Knowing when to let the Church play its role and opposing Alinskyism

Catholic Bishops are working to build public opinion to end the blockade on Cuba,(1) moreso than Obama we might add. The bishops have also put up a web page to support universal healthcare in the united $tates, including legal immigrants. Private Catholic organizations run 624 U.$. hospitals.(2)

The Pope is also out to the left of our supposed communists here on international economic questions — class itself. All our left-wing of parasitism does here is claim that its pot-smoking and free love are real advance.

When to hand off to someone else is a crucial question of political understanding. Who do we want? Do we want Avakian, Kasama or the CP=U$A which are going to give conscious justifications for why MIM is wrong about economics when MIM is obviously not wrong about economics? Do we want people who are going to end up supporting wildly racist rationalizations like even the KKK can’t get away with in the United $tates anymore? The trouble with alleged Marxists is that they are the ones supposed to be interested in profits and their source. If they reject the flat-out MIM truth again and again, how could the Nazis possibly come up with a better racist recruiting tactic? The answer is that even the KKK does not have this keen racist hook that the left-wing of parasitism has. It is pragmatist but conscious denial on class exploitation which is the most wildly racist thing we have going in the United $tates.

Second choice after the MIM scientific vanguard goes to Bono, Oxfam, the Pope, Imam Khameini and Sayyid Qutb followers. We do not want to do things that irritate people and drive them into the looney right-wing organizations and the mafia or fake communist organizations that are more confusing than they are worth.

Saul Alinsky had experience with Capone in Chicago. He organized a lot of people along the lines of ACORN today. However, he had no insight into social forces in global context. As a result, his book Rules for Radicals is vague philosophy, the type of which Marx already castigated in “The Poverty of Philosophy.”

His political economy is at the crude level of “Haves” and “Have-Nots,” but his decision to pursue 50%+1 is his only real dogma–whether on Wall Street, in the golf club or at the stockholders’ meeting.

He spends much time talking about using impure means to win, but the reason is that he did not know a thing about sociology or political economy. Hence, he did not know what means were in front of him. One should not spend much time philosophizing about means and ends vaguely. It only produces unprincipled people. What one must learn to do is how to recognize means when they are sitting in front of you. Then as Alinsky says one will do better things. Leaving the question at the philosophical level denies the role of science in uncovering means, and that is the whole reason for having a vanguard party.

At the moment we have another Alinsky problem which is that “in war the end justifies almost any means.” (Alinsky, 1989, p. 29) The problem is the united $tates is already in wars, so using impure means is to use impure means to stay in a war. That should make it clear right away that Alinsky framed the whole pragmatism question incorrectly.

Because he did not know anything about means, only unprincipled tactics, Alinsky assumed he had to win “lower-middle-class workers” (Alinsky, 1989, p. 66) and deemed his organizers inadequate if they did not. The same line comes from the RCP=CIA milieu. “Because of their relatively small numbers [indigenous–ed.] I thought that they should then work with various sectors of the white liberal population, gain them as allies and then begin to move nationally.” (Alinsky, 1989, p. 110)

Alinskyism is pure bourgeois Liberalism with a counter-productive effect in the rich countries. The whole line about picking a target individual as in a slogan “down with the Bush regime” is Liberalism. Alinskyism chops things down to that level, because it does not see any means to wage an anti-Liberal fight. Alinskyism is blind. The whole Obama cult is an example of Alinskyism. It has been worth a good 10 or 15 percentage points on the dollar’s value or hundreds of billions being sucked out of the Third World a year, because loving Amerikkkans is what causes weak class struggle and lopsided business deals. The egotists could not see this in advance, because they did not have any means to.

Alinsky’s assumption was ignorant of social forces: “ORGANIZATION FOR ACTION will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class.” (Alinsky, 1989, p. 184) John McCain just proved that wrong in 2008 as did Bush in 2004 and others before them.

More importantly, the international united front is the locus of real change, not Amerikkka. We have to put the international 90% of population first and stop coming up with rationalizations for being unprincipled exploiters.


Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (NY: Vintage Books, 1989).



%d bloggers like this: