Saul Alinsky??

[Guest]

Now that we have an active discussion going regarding Rush Limbaugh, what about the oft-referred to Saul Alinsky from the far left liberal side of things?

A few here refer to Alinsky as if he were the second coming of some of the worst and fearsome people in the world. Although I'm from Chicago and knew that Alinsky was an activist who worked to better the lot of the immigrants who worked in the Chicago stockyards back in the 1930's, I didn't know much about him. So I did a little biographical research.
He attended the University fo Chicago where he majored in Sociology.
Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on the self-interest of corporations, banks and utilities.
In the 1930s, he organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago for the purpose of correcting the horrific working conditions in the Union Stock Yards.
Alinsky is most well-known for authoring the book, Rules For Radicals. His book was published in the 1960's and proposed strategies for working within our democratic system for those who want to change our society and economy from what it is to what they believe it should be. Alinsky was decidedly anti-militant during a period when violence and militancy was prospering.
Alinsky taught that to bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, attempting to activate both the lower and middle classes of society to correct the excesses which they suffer that are brought on by the wealthy upper classes, corporate America and political leaders.
His book contains a list of Rules For Radicals that outlines a set of tactics that organizers of the lower and middle classes can use to more effectively change their relationship with the upper class and corporations. Nowhere in Alinsky's rules is any use of violence or illegal behavior suggested.
Alinsky's "rules" are best described as a set of tactics likely to be effective for the lower classes to be more effective in negotiating with the upper classes and corporations. They are based substantially on the psychology and knowledge of corporate behavior and the democratic system.
If one takes the time to read Alinsky's rules, every one of his twelve rules were consistently used by both political parties use during political campaigns. The way almost all candidates and political parties embrace Alinsky's rules is quite amazing. Read the rules at http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm
Alinsky is often credited with laying the foundation for the non-violent grassroots political organizing that dominated the 1960s. Later in his life he encouraged stockholders in public corporations to lend their votes to "proxies", who would vote at annual stockholders meetings. His call to stockholders only began to take hold in U.S. progressive circles in the 1990s, when shareholder actions were organized against American corporations, principally for socially liberal objectives.

So, this guy who is frequently referred to in threads here as someone whose theories and rules are to be feared and disdained doesn't seem to be such a bad guy at all. A very smart guy, but not a bad guy...unless one is a member of the upper class, high corporate management or a sitting politician. He's feared because he was so effective in postulating ideas for the lower and middle classes to more effectively improve their lives in a non-violent way, working legally and effectively within the democratic and corporate systems.

I wondered why some continually ridicule Alinsky or any who have associated with him? Then I realized that ridicule is fundamental to Alinsky's rule number six in his rules. It says, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating".

Now I understand better that many of those that disagree with one side or another politically, or candidates for public office, use Alinsky's Rules For Radicals as a basis for their arguments, negative advertising and campaigning.

[Guest]

Now that we have an active discussion going regarding Rush Limbaugh, what about the oft-referred to Saul Alinsky?

A few here refer to Alinsky as if he were the second coming of some of the worst and fearsome people in the world. Although I'm from Chicago and knew that Alinsky was an activist who bettered the lot of the immigrants who were so badly taken advantage of in the Chicag stockyards back in the 1930's, I didn't know much about him. So I did a little biographical research.
He attended the University fo Chicago where he majored in Sociology.
Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on the self-interest of corporations, banks and utilities.
In the 1930s, he organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago for the purpose of correcting the horrific working conditions in the Union Stock Yards.
Alinsky is most well-known for authoring the book, Rules For Radicals. His book was published in the 1960's and proposed strategies for working within our democratic system for those who want to change our society and economy from what it is to what they believe it should be. Alinsky was decidedly anti-militant during a period when violence and militancy was prospering.
Alinsky taught that to bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, attempting to activate both the lower and middle classes of society to correct the excesses which they suffer that are brought on by the wealthy upper classes, corporate America and political leaders.
His book contains a list of Rules For Radicals that outlines a set of tactics that organizers of the lower and middle classes can use to more effectively change their relationship with the upper class and corporations. Nowhere in Alinsky's rules is any use of violence or illegal behavior suggested.
Alinsky's "rules" are best described as a set of tactics likely to be effective for the lower classes to be more effective in negotiating with the upper classes and corporations. They are based substantially on the psychology and knowledge of corporate behavior and the democratic system.
If one takes the time to read Alinsky's rules, every one of his twelve rules were consistently used by both political parties use during political campaigns. The way almost all candidates and political parties embrace Alinsky's rules is quite amazing. Read the rules at http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm
Alinsky is often credited with laying the foundation for the non-violent grassroots political organizing that dominated the 1960s. Later in his life he encouraged stockholders in public corporations to lend their votes to "proxies", who would vote at annual stockholders meetings. His call to stockholders only began to take hold in U.S. progressive circles in the 1990s, when shareholder actions were organized against American corporations, principally for socially liberal objectives.

