They’re not from “real” articles by “real” journalists/propagandists or whatever, just from random blogging idiots. I simply picked a couple of representative ones.
Goddamn, the second guy is just too dumb to breathe, but the first one freaks me out. Apparently he’s one of those peculiar Catholics who never heard of the New Testament and its values. And maybe a “rationalism”-worshipper, too… those traits, as I’ve seen in that corner of the blogosphere, aren’t as antagonistic as one might assume.
(Yes, Buckley might’ve been a decent man, but he shouldn’t have gone on TV with that voice. Alinsky’s is little better, but at least he sounds remotely like a public speaker. This might be just some kinda distortion on the record, I dunno.)
They’re not from “real” articles by “real” journalists/propagandists or whatever, just from random blogging idiots. I simply picked a couple of representative ones.
Representative of what? Why not give representative quotes from the very best and brightest Alinsky critics?
For instance:
Mr. Buckley: Well, I think that you’ve touched on a point that’s extremely interesting I would like to develop because you do have fascinating general notions. For instance, you said I’ll steal before I’ll take charity.
Mr. Alinsky: Yeah.
Mr Buckley: Now, suppose I’m the person you’re going to steal it from—would you consult my feelings if I were to say to you, before stealing from me—please, won’t you just take it? Or is it the act of stealing that gives you the satisfyaction that you require?
Mr. Alinsky: No, of course not. You know better than that. It isn’t the act of stealing. (Next of his remark blurred in overlap).
Mr. Buckley: Well, then it is charity—why don’t you take charity then?
Mr. Alinsky: Well, you know what I meant by charity—just going to, getting welfare handouts and --
Mr. Buckley: Welfare handouts are the products (blurred in overlap) of philanthropy. Your difficulty, it seems to me, is that you may be premature --
Mr. Alinsky: Well, you may not have contradictions. Of course, I have—life is just a constellation of contradictions --
Mr. Buckley: Now, I think you’re very cynical. I don’t think you think you are. But you are. You really assume the way pretty much the way a blind man does about sex (inaudible) pleasure for it, it’s associated with the act of rape. You feel that only the exercise of power can get to you certain, certain usufructs of life, and that, therefore, you must either take it from somebody because you will not permit that society give it to you.
Later:
Mr. Buckley: .But, I think what’s most interesting about yourself—at least to most people—is this distinctive appeal that you have to certain types of people who recognize there is a problem of the poor. You appeal to some of them because you have this disdain for wel-fare-ism (Mr. Buckley draws this out) as suggested by that ultimatum of yours that you’d rather steal than receive welfare. Now, this appeals to a lot of people sort of Conservative-minded, who are against welfare because they do believe that there is going on in this country a sort of institutionalization of welfare—that we ought to get out of it and that to be essentially human, you’ve got to make your own way. So you appeal to them. On the other hand, you appeal—they would be Conservative in a way—you appeal also to Liberals and radicals because yours is a highly non-rhetorical approach. You actually want to organize the poor, and you want to cause them to demand things. And you seem to be utterly either unconscious or, if not unconscious, at least insensible to the normal niceties of approach. When you want something, you simply want it.
Later
Mr. Buckley: You’re very much like Ayn Rand, you see.
Mr. Alinski: That’s not so.
Mr. Buckley: Only that which I can personally get belongs to me and nobody’s going to help me to get it. I think that America, viewed as a nation, is the most humane nation in the experience of the world. I think there is more genuine concern for the poor, for the underprivileged, for the weak in America than we’ve ever seen in the history of the world. And I see you trying to fire and establish—and disestablish the order that made that possible.
That’s decent and interesting criticism. Indeed, Alinsky appears to have been a hardcore Syndicalist, and both Buckley and me are to the right of him, although Buckley’s a lot further. However, that last one is very dubious to me:
I think that America, viewed as a nation, is the most humane nation in the experience of the world. I think there is more genuine concern for the poor, for the underprivileged, for the weak in America than we’ve ever seen in the history of the world. And I see you trying to fire and establish—and disestablish the order that made that possible.
