Seems like a pretty accurate (albeit brief) summary of Cesar Chavez's life, if you ask me.

http://www.biography.com/people/cesar-ch...

Are we objecting to the fact that the assignment places the student in the position of a labor union leader making demands to a company?

Thanks for sharing your story. :)

You realize that almost everything you said there applies to American citizens as well, right?

That's actually rather interesting. Could you provide more information about that incident? When did it happen? Who were the people involved?

Yeah, I never really agreed with her on that particular point.

I'm always checking my premises. I also check the premises of people who tell me to check my premises. And then I check the sub-premises on which the primary-premises are built, and also the sub-sub-premises beneath that. I even check the premises of the person who came up with the idea of checking premises. I'm checking premises all over the place.

With so much checking of premises going on, I found that most people tend to know less than they think they do, especially if they're very amendment about it.

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."— Ayn Rand

As I understand it, what Bundy said was little different from my blog post a few days earlier (I even wondered if he'd read it).

In my blog, I asserted that, based upon the priorities of the left, the black slaves were better off under slavery than they were free, by pointing out that they had everything the left wants to give them today; free food, free housing, guaranteed employment and health care. Of course, under slavery, as under the ideal progressive government, someone ELSE gets to decide the appropriate food, housing, employment and health care one gets...

Check your premises.

I would.

I consider it on a par with a school assignment placing the student in the position of a pimp making demands of his "ho"s.

Well, the pimp b-slapping his ho might be slightly less immoral than being a labor union leader.

I'm very sorry that you lost yours at such a young age. I was 38 when I lost mine, and much to my surprise I was devastated by my loss. I can only imagine how hard it must have been for you at 9.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
~ Bertrand Russell

Haha, thanks. It's always nice to encounter people who haven't completely "drunk the koolaid," so to speak.

I just picked up Alinsky's "Reveille for Radicals" yesterday, which is his older book, written roughly 20 years prior to "Rules for Radicals." So it was written at a point when he was younger and less experienced, but had a more youthful zeal about him.

Anyway, let me know what you think about "Rules." ;)

Thanks, but I found it already:

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/79...

Theoretically, regulation could potentially alleviate the conditions which caused the rapes to be so frequent.

When one side imposes "un-free" alliances, often the only way for the other side to respond with with their own "un-free" alliances.

Or a lawsuit. Lawsuits work, too.

Actually, I don't start with the premise that unions are always honest and have the employees' best interests at heart. Rather, I start with the premise that the quality of the union is dependent upon the people in charge of it. If you've got bad people in charge, then you've got a bad union. But if you have good people in charge, you could potentially have a good union.

It also depends on whether the union was formed for a legitimate purpose, or just formed to exploit the workers and make a profit for the union. Either situation is possible.

Oh hey, look what I found...

Atlas Society – Would an ideal Objectivist society allow labor unions?
http://www.atlassociety.org/labor-unions...

Honestly, they usually just end up talking about history at the Communist meetings. Only occasionally do they ever actually discuss the theory of Communism itself. Out of all their meetings I've attended, I think the only one in which they actually directly addressed economic theory at all was that time when they discussed Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," and compared Adam Smith's theories to those of Karl Marx. Smith and Marx both have an economic concept called "the labor theory of value," though Smith's version is a little different from Marx's, but they do have some commonalities, and I think Marx's theory was actually built on top of Smith's. But that's all beside the point, which is that I don't feel like attending the Communist meetings has actually changed my opinion about economic theory at all. They still tend to say a lot of stuff I disagree with (and I do mean a lot), but that's part of why I attend the meetings. In fact, that's also part of the reason why I keep coming to this forum – because I so frequently disagree with the people here. To quote Dudley Field Malone, "I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me." And I want to learn as much as possible. If anything, all the meetings have really done is provide me with new knowledge about historical events which I had previously been unaware of, which is actually pretty useful knowledge. History is always good.

If anything has been influencing my thinking lately, it's probably the fact that I just recently finished reading Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," which I actually enjoyed quite a bit. Yes, I admit I enjoyed a book written by a Neo-Marxist Socialist. So sue me. :P

Of course now you're probably wondering what made me decide to read "Rules for Radicals." Why would I do such a thing? No, it wasn't recommended by anyone in the Communist/Socialist club, and honestly I don't know whether any of them have even read it themselves (maybe they have, I don't know, but I'll ask the next time I attend one of their meetings). The reason I read it is because about a month ago, Eudaimonia made a topic in which he accused the Southern Poverty Law Center of being an Alinsky front group. You can read that topic here:

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6d...

At the time Eudaimonia made that topic, I admit I didn't really know anything about Saul Alinsky, nor did I know what sort of things he advocated in his (in)famous book. But I did know that I disagreed with what Eudaimonia was saying, and that he was attacking an organization which I consider to be respectable. Plus, ever since I read "The Naked Socialist," by Paul B. Skousen (a book which is essentially nothing more a bunch of conspiracy theories masquerading as legitimate history) back in 2012, I've developed a heavy skepticism of any and all accusations of Communist/Socialist/Marxist connections that conservative-leaning individuals tend to make. If you accuse someone of being a Communist, then you better be able to prove it. Otherwise you get labeled as a conspiracy theorist, and lose a significant amount of credibility. I call it my anti-McCarthyism filter, and I use it to prevent myself from being mislead by manufactured bullshit and lies. I actually find it kind of sad that such a conceptual filter is even necessary, but apparently that's just how these things go when you're dealing with something that so many people have such strong feelings about. Just look at the sort of nonsense propaganda about Communism that gets churned out by conservative sources:

Snopes.com – Communist Rules for Revolution:
http://www.snopes.com/history/document/c...

