Thank you for this article David on Saul Alinsky - "Rules for Radicals". While I certainly agree with your overview, recently I came across the theory of “The Iron Law of Oligarchy”.
The "Iron Law of Oligarchy" is a political theory first developed by German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book Political Parties. It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any political organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of the organization. Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.
Michels' theory states that all "socialist organizations", regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise. As he put it in Political Parties, "It is an organization which gives dominion of the elected over the electors. Whoever says organization, says oligarchy." He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
According to Michels, all organizations eventually come to be run by a leadership class who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons or political strategists for the organization. Far from being servants of the masses, Michels argues this leadership class, rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.
Interesting take, and certainly has the ring of truth. I remember reading a short, somewhat tongue in cheek article back in the 1970's (showing my age) concerning businesses. The author maintained that the reward/punishment versus usefulness curve for the workers in any company would start out with rewards for everyone productive and punishment only for truly bad behavior, then steadily worsen over time until all activity, including no activity is punished, just less so for good people. He thought this was due to a sort of ossification where a manufacturer, for instance, would hope to go on forever making their widgets and hope nothing ever changes, and become more and more controlling over time. The bright, young engineers who started it are long since gone, and any new ones hired do not stay long. In the business world this is a sort of aging process with the old businesses eventually going away, being replaced by younger ones, who then age. Some companies actually recognize this phenomenon and actively work to prevent it. This brings us to government organizations; they just go on and on and are in no danger of such replacement, and have no incentive to fight it. The idea of Michels would seem to be a key component of this ossification process. ( I saw this process play out over my 38 years in a Nuclear Physics lab - this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Superconducting_Cyclotron_Laboratory)
If you are not already familiar with this, I would like to introduce you to Sir John Glub, retired British General who, in his retirement, wrote a essay on the fate of empires, maintaining that they go through stages then disappear. The final stage is the Age of Decadence, the point in which I think we find ourselves.
I have a friend who has recently moved into co-op housing and is facing the same situation - roughly 200 members (adults over 16), but the exact number will not be released by the office. Communication is censored - bulletin boards are not available, stuffing notes under doors is not permitted, more cameras and fobbed doors are being installed, and at the AGM, a conductor at the front orchestrates the vote of non-english speakers by hand signals.
She is shocked, I am not. The place is about 60 years old, so I guess it's like an aging empire..
I think that many of your garden variety leftists, not the leaders playing a power game, see leftism as being the abode of the smart, the caring and the hip. If you decide you are a leftist you are suddenly smart, caring hip, and you have the moral and intellectual high ground. (I realize that is not exactly new thinking.) If jokes start flying around ridiculing leftism it will stop seeming attractive to those seeking to seem fashionable, and you might get a sort of Bud Light effect where people just don't want to be seen associating with it. Anyway, it's a thought, which of course really comes from Alinsky rather than yours truly.
I’m already getting some of those “Bud Light” looks and reactions, even from long term friends who’ve been ‘immunized’ (perhaps against seeing into the realm). But some of these old friends are not really from the left, which to me makes it all that much more astonishing. Maybe there’s an awakening happening, but the vast majority seem to be digging in at this point.
The Bud Light event I think is not so much a boycott as people just did not want to be associated with Budweiser. The gaslighting made it seem that the people would be happy with the image, but it wasn’t true. I think it would happen in a lot of areas, and a good joke can span the continent.I hope you’re right about a change going on.
Thank you for this article David on Saul Alinsky - "Rules for Radicals". While I certainly agree with your overview, recently I came across the theory of “The Iron Law of Oligarchy”.
The "Iron Law of Oligarchy" is a political theory first developed by German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book Political Parties. It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any political organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of the organization. Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.
Michels' theory states that all "socialist organizations", regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise. As he put it in Political Parties, "It is an organization which gives dominion of the elected over the electors. Whoever says organization, says oligarchy." He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
According to Michels, all organizations eventually come to be run by a leadership class who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons or political strategists for the organization. Far from being servants of the masses, Michels argues this leadership class, rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.
Interesting take, and certainly has the ring of truth. I remember reading a short, somewhat tongue in cheek article back in the 1970's (showing my age) concerning businesses. The author maintained that the reward/punishment versus usefulness curve for the workers in any company would start out with rewards for everyone productive and punishment only for truly bad behavior, then steadily worsen over time until all activity, including no activity is punished, just less so for good people. He thought this was due to a sort of ossification where a manufacturer, for instance, would hope to go on forever making their widgets and hope nothing ever changes, and become more and more controlling over time. The bright, young engineers who started it are long since gone, and any new ones hired do not stay long. In the business world this is a sort of aging process with the old businesses eventually going away, being replaced by younger ones, who then age. Some companies actually recognize this phenomenon and actively work to prevent it. This brings us to government organizations; they just go on and on and are in no danger of such replacement, and have no incentive to fight it. The idea of Michels would seem to be a key component of this ossification process. ( I saw this process play out over my 38 years in a Nuclear Physics lab - this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Superconducting_Cyclotron_Laboratory)
If you are not already familiar with this, I would like to introduce you to Sir John Glub, retired British General who, in his retirement, wrote a essay on the fate of empires, maintaining that they go through stages then disappear. The final stage is the Age of Decadence, the point in which I think we find ourselves.
https://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
Spain had an empire and the empire is gone, but Spain is still there. Other empires were not so fortunate. A wikipedia thing on Glub:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bagot_Glubb
He was a big cheese.
I have a friend who has recently moved into co-op housing and is facing the same situation - roughly 200 members (adults over 16), but the exact number will not be released by the office. Communication is censored - bulletin boards are not available, stuffing notes under doors is not permitted, more cameras and fobbed doors are being installed, and at the AGM, a conductor at the front orchestrates the vote of non-english speakers by hand signals.
She is shocked, I am not. The place is about 60 years old, so I guess it's like an aging empire..
Yes, to those who are sane and well grounded, the woke have many laughable ideas that can be easily and joyfully ridiculed.
I think that many of your garden variety leftists, not the leaders playing a power game, see leftism as being the abode of the smart, the caring and the hip. If you decide you are a leftist you are suddenly smart, caring hip, and you have the moral and intellectual high ground. (I realize that is not exactly new thinking.) If jokes start flying around ridiculing leftism it will stop seeming attractive to those seeking to seem fashionable, and you might get a sort of Bud Light effect where people just don't want to be seen associating with it. Anyway, it's a thought, which of course really comes from Alinsky rather than yours truly.
Good Point David,
I’m already getting some of those “Bud Light” looks and reactions, even from long term friends who’ve been ‘immunized’ (perhaps against seeing into the realm). But some of these old friends are not really from the left, which to me makes it all that much more astonishing. Maybe there’s an awakening happening, but the vast majority seem to be digging in at this point.
The Bud Light event I think is not so much a boycott as people just did not want to be associated with Budweiser. The gaslighting made it seem that the people would be happy with the image, but it wasn’t true. I think it would happen in a lot of areas, and a good joke can span the continent.I hope you’re right about a change going on.
Is that first graphic a dose of engineering humor? I thought it was very funny : )
Alinsky - hero and mentor to Barry and Killary.
More like math humor. Radicals are square root signs, and those are the rules for dealing with square roots. I thought it added a certain something.
I enjoyed it!
Supposed to be funny.😄
Valuable.
"dystopia" is I think, the word you want...