Since Marx, leftists have probably heard this kind of argument in most debates: advanced civilization generates—or will eventually—so much charity in all its forms (through both tradition and individual kindness) as to cure most of the lower classes’ problems and thus make many concerns of unfairness and inequality irrelevant. Alinsky clearly understood the problem with that: charity is in itself a status race and a status pump; it can be wielded with malice and used to keep people down. Just look at Africa and how we’re trying to drown it in money instead of coming over there en masse and applying real help, manually. (Which is also problematic status-wise, but at least it might actually improve a society.)
The argument is not that, for example, the United States, is perfect. It’s that whatever Marxists replace it with will be worse.
Alinsky clearly understood the problem with that: charity is in itself a status race and a status pump; it can be wielded with malice and used to keep people down.
A lot of people “understand” this problem in the sense that they know it exists in the existing system. Unfortunately, they frequently have no better understanding of the causes and potential solutions than some version of “the current system has these problems because it is evil/corrupt, once we replace it with our new good/pure system these problems will magically go away”.
Just look at Africa and how we’re trying to drown it in money instead of coming over there en masse and applying real help, manually. (Which is also problematic status-wise, but at least it might actually improve a society.)
That’s what we were doing until leftists forced us to stop on the grounds we were “oppressing” them.
Note: If you think colonialism was indeed bad, what makes you thing doing something similar again will turn out any different?
I’m modestly familiar with the works of Marx, but I don’t know what “syndicalism” is. And I don’t know what proposal you’re making, or alluding to, with this:
Just look at Africa and how we’re trying to drown it in money instead of coming over there en masse and applying real help, manually.
You left these quotes unsourced:
They’re not from “real” articles by “real” journalists/propagandists or whatever, just from random blogging idiots. I simply picked a couple of representative ones.
Quote 1: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Buckley-vs.-Alinsky (see comments)
Quote 2: http://www.escapetyranny.com/2011/04/30/fascinating-video-of-the-young-bill-buckley-interviewing-saul-alinsky/
Goddamn, the second guy is just too dumb to breathe, but the first one freaks me out. Apparently he’s one of those peculiar Catholics who never heard of the New Testament and its values. And maybe a “rationalism”-worshipper, too… those traits, as I’ve seen in that corner of the blogosphere, aren’t as antagonistic as one might assume.
(Yes, Buckley might’ve been a decent man, but he shouldn’t have gone on TV with that voice. Alinsky’s is little better, but at least he sounds remotely like a public speaker. This might be just some kinda distortion on the record, I dunno.)
Representative of what? Why not give representative quotes from the very best and brightest Alinsky critics?
For instance:
Later:
Later
That’s decent and interesting criticism. Indeed, Alinsky appears to have been a hardcore Syndicalist, and both Buckley and me are to the right of him, although Buckley’s a lot further. However, that last one is very dubious to me:
Since Marx, leftists have probably heard this kind of argument in most debates: advanced civilization generates—or will eventually—so much charity in all its forms (through both tradition and individual kindness) as to cure most of the lower classes’ problems and thus make many concerns of unfairness and inequality irrelevant.
Alinsky clearly understood the problem with that: charity is in itself a status race and a status pump; it can be wielded with malice and used to keep people down. Just look at Africa and how we’re trying to drown it in money instead of coming over there en masse and applying real help, manually. (Which is also problematic status-wise, but at least it might actually improve a society.)
The argument is not that, for example, the United States, is perfect. It’s that whatever Marxists replace it with will be worse.
A lot of people “understand” this problem in the sense that they know it exists in the existing system. Unfortunately, they frequently have no better understanding of the causes and potential solutions than some version of “the current system has these problems because it is evil/corrupt, once we replace it with our new good/pure system these problems will magically go away”.
That’s what we were doing until leftists forced us to stop on the grounds we were “oppressing” them.
Note: If you think colonialism was indeed bad, what makes you thing doing something similar again will turn out any different?
I’m modestly familiar with the works of Marx, but I don’t know what “syndicalism” is. And I don’t know what proposal you’re making, or alluding to, with this:
Sounds ominous!
I think the Africa reference is to perspectives found in books like Dead Aid
I think Moyo and other aid critics don’t advocate that Russians come to Africa en masse and apply real help, manually.