of the discussion here, is that Alinsky offers a way out of the problem radicals in “mature” capitalist societies face, which is that of space. The ostensibly revolutionary spend a lot of time talking about what the revolution is or will be, with nearly no discussion of where it is or will be.
So, if we look at what gets called the “revolutionary tradition,” from 1789 in France through 1917 in Russia and then to 1949 if you want to count the Chinese Communist seizure of power, in all of those you had revolutionaries who were able to establish zones that were physically outside elite control.
The point is often made that the various French Revolutions–1789, 1830 (if you want to count it), and 1848 were possible because the streets in Paris, the politcal center, were narrow. It was easy to throw up some blockades, seal off your quartier, and hoist either a tricolor or, later, a red flag. Napoleon III hired Hausmann to redesign Paris with those lovely thoroughfares (the ones that so inspired Bud Powell). Tough to blockade, and the Commune of 1870 was crushed.
Alinsky writes:
“Spouting quotes from Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara, wwhich are as germane to our highly technological, computerized, cybernetic, nuclear-powered, mass media society as a stagecoach on a jet runway at Kennedy airport?” (xxi)
What I can say OWS has done well, if semi-consciously, is to identify the problem of revolutionary space in this country–or rather clarify the lack of it. The Zapatistas could establish autonomous regions because the Mexican state can’t fully control its own territory. In the US, as the Panthers found, our working-class areas are fully infiltrated by capital, not only economically, but psychologically.
Alinsky is right to say that we must work within the system here, because here in the US there’s no getting out of it.
Interesting point regarding space to revolt, especially with Napoleon’s redesigned Paris choking the populist movement and the Zapatista’s control of land outside of Mexican gov’t control. I never gave the physical space needed to gather much thought. One thing OWS did right in my opinion, was finding a location where ousting was a legally grey area. Clever move, and it has bought them weeks and months of time I never thought possible.
“Alinsky is right to say that we must work within the system here, because here in the US there’s no getting out of it.”
I think this is why Alinsky’s philosophy survived his death, and is still growing in acceptance. America is always refining itself, albeit slowly and in spurts, but every civil rights movement has been a micro revolution, some more effective than others, and all working towards a more perfect union.
Aquagranny: I agree with 99% of what you say. The one exception is that I can’t think of a single activist, at least not the ones I knew (and there were a lot of us in the 60s in Houston) who weren’t holding down jobs to put themselves through school. It is true that state tuition was pretty cheap back then but we survived by sharing living quarters and working – many of us full-time while attending classes at night. I’m sure there were some who did live off of family welfare but I don’t think they were the majority.
This is an excellent idea for a series, this book chat. Maybe Pig Newton did us all a favor by bringing Alinsky back to the forefront (especially for younger folks) and reminding us of what a great mind he was.
Sorry Leslie I never meant to imply that there were not tons of folks out there at that time working their butts off to make things better. Just that I knew SOME just like the PL of today who were privileged, whined a lot and did absolutely nothing.
I did some anti-war stuff but I mostly worked to organize and help our migrant and exploited farm workers. The whining, privileged, PL types were worse than useless and didn’t last long when it came to the real work. They could talk a big fight but never expect them to have your back.
Maybe I am prejudiced.
As a Liberal Boomer…I think we made three big mistakes back in the 60′s and 70′s. First and maybe foremost we didn’t make common cause with each other or our allies. There was the Civil Rights movement, anti-War movement, Women’s movement, AIM, the LBGT movement, Farm Workers, the Green movement and other issue movement groups. As I look back not only did we fail to support one another but we didn’t make common cause with Big Labor or poor whites, which allowed the bigots claim we hated hard working Americans. We were so intent on rejecting Labor and the Democratic party as part of the problem. That we allowed someone like Nixon to beat a Humphey (old school Liberal) and a McGovern (Bobby Kenndey Liberal). In short we divided and we allowed others to divide us. Second we failed to understand two important points that change (political) takes time and people are afraid of change. It is much easier to accept the status quo because it is known. People can deal with the status quo, its the unknown that causes fear. Finally our third mistake was not using the system. We could have used the system against itself, it would have taken time and everyone wants change to be quick. We should have worked to move the Democratic party, in some counties the Chairmen is elected by showing up at a meeting…..how easy would it have been or is to find out when the County has it’s meetings and bring some friends. A third party President will not make change because he/she will not have the power with Congress or in the Media. So those of us in the Left must work and support Democrats. There is no other choice IMO…….
Thanks, gar, that’s extremely insightful and one of the best summaries I’ve read.
Glad you realize what the problem with the ’60′s Left was, Gar. That’s the first thing I saw when I studied that movement. There was NO interaction between movements at all. NONE. The anti-War movement ignored the others instead of reaching out to them and getting organized. Another big mistake.
There was another problem which I failed to mention, we thought that we needed to only find and support “pure” candidates for elected office. No such person exists….Politics is about compromise. Give alittle, get alittle, move forward. That is why so many of us dropped out, we didn’t understand the nature of politics. These are some of the same mistakes OWS and some bloggers are making now.
