Prologue: The essense of this section is captured by the following--
1. Start from where the world is, not as you would like it to be.
2. Work within the system to affect revolutionary change.
"Any revolutionary change must be preceeded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change amon the mass of the people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This reformation is essental to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work within the system".
My Comments on Prologue:
1. The advice to "start from where the world is, not as you would like it to be" is good advice if one is going to hope to change anyone's world-view. An examination of both Peter's sermon to the Jews on the day of Pentecost ( Acts 2) or Paul's sermon to the Athenians (Acts 17) illustrates a different approach is necessary if worldviews are different. Peter approached the Jews with their Jewish background and history. Paul approached the Athenians with their history and background. If you wish to "change" a congregation to have a "missional" world-view instead of the inwardly focused world-view, you must start from reality, not what you wish. If an eldership in a congregation is inwardly focused, you must not "kick against" the pricks if you wish to affect change, but recognize reality. This does not, however, prompt one to "give up" . A "Christian" revolutionary -- and a Christian is a revolutionary as far as world-view is concerned--still will determine ways to affect change.
2. Working within the system to effect change is also a valid principle. Some examples in theology: 1) Christ came to the earth in order to effect "change" for those that would freely imbrace it. 2) The "incarnational" principle seems to be the most effective and Christ-like --within the limits of Christian behavior. For example, you can't change prostitues and drunkards if you never associate with them, but that doesn't mean you adopt their behavior. On the other hand, it is clear Paul had his companion adopt the Jewish behavior to reach them as he did others.
Now, I wish to change the focus on current political events. If you believe in the founding principles of our Constitution and free-market system, one must be very wary of progressives using this valid principle for change. The reason is obvious: progressives will infiltrate the system with sole purpose of changing it to their world-view. It will NOT be an assult from with-out that is obvious, but an assault from within.
Of Means and Ends: The essence of this section is captured by:
1. "To me ethics is doing what is best for the most"
2. "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times."
3. The ends justify the ends depending on: a) the means available vs the ends and b) who is in power. I.E "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"
The following rules are promulgated:
1. "Ones concerns with the ethics of means varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue."
2. "The 
judgment of the ethics of means is dependent up the political position of those sitting in power."
judgment of the ethics of means is dependent up the political position of those sitting in power."3. "In war the end justifies almost any means."
4. "Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occured and not from any other chronological vantage point."
5. "Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa."
6. "The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of the means."
7. "Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics."
8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of immanent defeat or immanent victory.>
9. "Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as benign unethical. "
10. "You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."
11. "Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"; " Of the Common Welfare"; "Pursuit of Happiness"; or "Bread and Peace".
My Comments on "Of Means and Ends"
There are several pragmatic statements here that on the surface appear to be true. For example, statements 1-9 would seem to "hold" in practice for many. The presupposition behind all of these statements is: 1) There is NO absolute right or wrong and 2) If the revolutionary ( community organizer), aggrieved group, or person in power believes their cause is "just" then any means necessary can be used to achieve those ends. There are several problems with these presuppositions. Clearly, God has given us distinct propositional truths that state what is "right" and what is "wrong" . Can we always discern this in difficult moral dilemmas? No. But, we are to "have our senses exercised by reason of us to discern both good and evil".
Second, who is to determine their "cause" deserves any means to carry out any means to achieve it. "Nietzsche calls for exceptional people to no longer be ashamed of their uniqueness in the face of a supposed morality-for-all, which Nietzsche deems to be harmful to the flourishing of exceptional people. However, Nietzsche cautions that morality, per se, is not bad; it is good for the masses, and should be left to them. Exceptional people, on the other hand, should follow their own "inner law."" Ultimately, this lead to the idea that "
God is dead" and that moral code would be man "created" by the "superman" ( "Thus Spake Zarathustra") . In this the "superman" creates his own values since God can no longer provide these values. He further believed that man's "Will to Power" explained man's motivation for his actions. If there is no absolute truth, then why not the above?
Postmodernism thought can lead to almost the same conclusions. For example in postmodernism, there is also no absolute truth. Here, the "community" determines "truth" and values. And, similar to the "will to power" of Nietzche, the group in "power" imposes these values on the those that might be outside or inside the community.
Statements 10 and 11 then are practical tactics for implementing any ends a person or group believes has a higher value that the means being used. Here direct frontal assault is abandoned as initially the "community organizer" or person who wishes to affect change does NOT yet have the power to impose his/their values. So...... one is encouraged to adopt the language that is acceptable in such broad terms that the group/country being infiltrated cannot object. Recent political applications would be slogans like Hope and Change. You also clothe your intent in high moral terms: e.g. "everyone has a 'right' to health insurance". Then you are free to use whatever means you wish to affect your end. In addition, once you have the power, you do not hesitant to use it ( though before you do you disguise it as much as possible so that it will be acceptable). Nietzsche would applaud the "creator" who creates these "higher" values. Allan Bloom in "The Closing of the American Mind" as early as 1987 chronicled the origins of some this thinking. As Alinsky is a product of the 60's, it is no surprise that these ideas are his.
Since our current politcal leadership both taught Alinksky's philosophy at the University of Chicago and was a community organizer, it should be no surprise that: a) broad language is used that appeals to the masses b) everything is clothed in high moral tones and c) any means possible is used to impose his values upon the country.
A WORD ABOUT WORDS: The essence of this section is captured by: Be careful of the words you use as all have "baggage" attached. But, know what you mean.
