The soviet-ization of the West

Sarah Palin recently blasted Obama for being a mere "community organizer." While her larger point--that this doesn't involve executive responsibility in the way, say, the job of governor does--it misses the potential of such activities.

After all, the Reds in 1917 Russia were pretty organized in the communities--a 'soviet' for every neighborhood, as it were. For over half a century afterward, the Soviet Union's most successful export was grass-roots revolutionary theory.

The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism.

His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.

Yes, indeed, there was a lot of "change" in Russia in 1917. And Europe and America have been 'changing' ever since, thanks to useful idiots and community organizers. Government is now intertwined with business, and the nationalization of the warfare-welfare economy continues apace. One of our presidential choices is an activist of the Gramsci-Alinsky mold, and the other favors amnesty for illegal immigrants and "bomb-bomb-bombing" Iran.

The republic is all but dead. The question is whether the emerging collectivist state will be more of the fascist or communist variety. As I've said before regarding the myth you have to vote for the major parties: who would you have voted for in Germany, 1932? Only the Nazis and the Communists had a "realistic chance of winning," even though most people considered both of them to be nose-holding choices. Too bad people weren't willing to pick "none of the above." Could there be a lesson there?