Rules for Radicals: Prologue and Chapter 1

I remember why I like Alinsky's work so much. Although his patriarchal language can be cumbersome to work through at times, the richness of his revolutionary spirit is palpable and exhilirating.

I was struck by a few of the passages and concepts in these opening pages.

• Building a powerful organization and seeing revolutionary change takes time. Nonetheless, we must organize (for power). And, "Radicals must be resilient" (p. 6).
• Revolution necessitates a prior reformation: "A reformation means that the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don't know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless" (p. xxii). I guess I am also led to think more about my entry below on seeking our "collective responsibility." What are your thoughts on the connections or disconnections between reformation and revolution? I also like how he differentiates between revolution and evolution.
• Beware of dogma. "Dogma is the enemy of human freedom" (p. 4). What are the dogmas we need to shed? What will help us ask newer and deeper questions? Can we become comfortable with doubt? With complexity?
• "The prerequisite of an ideology is possession of a basic truth" (p. 10). What are some of our basic truths?
• "We must first see the world as it is and not as we would like it to be" (p. 12). This reminds me of Lebowitz's "revolution of radical needs," for which we understand both that the world must change and we must change. It also reminds me of bell hooks' when she suggested that if we do not change our consciousness we cannot make change or demand change from others. Alinsky is asking us here, on my read, to continue to demythologize our world--see it as it really is, so we know what has to change. Simultaneously, though, I think he is asking for Lebowitz's and hooks' self-change. What can we do as a Network to continue this demythologization? What can we do to help each other with self-change? (I think his example on p. 13 is perfect.)
• Beware of the Do-Nothings: "[They] profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change" (p. 20). Can we think of any examples of Do-Nothings in our lives? Why are they, perhaps, the most dangerous among us? "Change means movement. Movement means change" (p. 21).
• I was also taken by his Trinity--finding myself firmly implanted in the Have a Little Want More group. I'm reminded of Kivel's concept of the buffer zone--where the middle class resides between the privileged elite and the masses of oppressed. Our work (as teachers, social workers, nurses, etc.) serve to assuage the immediate needs of the oppressed, but does little to overturn the system set up by the elite (and complicitly approved by the middle class--thinking that one day maybe we'll have a shot at the big time). Where do you find yourself? (for more information on Kivel, you can check out his longer piece on social service or social change?)
• We must understnad that our freedom and welfare are intimately connected to and dependent upon the freedom and welfare of everyone else.
• We must find the low road to morality: "the most practical life is the moral life and the moral life is the only road to survival" (p. 23). I'm reminded here of Marge Piercy's poem The Low Road: it goes on one at a time/it starts when you care/to act, it starts when you do/it again after they said no,/it starts when you say We/and know who you mean, and each/day you mean one more. I'm also reminded, of course, of Johnson's caution to avoid the path of least resistance.

What else stood out to you? What questions are you left with?