Snopes.com – How to Create a Social State:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/al...

When there's stuff like that getting thrown around, being spread through email chain letters of unknown origin and dubious credibility, can you really blame me for being skeptical and demanding evidence for any accusations? I certainly hope not.

Anyway, thanks to Eudaimonia's topic, I decided that I wanted to read this Alinsky guy for myself and see what he actually said. That way, if anyone else ever tried to claim that someone was influenced by Alinsky, or that some organization was an Alinsky front group, I would know what Alinsky's actual policies were and what he stood for, and could call people out if their claims didn't match up with Alinsky's writing.

But as I read "Rules for Radicals," I have to confess something else happened which I didn't expect – I found myself agreeing with Alinsky. This surprised me, as I had expected Alinsky's ideas to be in relatively the same line of thought as those of Karl Marx, or to at least to bear some resemblance to Karl Marx's theories. But they didn't. Reading Alinsky was a totally different experience from reading Marx. When I read Marx, I can usually dismiss his theories as complete and utter nonsense with relative ease. I can't do that with Alinsky. The things Alinsky writes... they seem to be true.

Unlike Marx's writings, which are dull, dry, and boring, Alinsky's writing has a spark of life to it – an enthralling, almost mystical quality, the kind which only the most talented writers posses. Now you may say, "Oh, sure, maybe he's a good writer, but he's still a Marxist, and he's still advocating Communism." This is the natural response I would expect from you, given what you've probably been told about Saul Alinsky if you get your information from people like Newt Gingrich or Glenn Beck. But here's something you may not be aware of if all your information about Alinsky is from second hand sources and conservative commentary: although it is true that Saul Alinsky was a Neo-Marxist, the book "Rules for Radicals" doesn't actually promote Communism, Socialism, or even Marxism at all. A few paragraphs here and there may briefly touch on the topic, but the main focus of book is actually about community organizing. That is, persuading large groups of people to join your cause (whatever it is), organizing them effectively, and directing them in ways to achieve a social or political agenda. "Rules for Radicals" is not about Marxism, it's about people, and the tactics which Alinsky lays out can be used to promote virtually any ideology, even capitalism or Objectivism. Saul Alinsky even says in the book that he intentionally divorced the tactics themselves from Marxist theory, as he thought the world was in desperate need of a handbook for revolution which could be used by anyone, since nearly all revolutionary material prior to that point was published exclusively by and for Communists. In my opinion, the tactics he describes feel very reminiscent of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," transposed into modern times and applied to politics instead of combat.

Alinsky openly acknowledges the tyranny and despotism of Communist China and the Soviet Union, admitting that it's better to live in a free country like the United States, where at least he has the freedom to speak out against the government and bring about what he thinks are positive changes in society without fear of being arrested and thrown in a gulag for the rest of his life. Of course now you're probably wondering why he would want revolution if he realizes that it's better to live in a free country. But here's the thing you've got to understand: in Alinsky's terminology, the word "revolution" doesn't necessarily mean overthrowing the government. It could *potentially* mean that, for people who actually do happen to live under a tyrannical dictatorship, but it could also simply mean "change." Unlike Marx, Alinsky does not believe in a utopia, but rather says that every positive has its negative, meaning that nothing in life is perfect, and there will always be both good and bad sides to every choice you make. The analogy he makes is one of climbing a mountain where the peak is shrouded in fog, and once you get to what you thought was the peak, the fog lifts, and you see that the mountain continues upward still, with another peak above, also shrouded in fog. If you wish to progress, you must continue your climb. It's a perpetual process of constant improvement, ceasing only at death, at which point the torch is picked up by the next generation, who will make improvements of their own.

By now you may be thinking, "Okay, so Saul Alinsky deviates from Karl Marx on several key points (many, many points, in fact), his book 'Rules for Radicals' doesn't actually promote Communism, he recognized that Red China and the Soviet Union were tyrannical and corrupt, and he didn't even want to overthrow the U.S. government. But he still believed in Socialism, and a Neo-Marxist is still technically a Marxist!" To that, my only response is, so what? So what if he believed in a misguided and incorrect economic theory like socialism? Are we going to say that he's automatically wrong about everything else, that every idea he ever had and every word he ever wrote is inherently evil, simply because he happened to believe in the wrong economic theory? Albert Einstein was also a socialist, yet we still recognize the Theory of Relativity as a valid scientific concept, and the equation E=MC^2 was a tremendous leap forward for scientific understanding of the subatomic universe, without which nuclear fission would not be possible. If we are capable of acknowledging that Albert Einstein was right about some things, in spite of being wrong about economics, can we not do the same for Saul Alinsky?

Here's another thing: Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney are both members of the Mormon church. The Mormon church contains within its canonical doctrine a social-economic theory called "The Law of Consecration," which is virtually indistinguishable from Communism. Given Beck and Romney's membership in the church, the chances are pretty high that they both believe in The Law of Consecration, and think it's a good thing. Should we therefore automatically dismiss everything they say because of this belief they hold? Is that enough to say they're always wrong? This is just a hunch, but something tells me you'll probably say, "No."

Yes, Saul Alinsky was a socialist. But I say that we would all do well to take to heart the wisdom of Will Rogers, and recognize that "Everybody is ignorant, only in different subjects." If you dismiss someone entirely simply because you happen to have knowledge in an area where they are ignorant, you'll never know what gaps in your own knowledge that person could have filled. In the words of H. Jackson Brown Jr., "Every person that you meet knows something you don't; learn from them."