So, this guy who is frequently referred to in threads here as someone whose theories and rules are to be feared and disdained doesn't seem to be a bad guy at all. A very smart guy, but not a bad guy...unless one is a member of the upper class or high corporate management. He's feared because he was so effective in postulating ideas for the lower and middle classes to more effectively improve their lives in a non-violent way, working legally and effectively within the democratic and corporate systems.

I wondered why some continually ridicule Alinsky or any who have associated with him? Then I realized that ridicule is fundamental to Alinsky's rule number six in his rules. It says, Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating.

Now I understand better that many of those that disagree with one side or another politically are actually using Alinsky's Rules For Radicals as a basis for their arguments.


You know, I am not going to discuss this issue.

I brought this up many many times during the campaign and you and others either ignored me, the many many links I provided or made fun of me and mocked me.

All I will say is this...

He dedicated his book on radical action to Satan

Secy of State Clinton wrote on him in college and despite your cannonization of him, her paper was buried by the White House during her husbands run for the WH and during the presidency. These are facts.

I sure wish you had this interest when I was posting about him day in and day out !

[Guest]

Bucco, I'm not saying that I agree with all that Alinsky said or proposed. I am certainly not canonizing him. If he dedicated his book to Satan, shame on him. He has that right in this country, but I don't have to agree with him.

I chose not to get into any discussion about Alinsky during the campaign for a couple of reasons. First, he wasn't running for office. More importantly, he died before Barack Obama was even a teen-ager. Why was he worthy of any discussion during the campaign at all? Even his book was out-of-print before Obama began his political career.

But I was surprised to learn that he was non-violent. Should I have known that earlier? Probably, particularly in that I'm from the South Side of Chicago and had relatives who worked in the stock yards. In fact, my Dad went to high school only blocks from the stock yards during the years that Alinsky was so active there. I was surprised because you consistently referred to both Alinsky and William Ayers as "bad guys", almost in the same sentence. Ayers certainly was, and I mistakenly assumed that Alinsky was as well. But my research didn't prove that. Alinsky was smart and effective and operated at the far left-wing end on social issues, but from all that I read did nothing illegal or even immoral.

I can certainly understand why people who are true conservatives differ with Alinsky's social agenda. I'm specifically not referring to the Republican party or even the "blue dog" Democrats because neither have embraced true conservative principles in their legislation and governance in several decades. I'm speaking of true conservatives, who embrace that philosophy in every sense -- fiscal, social and political. I can understand why they might differ with Alinsky's tactics for leveling the playing field between the social and economic classes in the country.

But what was most surprising to me was to read Alinsky's twelve Rules For Radicals. Each and every one of Alinsky's rules have been consistently used by almost all candidates for political office from both parties in the last few elections. I found that quite amazing. He must have discovered something pretty important to have that many politicians embrace his tactics.

[Guest]

Bucco, I'm not saying that I agree with all that Alinsky said or proposed. If he dedicated his book to Satan, shame on him. He has that right in this country, but I don't have to agree with him.

But I was surprised to learn that he was non-violent. Should I have known that earlier? -- probably, particularly in that I'm from the South Side of Chicago and had relatives who worked in the stock yards. In fact, my Dad went to high school only blocks from the stock yards during the years that Alinsky was so active there. I was surprised because you consistently referred to both Alinsky and William Ayers as "bad guys". Ayers certainly was, and I mistakenly assumed that Alinsky was as well. But my research didn't prove that. Alinsky was smart and effective, but from all that I read did nothing illegal or even immoral.

I can certainly understand why people who are true conservatives differ with Alinsky's social agenda. I'm specifically not referring to the Republican party or even the "blue dog" Democrats because neither have embraced true conservative principles in their legislation and governance in several decades.

But what was most surprising to me was to read Alinsky's twelve Rules For Radicals. Each and every one of Alinsky's rules have been consistently used by almost all candidates for political office from both parties in the last few elections. I found that quite amazing. He must have discovered something pretty important to have that many politicians embrace his tactics.


Alinsky was aligned with the communist party in Chicago.

He worked with Frank Nitti and Al Capone to organize labor there.

I dont recall any one person ever saying he was violent.

Read on you will be disgusted even though you are correct about his rules being used. As I said it is so bad that the Clintons had her writings on him buried while in office and that you can verify on the net anywhere.

I made the point during the campaign that President Obama was very very enamored with him and studied him at great length as did Che Guevara.

