Scan barcode
craftingcnage's review against another edition
5.0
A book that really shaped the compromises and ideals any organizer needs to make to face themselves, and the best way to go about setting your goals.
Plus, it was my Grandpa's favorite book!
Plus, it was my Grandpa's favorite book!
izzylashley's review against another edition
3.0
Very good, "The Prince" Machiavelli but for people who skew left.
proofofruin's review against another edition
5.0
five stars for the wisdom, practicality, timeless analysis of political behavior, and snide humor. it's a product of its time and while it's uncomfortably sexist at times and uses outdated language that could be considered offensive today, Alinksy's action-oriented, pragmatic approach to the ills of the nation is a significant departure from the liberal moral/ethical/philosophical wheel-spinning that dominates today's left-wing politicking and proves its usefulness fifty years past its original publication.
mllejoyeuxnoel's review against another edition
3.0
I could go for some feminist commentary on this one. I found Alinsky's arguments to be compelling but perhaps lacking in perspective.
melissa_who_reads's review against another edition
4.0
I found it well written, pragmatic, and thought-provoking. I read it on the Kindle, and found myself highlighting a fair bit. Some things were things I knew and had forgotten; some were things that rang true once I read what he said about them. Some things were dated, like the salaries of the lower middle class, middle middle class, and upper middle class ($35,000!), but most of it, sadly, was not.
In fact, it was amazingly applicable to today's world. The specific struggles may have changed ... but not all of them. Alinsky could go back to Woodlawn and do some organizing today, and Woodlawn would be the better for it. You could take from that "what was the point? if he organized it 50 years ago and now its just as poverty-ridden as it was then -- and maybe in worse shape in terms of crime -- what good did he do?" But I think Alinsky would argue that it's always an uphill struggle, because you are constantly trying to take power away from those that have it and give it to those who don't, and that is a continuous struggle. The moral value lies in the struggle to make life better for the maximum amount of people, and it is a cyclical endeavor: there is always a negative to every positive, which means constant struggle.
It does provide a framework for what works and what doesn't. Found myself thinking of why Occupy worked so well and then flamed out to a large degree: it was new, it was different, it was a definite threat to the established order: and as such, it made a splash and changed the conversation. But it didn't adapt new tactics when the old ones failed (winter, police suppression, etc.) -- so the story ended (though there are still some Occupiers who have adapted -- Occupy Hurricane Sandy, Occupy Save our Homes, etc). It's hard to make the same tactic work over a long period: Alinsky argues that people's attention span just isn't that long, that life and life's concerns take over after a certain point. So you have to work within that time frame. You have to get results within the time frame as well: you know you have a certain period to make the statement, and you can't let the opposition wait you out.
Alinsky argues for creativity, for intuition, for imagination -- for doing what you can with what you have, and engaging people and making it work. He also sets up a paradigm of respecting the people: get them to learn to make their own decisions, organize themselves -- this is the mark of a successful organizer.
So -- it was well worth reading. Still. After forty years, still relevant, still interesting.
I think the University of Chicago should be proud that their graduate wrote so well and so engagingly that he is still readable to later generations. I doubt they were, though :)
In fact, it was amazingly applicable to today's world. The specific struggles may have changed ... but not all of them. Alinsky could go back to Woodlawn and do some organizing today, and Woodlawn would be the better for it. You could take from that "what was the point? if he organized it 50 years ago and now its just as poverty-ridden as it was then -- and maybe in worse shape in terms of crime -- what good did he do?" But I think Alinsky would argue that it's always an uphill struggle, because you are constantly trying to take power away from those that have it and give it to those who don't, and that is a continuous struggle. The moral value lies in the struggle to make life better for the maximum amount of people, and it is a cyclical endeavor: there is always a negative to every positive, which means constant struggle.
It does provide a framework for what works and what doesn't. Found myself thinking of why Occupy worked so well and then flamed out to a large degree: it was new, it was different, it was a definite threat to the established order: and as such, it made a splash and changed the conversation. But it didn't adapt new tactics when the old ones failed (winter, police suppression, etc.) -- so the story ended (though there are still some Occupiers who have adapted -- Occupy Hurricane Sandy, Occupy Save our Homes, etc). It's hard to make the same tactic work over a long period: Alinsky argues that people's attention span just isn't that long, that life and life's concerns take over after a certain point. So you have to work within that time frame. You have to get results within the time frame as well: you know you have a certain period to make the statement, and you can't let the opposition wait you out.
Alinsky argues for creativity, for intuition, for imagination -- for doing what you can with what you have, and engaging people and making it work. He also sets up a paradigm of respecting the people: get them to learn to make their own decisions, organize themselves -- this is the mark of a successful organizer.
So -- it was well worth reading. Still. After forty years, still relevant, still interesting.
I think the University of Chicago should be proud that their graduate wrote so well and so engagingly that he is still readable to later generations. I doubt they were, though :)
ralowe's review against another edition
1.0
this book establishes a tradition that is the precondition for pure analysis. this books contributes to a situational ethics that produces self-interest as a divided and conflicted terrain, where self-interest may act in the interest of another self that isn't interested. pure analysis only emerges by virtue of an utter rejection of the inconsistent and contradictory "self-interest"ќ as devised by alinsky here. if dumb-ass saul d. alinsky had never chosen machiavelli as an interlocutor we wouldn't be in the shit we're in, this shitty fix that turns struggle into a commodity for speculation on the free market. this permits the calculation of 501(c)(3) means/ends based on a widely and ceaselessly versatile criteria. where neoliberalism may pass for struggle at any moment. anything goes where it should not. and never of any necessity but speculative. the compromise we live in now may perhaps seek some genealogy here.
yates9's review against another edition
4.0
The book describes the conceptual framework for a very practical mechanics of radical political resistance and transformation. It offers a view of what politics is that is somehow cynical because it is boiled down to amplifying polarised issues to creare the energy for action.
I am not an expert in political writing but I found the book at the same time a source of great insight, as is a damning review of how little independent intelligence plays a role in self determination.
In light of information society’s exposure to manufacturing of different issues, this work takes on a dark tone in that it as much a guide to the tactics of manipulatrd world views as it is guide to resistance.
I think we can do better...
I am not an expert in political writing but I found the book at the same time a source of great insight, as is a damning review of how little independent intelligence plays a role in self determination.
In light of information society’s exposure to manufacturing of different issues, this work takes on a dark tone in that it as much a guide to the tactics of manipulatrd world views as it is guide to resistance.
I think we can do better...
ewheels125's review against another edition
5.0
This was fascinating, intriguing, and such an interesting time capsule for the period. Plus, some genuinely solid advice that still holds up 50 years later