Rules for Freedom
1. Power is based on understanding and promoting self-sufficiency for everyone.
2. Share your power
3. Find your group’s weaknesses and replace them with strength. Clean your house first, then demand everyone strive for higher standards.
4. Find you opponent’s weakness and make sure you don’t have them.
5. Balance creativity with tradition.
6. Allow people to enjoy life.
7. Trust but verify, including authority figures.
8. Keep the pressure on. Tension leads to equilibrium
9. Be aware of barrier to overcome, but don’t keep looking at them, for you will become what you are looking at. Instead look at where you want go and succeed.
10. Never, never, never give up.
11. The enemy is in the forces that prevent human equality and equity. In you, outside you, in your group, outside your group. Use reality check in every important group decision.
12. The goal of a successful attack is having a more positive, constructive alternative.
13. The size of your enemy determines the potential size of your reach. Having no enemy means you are not doing any good. Study your enemy well to make sure you are not fighting the wrong war, and that you do not become the actual enemy in the war of good and evil. (This one is dedicated to trained organizers.)
14. Add your own as per your particular needs.
IMPLEMENTATION
By demonizing, as suggested by Alinsky in his Rules, is not how I treated Dan Benitez. I never demonized him, and even though we were at odds on so many projects, and the fact that he tried to dismantle and destroy most of what we at the TBA and others were trying to build and obtain, he was not evil. He had his own objectives and I had mine; we had ours. Let competition or survival be of the fittest. Or better, let what we consider right to prevail over wrong.
That’s the way I looked at it. The more we accomplished, the stronger opposition we received. Although unfortunately, we didn’t get the City to change their way of doing things with all neighborhoods, we accomplished objectives with our work and we won in the Barrio despite Benitez’s interference.
NOTE: The word equity has and is continuously going through transformations. Its original meaning, and how I use it here, is to be understood as meaning “quality of being just and fair” not necessarily equal in all cases. Notice that by definition, equity does not lead to equal outcomes.
Of course, who decides what is just and fair? Whereas equality requires equal outcome, equity recognizes that differences can be just and fair when appropriate. Both terms, equality and equity, can be used, misused, and abused by whoever is using them. The same applies to other definitions, “freedom from bias or favoritism.” “Impartiality.” “Proportional fairness.” Based on this, is Affirmative Action free from bias or favoritism, even if some will say proportional fairness? This would be case of intentional bias, not equity, nor equality, it violates both.
By coincidence, the 14 Rules for Freedom follow both the Christian teachings of ‘love your neighbor’ and the Buddhist teachings which are completely contrary to the 13 Rules for Radicals which is intended to demonize its opposition. Here is a portion of Buddhist teachings.
“Why does Socialism have such a negative reputation?” I asked Ray one day, as he proceeded to poked at his earlobe with two fingers, in him a sign of indecision, then he said, “I wonder about that too. Maybe because too many people have used it as a step toward communism, but on one hand there are elements of socialism that I like, while others, I have a problem with.”
“Such as?”
“Socialism can mean different things to different people. To some it means a socially owned and democratically controlled economy, in which resources are utilized to provide for the basic human needs and then allow the possibility for free development of each person. In theory, socialism claims to distribute the economic decision-making powers to everybody, equally. Some say this is to happen when capitalism has made production so plentiful and efficient that businesses no longer needs competition to improve, and that hasn’t happened yet. Socialism wants to have the entire ‘social’ population in charge of how the economy should work and the direction of production within the country now collectively owned. This I will call the Estate. It sounds beautiful, but without the Estate it is like a sport team without a captain, like a train without a locomotive, like a ship without a rudder. Therefore, for things to work, the “State” has to develop a central control plan and become an “Estate”. People in general are pushed aside. At that point, those running the Estate who are supposed to know enough about economy to correct deficiencies caused by nature; earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc., seldom do, or do not care if it does not affect them directly, and errors pile up. Besides, cronyism and favoritism tend to prevail, and we know corruption creeps into every system. The distribution of the wealth by the Estate is to be based on productivity, while the individuals who control the Estate try to balance collective ownership with distribution. Socialism allows for some personal private property, communism dos not. But even Lenin had to admit that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption. Lenin said, "He who does not work shall not eat." As I understand it, socialism is ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his productivity’, while communism is ‘to each according to his needs’. Some form of socialism intends and attempts to be partially democratic; there may be elections, although someone else makes the big decisions as to who gets what, while communism are fully dictatorial.”
“By the ‘Estate’? You mean the authority?”
“Yes. The people Alinsky doesn’t like.”
“So, he contradicts himself?”
“Yes.”
AMERICAN SOCIALISM?
In the U.S., the plan to advance socialism has been moving in a different direction; it is progressed in bits and pieces. It is a subtle way of giving up on democracy, a sublimation of goal in progress. Instead of the Estate gaining all the power, it is done by shifting and sharing the authority rather than taking it. The federal government slowly chooses winners and losers. It allows economic advantages to selected businesses on their way to becoming monopolies, with whom top political leaders of both parties controlling the Estate, develop a close working relationship. The government has ultimate control through regulations favorable to selected parties but leaves the ownership of the economy in the private hand, on now monopolies, too big to fail, who support the political partners. Once the Estate and big monopolies have established a liaison, individuals in the political parties juggle to ‘control’ the Estate, which is in bed with the monopolies; money and power. The voters become irrelevant, as they will vote for the handouts. A politician is well taken care of financially by the large corporations which they have helped become monopolies. Then economic power extends to informational power, education power, military infiltration, and even behavioral power.”
“Is that socialism? Is this part of the sublimation of goals?”
“Not yet. I am not done. The high corporate taxes which the large corporations are happy to pay - actually paid from increasing cost to the consumer who now has no choice whom to buy from – and does not include the personal loopholes for the tycoons, as a payback for their favors. Members of both parties are into it. They of course ask for legislation to increasing the minimum wage, so the normal person can buy more from the monopolies who can then pay more corporate taxes as well, thus more pay-back money can flow into the politician’s pockets or campaigns. The bureaucracy is also part of it all: they have learned how to work the system and who’s side to join. The media is the one I do not understand why or how they have bought into it, what is their take? Republicans accept the rich getting richer, the Democrats complain about it, a smoke screen, since it is them, but after pretending a fight, they also vote for it, getting richer. Those rich Democrats keep getting richer. They increase taxes. The term ‘democracy’ is the window dressing for the Estate to keep the population happy while increasing free everything: health care, education, housing, etc., etc. That’s trickle down. All paid by the state from the taxes from the monopolies, who pretend to be regulated, but their regulations are really intended to kill the little companies and squash competition. Republicans pretend they don’t like that but do nothing to prevent tax money circling-back to them. Needless to say, the trickle-down does not reach the bottom, regular citizens, or by then it is much diluted. The bureaucracy helps extend this circle-back of the use of tax money with government programs, foreign aid, non-winning wars, and the military is also falling in line, not to mention that and public unions favors.”
“That is not how socialists describe it in their campaigns.”
“No. They call for collective happiness.”
“And what is wrong with all that?”
“It is up to you.” Ray rejected doing all the thinking for me. He thought I had to do some of it myself.