Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals Paperback – October 23, 1989

The purpose for my reading this book was self-educational and an effort to be open-minded about the broad political spectrum that exists today. I found Alinsky's book to be enlightening, thought-provoking, interesting and very relevant. In fact, I strongly feel that "Rules for Radicals" provides a great deal of insight to the current state of political discourse in United States. However, after reading the book, I found myself wondering if Alinsky ever imagined his "radicals" achieving success to the point in which they themselves ultimately become victims of their own methods.

"Rules for Radicals" is essentially a guidebook that encourages individuals to gather, organize and develop a battle-plan to spread a socialist agenda; there is even a list of tactics to be used. Alinsky has conveniently simplified the complex socio-economic landscape of the United States into three groups: The Haves (upper-class), The Have Some, Want More (middle-class) and Have-nots (poor). It is explained that the Haves are the minority that possesses all the wealth/power which is used to ruthlessly exploit the lower classes to enforce their status-quo and maintain their wealth/ power. The Have-Some and Have-nots are basically characterized as being numerically strong, but also mindless and weak ... forced to a life dictated by the Haves. Alinsky then introduces the "community organizer" ... the do-gooder ... the pot-stirrer ... the "social-conscience" ... the one who will fight for those who "can't" or "won't" fight for themselves ... the one who will "take it to" the Haves. Ironically, I found that Alinsky's book provided more explanation of what our current President did prior to being in public office than any media source has ever tried to convey.

Alinsky then informs the reader what is needed to become an effective organizer in terms of education and necessary communication skills. But, in my opinion, the most revealing portion of his book is the chapter on tactics, where Alinsky details 13 rules to be implemented by the organizer(s) to take down the Haves. That chapter alone provided so much insight as to how the current leadership in this country came to power. The 5th, 8th and 13th rules ("Ridicule is man's most potent weapon", "Keep the pressure on" and "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" respectively) could easily explain the demise of President George W. Bush.

The remainder of the book provides assistance on how to get started, as well as citing a few successful examples of a competent organizer implementing the suggested tactics.

What Alinsky fails to explain though, is what happens when the organizers become the new Haves ... like today. Yes, the targets presented by the new Haves are still the traditional Haves (the wealthy corporations and their hierarchy), but the organizers also possess wealth and power ... meanwhile, the Have-Some and Have-Nots still wallow in the same state, despite all the political rhetoric and promise. So, I am asking myself if Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is simply instructions for one group of Haves to use against another group of Haves. Yet another way to exploit the masses by duping them into thinking someone is actually fighting on their behalf?

What I found quite amazing after reading "Rules for Radicals" is that I feel that I had stumbled upon THE liberal playbook. It is quite easy to look back at the lead-up to the elections of 2006 and 2008 and see Alinsky's handiwork. But, I find myself wondering if the "radicals" now in charge have unwittingly positioned themselves to be victims of their own game ... I guess that answer may come in 2010 and/or 2012.

I was curious about this book, as it was the handbook for President Obama's community organizing. Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis on Saul Alinsky. It was a revelation, as all the actions of Obama's presidency are outlined in this book. I can't say I actually liked the book, as I don't agree with Alinsky on anything, but it should be required reading for any who are politically and socially attuned. Alinsky is far to the left, but the book is well written. It is a handbook for revolution.

This book is a methodical collection of thoughts, actions, and principles from the master 1930s-70s radical, Saul Alinsky, for maximizing opportunities to influence masses of people into rejecting and fighting the status quo. If you share Alinsky's basic and fundamental beliefs, this book is a great 'how-to' for becoming a radical and political activist. If you are opposed to Alinsky's political activism, born out of his negative outlook of and perspectives on our American way of life, this book can help you understand the methods and the 'madness' of those people and forces that disrupt and try to tear down our traditional societal norms.

This book was not an easy read for I disagreed strongly with what he said about my country that I love and his general outlook on life. Alinsky used the following terms interchangeably: "activist," "radical," "organizer," "agitator,"
"revolutionary," and "man of action." Another 'word group' used frequently was the many forms and variations of "organize" and "organizer" - some 356 times in 196 pages. I found his approach to change and reform crafty, cunning, deceitful, insidious, and disingenuous. His methods are masterfully designed to take advantage of our imperfect systems, and human weaknesses and tendencies. Another disturbing aspect of the book was the predominance of militaristic language when discussing the 'how' and 'why' of his logic: war, battle, attack, tactics, enemy, and strategy.

Alinsky was smart and well-read, but I believe he chose to put his intellect and energies to use for detrimental purposes. He offered many observations and perspectives that differed from my own beliefs and experiences, which was not necessarily a problem, but coming after his "acknowledgment to... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer," I found his logic and morals seriously flawed.

Rating this book was a new challenge for me. I vehemently disagreed with so much of the content that giving it a lot of stars was out of the question. Objectively, it was well-written and structured to support the author's perspectives, so in that sense it was not a bad book. In the end, however, taken together, I believe Alinsky's beliefs and methods are negative, destructive, and counter-productive, and I could not rate this book as high as books that contribute more positively to the advancement of our American way of life.