Friday, 01 April 2011

Saul Alinsky and Class Warfare

Written by 

Class warfare, as we have been told by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and every other socialist and communist, is inherent in capitalist society because of the conflict between management and labor, between the owners of corporations and their employees, between the workers and the bourgeoisie. And the only solution to this conflict is the peaceful or violent transfer of corporate ownership from the stockholders to the employees.

That in essence is what is meant by class warfare. Of course, in different countries it has taken on different forms. In the case of Russia, it was evidenced by the confiscation of all the means of production, including farms, and the creation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Germany, under the National Socialists (Nazis), it meant forcing all private companies to serve the State and confiscating all companies owned by Jews. In Communist China it involved the confiscation of all productive property by the Communist Party. In the socialist democracies of Western Europe, it has been indicated by strict government regulation of the economy.

In Cambodia it meant the murder of anyone who wore glasses, because glasses were a sign of the educated elite. If you wore glasses, you were an economic "Have" (as opposed to a "Have-Not"), and therefore had to be eliminated in favor of the new communist rulers.

In America, we’ve had our first small taste of socialist class conflict in what happened at General Motors, which is now known by many as Government Motors. The federal government bailed out the corporation when it was in financial trouble. It then required the company’s bondholders to be satisfied with exchanging their bonds for securities worth 10 percent of the company or about five cents on the dollar. Meanwhile the United Auto Workers' retirement trust was given a 40-percent stake in the company. The U.S. Treasury became GM’s major stockholder.

But America’s corporate economy is still largely intact, despite increased government regulation of what corporations can and cannot do. And that is why radical revolutionary Saul Alinsky decided to develop his own American form of class warfare. He divided American society into three economic groups: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores.

In his book Rules for Radicals, he wrote:

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1532 in the context of a feudal society. We live in a constitutional Republic where the Haves earned or inherited what they have. Most of our Haves have worked long hours in small businesses to create their fortunes. The protection of private property is the cornerstone of our economy. But Alinsky wants to teach the Have-Nots how to take that property away. That is known as the “redistribution of the wealth.” It is really legalized larceny. Alinsky goes on:

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world into a place where all men and women walk erect, in the spirit of that credo of the Spanish Civil War, "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." This means revolution.

Let’s look at America’s Have-Nots. Are they living on their knees? Many of them dwell in subsidized housing and own color TVs, refrigerators, microwave ovens, comfortable couches, air conditioners, cellphones, cars, fashionable clothes, and more. Many even own computers. They also have food stamps and access to medical care if they need it. Their children attend public schools free of charge. Indeed, America’s Have-Nots own more personal property than 90 percent of the people on planet Earth. They don’t live on their knees and have no intention of dying on their feet. Most of them have jobs, and those who can’t or don’t care to work are helped by the government.

But Alinsky advocated creating mass organizations to help the Have-Nots seize power. And what will the Have-Nots do with that power? They will give it to the New Haves.

As we all know, Barack Obama was a community organizer. He had to be a radical revolutionary in order to qualify for the job. Alinsky also offered the job of community organizer to Hillary Rodham, but she turned it down — probably because she was not interested in a career organizing raging mobs to intimidate corporate officers. She preferred going to Yale to become one of the liberal Haves.

As for the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores, they are the middle class who are supposed to want to be like the Haves. That may be true of those who study at the Ivy League universities. But most people in the middle class want to left alone by government so that they can pursue the many interests Americans have: breeding horses, owning a beauty salon, selling clothes, working in an office, writing a book, publishing a magazine, running a real estate agency, building houses, fixing roofs, becoming a gourmet chef, lawyer, or physician, and anything else you will find in the Yellow Pages.

As for the Wisconsin mobs trying to prevent a conservative state government from doing its job, are they the Have-Nots? They are the phalanx of the revolution to do what the Have-Nots don’t want to do. Most of the latter believe in God and don’t want to rob the rich. It is the university-educated secularists who believe in socialism. They have been robbing the taxpayers of Wisconsin blind and don’t want to stop.

As for the Haves, there are two types: liberal and conservative. For the Alinsky crowd, liberal, world-government Haves such as George Soros and David Rockefeller are okay; conservative Haves such as the Koch brothers are not. In any case, Alinsky’s vision of American class warfare does not reflect American reality. Class envy has never been an American trait. We would all like to become rich. And most don’t resent those Americans who have used their efforts and talents to become wealthy. Indeed, it is through those efforts that Americans have achieved a standard of living which Machiavelli’s prince could never have dreamed of.

The average Have-Not in America lives better and more comfortably than all the Kings and Emperors in the centuries before the advent of capitalism. And this is the economic system Alinsky’s radical revolutionaries want to kill. But judging from the booming lottery business, investment speculation, Las Vegas, and hard-working entrepreneurs, the only revolution most Americans are interested in is the one being waged by constitutionalists to restore America to what it used to be: the land of freedom and opportunity.

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media