Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
I did read it a few years ago, and I referred back to it today to answer the Marxist claims.
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
The website above uses select, carefully selected quotes from the book to advance the claim that Alinsky was a communist. A closer examination of all that he wrote proves this is not the case. |
Maybe you should research the path Alinsky took to arrive at his "Rules."
Alinsky never formally joined the communist party. In fact, he never joined
any organization, even those he helped to found. However, he was undeniably inspired by the works of Marx and Lenin. He took terms that had been used by them and recycled them to brand them as his own:
Lenin and Marx talked of "the proletariat taking control from the bourgeoisie."
Alinsky championed the "have nots taking control from the haves."
Same thing in my book. Just different words for revolution in order to install a system of redistribution of wealth and power.
Lenin and Marx wanted revolution to implement socialism which would give way to a system of pure communism.
Alinsky didn't use those words. He - once again - recycled those words in order to make them sound as though they were his own. His words for "socialism" were "social justice." An examination of what he meant by social justice was basically taking from the haves and giving to the have nots.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... well, you know the rest.
Regardless of whether or not you admit that Alinsky's roots were in Marxist ideology, one thing is certain: his "rules," which was basically a recipe for bringing about change of the social and political orders, were adopted by the latter day Marxists to gain power.
The original premise of my post was to make a distinction between Marxism-Leninism and Alinskyite Marxism.
The point I made is that Alinskyite Marxists are more likely to follow his prescription of fomenting revolution through infiltrating existing power establishments, i.e. the ballot box, than through violent revolution which would be the domain of Marxist Leninists.
If you did some research, you'd know that Alinsky was a proponent of Antonio Gramsci's method of gradualism. Gramsci was an Italian communist who opposed violence to bring about the desired result, instead favoring a measured approach using existing institutions to slowly - over a period of years if not decades - to achieve revolution.
You cherry picked a couple of quotes in an attempt to make some point. You should proof read them before you cut and paste them.
Here's the real quote:
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of
communism."
Also, you said that Alinsky was Jewish. Then how do you reconcile saying in the next breath:
"Alinsky writes. "Dogma is the enemy of freedom. Dogma must be watched for and Apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement."
Is there anything more dogmatic than communism; unless it is Christianity-or any religion?"
I agree. So why does Alinsky disapprove of something as dogmatic as religion while maintaining his ties to Judaism?
Sounds hypocritical to me.
But then again, Marxism always has largely been "do as I say, not as I do."