The word Power-- Use and achieve power. Know that the correct expression is "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The corruption occurs within ourselves.
The Word Self-Interest--Know that it is "self-interest' that motivates not any professed moral principles.
The Word Compromise--"It is making the deal,...If you start with nothing demand 100%, then compromise to 30%, you're 30% ahead. "
The Word Ego-"The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental that the leader.... the organizer is motivated by the desire to create.... to be a great Creator, to play God."
The Word Conflict-"Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society."
My Comments on "A Word About Words::
The definitions of power and self-interest appear to be correct. It is the ends to which power and self-interest are used that may become corrupting. Man has sought power since the creation. In large part this is what the seduction that Man could become like God was all about. Does this mean "power" is wrong? IF power is used in the service of others, no it is not. The apostles who wish to be on the right and left hand of Jesus when they thought He was going to establish an earthly kingdom were seeking "power". Jesus demonstrated true power in the Kingdom is "servant" power.
God is dead" and that moral code would be man "created" by the "superman" ( "Thus Spake Zarathustra") . In this the "superman" creates his own values since God can no longer provide these values. He further believed that man's "Will to Power" explained man's motivation for his actions. If there is no absolute truth, then why not the above?
Postmodernism thought can lead to almost the same conclusions. For example in postmodernism, there is also no absolute truth. Here, the "community" determines "truth" and values. And, similar to the "will to power" of Nietzche, the group in "power" imposes these values on the those that might be outside or inside the community.
Statements 10 and 11 then are practical tactics for implementing any ends a person or group believes has a higher value that the means being used. Here direct frontal assault is abandoned as initially the "community organizer" or person who wishes to affect change does NOT yet have the power to impose his/their values. So...... one is encouraged to adopt the language that is acceptable in such broad terms that the group/country being infiltrated cannot object. Recent political applications would be slogans like Hope and Change. You also clothe your intent in high moral terms: e.g. "everyone has a 'right' to health insurance". Then you are free to use whatever means you wish to affect your end. In addition, once you have the power, you do not hesitant to use it ( though before you do you disguise it as much as possible so that it will be acceptable). Nietzsche would applaud the "creator" who creates these "higher" values. Allan Bloom in "The Closing of the American Mind" as early as 1987 chronicled the origins of some this thinking. As Alinsky is a product of the 60's, it is no surprise that these ideas are his.
Since our current politcal leadership both taught Alinksky's philosophy at the University of Chicago and was a community organizer, it should be no surprise that: a) broad language is used that appeals to the masses b) everything is clothed in high moral tones and c) any means possible is used to impose his values upon the country.
A WORD ABOUT WORDS: The essence of this section is captured by: Be careful of the words you use as all have "baggage" attached. But, know what you mean.
The word Power-- Use and achieve power. Know that the correct expression is "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The corruption occurs within ourselves.
The Word Self-Interest--Know that it is "self-interest' that motivates not any professed moral principles.
The Word Compromise--"It is making the deal,...If you start with nothing demand 100%, then compromise to 30%, you're 30% ahead. "
The Word Ego-"The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental that the leader.... the organizer is motivated by the desire to create.... to be a great Creator, to play God."
The Word Conflict-"Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society."
My Comments on "A Word About Words::
The definitions of power and self-interest appear to be correct. It is the ends to which power and self-interest are used that may become corrupting. Man has sought power since the creation. In large part this is what the seduction that Man could become like God was all about. Does this mean "power" is wrong? IF power is used in the service of others, no it is not. The apostles who wish to be on the right and left hand of Jesus when they thought He was going to establish an earthly kingdom were seeking "power". Jesus demonstrated true power in the Kingdom is "servant" power.
Self-interest can become "selfishness". We are told to love our neighbor as ourself. This of necessity means there must be some "self interest" envolved. In Hayek's book on "The Road to Serfdom" he makes the distinction between these two concepts. And, in fact, our long term "self-interest" always associated with how we serve others.
The "compromise" here has everything to do about acheiving your ends --at the expense of the other party. In no sense is it used here in a "win-win" manner. This coupled with the Ego as defined here is a very selfish motivation appealing to one of the fundamental sins of man --to play GOD.
Conflict on the other hand is defined in a realistic way. Conflict per se is not wrong. Rather it is how it is handled that is either right or wrong. One of the Five Disfunctions of Teams (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Dysfunctions-Team-Leadership-Lencioni/dp/0787960756 ) defined by Lencioni is "consensus". This usually comes about through compromising of principles and leads to the lowest common demoninator of decision making.
The Education of an Organizer: The following is the essence of this chapter:
The Education of an Organizer: The following is the essence of this chapter:
"The area of experience and communication is fundamental to an organizer. An organizer can communicate only within the areas of experience of this audience; otherwise, there is no communication. The organizer, in his constant search for patterns, universalities, and meaning, is always building up a body of experience." Organizers must have these ideal qualities: "Curiosity", "Irreverence", "Imagination", "A sense of humor", "An organized personality" "A well integrated political schizoid" , "Ego", " A free and open mind and political relativity" . The organizer uses everything he can that ( any means) to create the ends he desires. He does this by organizing others.
My comments on The Education of an Organizer
The statement that an "organizer can communicate only within the areas of experience of this audience, otherwise there is no communication." This is a true statement for all teaching, training, and communication. One must start from the experience and understanding of his audience. The disconnect comes with the statement that the organizer uses any means he can to create the ends he desires.
