Power is held in two places: money and people. The wealthy elite class, otherwise known as the “Haves,” wield power via their money; for the rest of us, the “Have-Nots,” power can only be found in organizing together as a united people. The first step to revolutionary change is reformation, which is when masses of people have “reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless.” I believe we have reached such a boiling-point in America (and in many places around the world), and people are ready for change. This book is an excellent place to start in our education of what steps to take next.

The task of a social organizer is to “inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change,” and to identify themself as the person most qualified for this purpose. A key element of this is the invitation—a group of people who want radical change aren’t going to follow just anybody into a fight, the organizer must first prove they are worthy. The best way to do this is to “maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy,’” Alinsky writes. The word ‘enemy’ identifies him or her with the Have-Nots, while the word ‘dangerous’ reveals the establishment’s fear of the organizer. Through this reaction of the establishment, the people will see that the organizer is on their side in their fight for change, and only then, once he or she has their ‘birth certificate,’ can the real work begin.

Their first job is to create a coalition comprised of members who care about a wide variety of issues so as to incorporate the most amount of people possible and increase their organization’s power. It is important to have members that care about different issues so that the fight is never dead. If one issue is being held at a standstill, there is always another avenue that can be exploited.

So, what does an organizer actually do to create the changes their people desire? They put pressure on the establishment via whatever tactics are appropriate and available to them at the time and place of their fight. There is no tactic that works everywhere and always—all tactics are situational. Are you a group of tenants organizing against a landlord for better living conditions? Perhaps you all withhold your rent payments at the same time. Are you a group of auto-workers organizing against your employer for better wages? Perhaps you all go on strike. Are you a group of college students organizing against your administration because they don’t allow bikes or skateboards on campus? Perhaps you all chew a tremendous amount of gum and leave the chewed pieces stuck all over the sidewalks in protest. Whatever the tactic, it should hopefully be something the people enjoy! The rush of ‘sticking it to the man’ is one that pretty much everybody can get behind. Then, once the initial tactic is performed, you wait and see what the establishment’s reaction is. “Accident, unpredictable reactions to your own actions, necessity, and improvisation dictate the direction and nature of tactics,” Alinsky writes, “then, analytical logic is required to appraise where you are, what you can do next, the risks and hopes that you can look forward to.” Let’s say we are the students chewing gum on campus in protest against the administration. We leave the gum stuck everywhere, but we don’t get what we want: bikes and skateboards are still not allowed. Perhaps we change our tactics again and organize a day when nobody goes to classes and instead stands in front of the administration building with signs and bullhorns and someone makes a call to the local news station to gain wider attention for our issue. The reaction of the administration to this new and alternative tactic will once again dictate what we do next.

Alinsky spends considerable time discussing means and ends and the morality and ethics attached to each and his conclusion is simple: it depends on the context. “Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated” he writes, “that the true question has never been the proverbial one, ‘Does the End justify the Means?’ but always has been ‘Does this particular end justify this particular means?’” This, of course, depends on both the situation itself and the moral decision making of whoever is suggesting a particular means. There are a few iron laws that come with this subject: in war, for example, the end justifies almost any means. Furthermore, in any context, one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue—do you stand to gain or lose? Depending on whether it is the ‘Haves’ or ‘Have-Nots’ who are sitting in judgment will determine whether a particular means is determined to be ethical or unethical.

The road to social change is not a nicely paved one straight up the mountain to the top. Instead, it is a twisting path filled with switch-backs and dead-ends. In essence, there is no map, only the guiding words of a man who has climbed plenty of other mountains before, but not the mountain any of us find ourselves facing right now. All mountains are different, the same way all organizations of people and the issues they face are. This book is a wonderful guide, but it is up to us to blaze our own trail forward.