Sorry you did not read the many links I provided earlier. This is ONE of the associates, NOT THE ONLY ONE, that bothered and bothers me about our current President as I said then. As an organizer, he was very very much involved in what Alinsky said.....he, despite the rebuttals, had an association with Bill Ayers, another radical (dont care if he reformed or not...he is a killer)....these kind of associations would absolutely derail any politician (see the Clinton hiding of her writings) at any other time...and if we are honest we know that is the case. However, the hate for Bush and the decision by the media that Obama was the "one".....so much of this has been covered...it will surface I truely believe it. He is a great orator and with the Bush years it was the perfect storm to make this election possible.

Read more about Alinsky...I never said he as a man was violent...but VK...dont know about you....but I was always taught that you are known by your associations !!! People in public life sometimes cannot help sometimes having "questionable" associations, but a man in his mid 40's whose primary and most significant associations are radical and "questionable" are what scare me and I have yet to hear anything or see anything to dissuade me from that fear !

[Guest]

I made the point during the campaign that President Obama was very very enamored with him...

...This is ONE of the associates, NOT THE ONLY ONE, that bothered and bothers me about our current President

...I was always taught that you are known by your associations !!! People in public life sometimes cannot help sometimes having "questionable" associations, but a man in his mid 40's whose primary and most significant associations are radical and "questionable" are what scare me...!

C'mon Bucco. Saul Alinsky died when Barack Obama was eleven years old! At the time, young "Barry" was living with his grandmother in Hawai'i. What "association" could he possibly have had with Saul Alinsky?

If you're referring to Obama's embrace of the effective tactics developed by Alinsky in his Rules For Radicals published in the 1930's (a quarter of a century before Obama was even born), President Obama is guilty. He used those tactics quite effectively in organizing the poor, mostly black residents in Chicago when he was a community organizer.

But again, I suggest you re-read Rules For Radicals. It's pretty clear that almost all political candidates from both parties at almost every level embrace Alinsky's tactics. It's like the campaign manager for one of the presidential candidates replied when asked why they used so much negative campaigning..."Because it works", he answered. So many people seem to have adopted the tactics in Rules For Radicals because it's pretty obvious that they work. President Obama is far from alone in that sense -- among politicians from all political parties and idealologies.

[Guest]

C'mon Bucco. Saul Alinsky died when Barack Obama was eleven years old! At the time, young "Barry" was living with his grandmother in Hawai'i. What "association" could he possibly have had with Saul Alinsky?

If you're referring to Obama's embrace of the effective tactics developed by Alinsky in his Rules For Radicals published in the 1930's (a quarter of a century before Obama was even born), President Obama is guilty. He used those tactics quite effectively in organizing the poor, mostly black residents in Chicago when he was a community organizer.

But again, I suggest you re-read Rules For Radicals. It's pretty clear that almost all political candidates from both parties at almost every level embrace Alinsky's tactics. It's like the campaign manager for one of the presidential candidates replied when asked why they used so much negative campaigning..."Because it works", he answered. So many people seem to have adopted the tactics in Rules For Radicals because it's pretty obvious that they work. President Obama is far from alone in that sense -- among politicians from all political parties and idealologies.



Election is over, but I never meant that he knew and hung out with Alinsky....when I posted last night I was simply trying (unsuccessfully) to recap the campaign from my perspective.

I know that Alinsky was not an associate....Ayers was....Rev Wright and others were...Alinsky and the communist Frank Davis were simply folks who had a great impact on President Obama's life (his words in one of his autobiographies...they differ from each other)

And if you finally do more research, you will find that Alinsky taught agitation, class warfare and the like. I dont care about any one book...if you read President Obama's autobiography and stories from those who knew him in his Chicago days, he almost worshiped Alinsky.

Now, my point was and the election is over but just to clarify since you brought this stuff back up.....his idols are folks like Alinsky and Davis....he associates with Ayers and Wright and that type all of his adult life.....he is only in his mid 40's so what other major impact on his actions could there be ?

[Guest]

Election is over, but I never meant that he knew and hung out with Alinsky....when I posted last night I was simply trying (unsuccessfully) to recap the campaign from my perspective.
I know that Alinsky was not an associate.

You said: "This is ONE of the associates, NOT THE ONLY ONE, that bothered and bothers me about our current President as I said then.":shrug:
Kind of misleading, at best.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=KayakerNC;185127]You said: "This is ONE of the associates, NOT THE ONLY ONE, that bothered and bothers me about our current President as I said then.":shrug:
Kind of misleading, at best.[/QUOTE

You are correct ! As I said I was trying to give a recap of much I said during the campaign last night and this morning I mentioned that I erred.

Thank you so much for pointing that out...does not speak to the total picture but thanks for pointing that out !