Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1969

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Prologue and Chapters 1-3

Chapters 4-6

Chapters 7-9

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

The Struggle of the Haves with the Have-Nots

As the author notes, “Mankind has been and is divided into three parts: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores” (18). Alinsky’s model posits a disconnect and hostility between the classes within a developed society. The tension is largely created by imbalance of power.

The Haves possess the power of wealth and influence. They have gained wealth and power by various means—either personally through their own agency or through inherited means—and their goal is to retain their wealth and power by keeping the status quo intact.

The power of the Have-Nots “rests only with their numbers” (19), the means by which they can bring about change. They are united by poverty and lack of influence and social standing. Institutions don’t allow them to climb the social and economic ladder. In many cases, the Have-Nots are made up of people of color and historically marginalized groups harmed by the oppressive ruling class.

The Have-Nots are concerned with the basic necessities in life. This often causes apathy about devoting time and energy to a revolutionary cause. However, under the right circumstances and pushed by an influential leader, their power can be wielded in many creative and effective ways.

The Have-a-Little, Want-Mores generally consist of the middle class. It is from this group “with few exceptions, [that] the great world leaders of change of the past centuries” have come (19). They possess enough money and means, but largely identify with the Have-Nots. They are able to spark the desire for change within themselves and pass that spark on to others, igniting a movement for revolution.

The struggle and tension between these groups cannot be denied. When the unity of humankind is fought for and seen as the answer to the troubles of modern life, then and only then will real and lasting change come about: “A major revolution to be won in the immediate future is the dissipation of man’s illusion that his own welfare can be separate from that of all others” (23).

The Choice of Particular Means for Particular Ends

In the second chapter of the book, Alinsky clarifies what he considers to be a common mistake. Determining whether the ends justify the means is a false question, he says. The real question is “Does this particular end justify this particular means?” (24). In reframing the question, Alinsky rejects the theoretical and universal in favor of the practical and concrete. In considering the particular means to work toward a particular end, real decisions can be made.

Alinsky has no time for theoreticians in ivory towers making judgments on how the world is and should be. As he puts it, “one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind” (25). One’s decision must always favor the common good. However, the problem is that personal involvement often means favoring one’s personal opinions and judgments. Additionally, judgment is often a matter of perspective. Alinsky uses the example of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. From the American point of view, both are good and necessary things, noble and glorious. From a British point of view, however, the Declaration of Independence is “a statement notorious for its deceit by omission” (27), one that fails to consider all the good that England had done and neglecting all that might be bad about the fledgling nation.

In many cases, means will be decided out of sheer necessity. Alinsky uses Gandhi as an example and the pacifist tactics Gandhi used to work toward Indian independence. As Alinsky sees it, “passive resistance was not only possible, but was the most effective means that could have been selected” (42). Pacifism was not simply a righteous means, but the best and only choice.

The Importance of Communication

Alinsky states the following: “It does not matter what you know about anything if you cannot communicate to your people. In that event you are not even a failure. You’re just not there” (81). A failure to communicate is not just a failure of action; it is a failure of existence. Communication is of the utmost importance for revolution: it involves cooperation between many individuals with unique experiences.

Alinsky notes that “communication is a two-way process” (81); it’s not just about talking and making sure one is understood. Communication necessitates listening skills, a shared vision and empathy. This involves meeting people where they are at: “you can’t go outside of people’s actual experience” (88). Allowing people to make their own decisions and decide for themselves is key; nobody feels empowered by having decisions made for them and imposed. When organizers remember that they are dealing with real people and individuals—rather than general masses of people with whom they have no personal relationship—communication can be successful and real change can occur.