Gar, both your comments totally nailed it! No interaction or mutual support and too much “purity.” Have we really learned anything since then? I really hope so. At least our President really gets it.
Nelson Mandela spoke the African concept of “ubuntu” that is:
What hurts you, hurts me and also this earth we share. It is time we take this concept to heart. I truly believe that our President has done so.
Ah, purity. Purity only gets you crappy candidates. Rather than worrying about the ideology of a candidate, they should worry about whether or not that candidate can actually win an election. For example, John Kerry. Great Senator, great ideology-lousy candidate. Same for McGovern. Purity of ideology can be used to beat your candidate into the ground, which is exactly what Nixon did to McGovern. That’s why I worry less about purity of ideology and more about whether or not a candidate can WIN.
I said a while back that the only time you’re going to agree 100% of the time with a politician is if you are that politician. Otherwise, you’ll always be “disappointed.”
Wanted to respond to ABL’s discussion starter earlier regarding if Alinsky’s advice was bad as far as ’72.
I say “no” for two reasons:
1. Ultimately it seems to me, Nixon ended the Vietnam war before that election to defuse McGovern’s cause campaign. Those that took Alinsky’s advice and became delegates in ’72 helped that happen.
2.They didn’t take his advice far enough; they would have done well to also become the delegates at the Republican conventions as well so that either option was more sympathetic to their concerns. That’s why ultimately despite my agreements with my friends’ objections to Paul, I think he’s super good for the GOP’s inner debate and discussion in the sense that he constantly is questioning their hawkishness.
-T
“But if OWS is leaderless and driven by the people who comprise it, then those people you describe as infiltrating it to destroy it are part of OWS and their views are just as valid as anyone else’s, aren’t they?”
Excellent point.
I think many people feel the world is falling apart, however, I feel that many in the world are tired of living in poverty and oppression. Therefore, I think that the 1960′s youth are similar to today’s youth.
I do not feel that OWS represents all of America. They have a valid point that America has become a country for the rich and screw the poor. Many of the banks did unethical deals, however, I think it is a waste of time to protest this. Regulations were put into place to protect consumers. Many people do not even know what the purpose of OWS is. They are perceived as spoiled brats, that want to have their cake and eat it. Frankly, they are fading and a lack of leadership has been a problem.
“When you get older you’ll understand.” This quote made me laugh, as I have heard it often. People that say this make me angry. Just because you older than me, does make you better than me.
*Side Note* My Husband encouraged me to write something. I have trouble with reading something and writing what I think on paper. I am better with oral discussion. So there I did it.
Good points, Librl Okie. We’re not saying OWS doesn’t have valid points; indeed they do. Yes, this country has become a country for the rich and “screw the poor”. The problem is, how do we dismantle that and throw it in the trash where it belongs. We can get angry and riot, or we can use that anger to work within the system and CHANGE it. That change is already well on it’s way, but throwing temper tantrums, getting arrested and pepper sprayed in the streets is NOT going to affect change. It’s going to do quite the opposite. That’s what Alinsky meant.
Thank You Doc Marten. You can sign petitions, protest, throw tantrums, intentionally get arrested. This does nothing for change in our political system. Encouraging people to vote and voting to remove your Congressional Representative, who are not doing their job.
Exactly! Thank you for your comments. I had to laugh also at “When you get older you will understand” I’m older (old?) as age is very relative, sort of like quantum physics and I am still trying to “understand.” Maybe I am just not old enough yet, lol.
I am currently reading Alinsky. I don’t like labels other than “human” or “person”, but my age puts me in the boomer group.
Gar’s statement highlights our biggest challenge: “We could have used the system against itself, it would have taken time and everyone wants change to be quick.” I think technology has added to our impatience.
Anger can be a powerful motivator, if controlled (organized) and appropriately directed (activists). The most successful message OWS has projected thus far is to highlight the 99%. It is more difficult for the 1% to dehumanize the enemy when it is 99% of us.
I will keep reading.
I am currently reading Alinsky. I don’t like labels other than “human” or “person”, but my age puts me in the boomer group.
Gar’s statement highlights our biggest challenge: “We could have used the system against itself, it would have taken time and everyone wants change to be quick.” I think technology has added to our impatience.
Anger can be a powerful motivator, if controlled (organized) and appropriately directed (activists). The most successful message OWS has projected thus far is to highlight the 99%. It is more difficult for the 1% to dehumanize the enemy when it is 99% of us.
I will keep reading.
Excellent point, Linda. Yup, technology does add to our impatience. Instant gratification rules the day, but as a very wise person once said, instant gratification and social change are mutually incompatible. That’s why a lot of people dropped out of the ’60′s anti war movement. As for anger, yes it can be a powerful motivator, but there’s just some people who for some reason want to throw bombs. I guess it’s ‘sexier’ than rolling up your sleeves and working for social change.
Just wanted to drop in a link to this piece at the Chicago Reader on Saul Alinsky and Gingrich: http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2012/01/30/alinsky-and-gingrichseparated-at-mirth-alinskys-son-speaks