Abstract
This paper is a reply to Terrence Hunt’s critique of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. We contend that there are significant lines of argument that may be used to defend the underlying assumptions of Alinsky’s rules. While the rules themselves might be readily dismissed, the underlying position should not. Our effort to offer some defense on behalf of Alinsky is an effort to carryon where Hunt left off.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
