Cloward-Piven Strategy

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Cloward-Piven Strategy is defined by WikiPedia as follows:

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a socialist system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

More can be learned at the link...
Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia

The spirit of the strategy is OVERLOAD THE SYSTEM, ostensibly for good. Some say Cloward-Piven is the fruit of Saul Alinksy's "Rules for Radicals". Godless radicals don’t know true goodness, so at best they can offer a self-righteous counterfeit.

I see this strategy at work in the patently engineered (promoted/financed) migrations occurring, for one.

Thoughts?

 

[Arcangl86]

Wow, I'm amazed that Cloward and Piven were able to come up with a strategy that was the fruit of Rules for Radicals five years before Rules for Radicals was written. Leaving that aside, Cloward-Pivens doesn't apply here. It was designed to show the Democrats who had a united federal government, but were complacent about dealing with poverty, that the current system wasn't sufficient and there needed to be a change. Essentially the idea was to create a fracture in the Democratic party so that in a desperate attempt to retain power they would address poverty. There is a divided government right now, and Trump was elected in large part on his anti-immigrant rhetoric. Even if there was somebody funding the current surge in asylum requests, it wouldn't motivate Trump or the Republicans to reform immigration law in the direction wanted by liberals.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Wow, I'm amazed that Cloward and Piven were able to come up with a strategy that was the fruit of Rules for Radicals five years before Rules for Radicals was written. Leaving that aside, Cloward-Pivens doesn't apply here. It was designed to show the Democrats who had a united federal government, but were complacent about dealing with poverty, that the current system wasn't sufficient and there needed to be a change. Essentially the idea was to create a fracture in the Democratic party so that in a desperate attempt to retain power they would address poverty. There is a divided government right now, and Trump was elected in large part on his anti-immigrant rhetoric. Even if there was somebody funding the current surge in asylum requests, it wouldn't motivate Trump or the Republicans to reform immigration law in the direction wanted by liberals.

Good catch on the timing, I misread that. I believe your assessment agrees with the Wiki page as to original intent, but both Alinksy and C-P used the idea of OVERLOAD. You don't see that tactic being employed today?

 

[Arcangl86]

Good catch on the timing, I misread that. I believe your assessment agrees with the Wiki page as to original intent, but both Alinksy and C-P used the idea of OVERLOAD. You don't see that tactic being employed today?

Alinsky didn't use the idea of overload, what ever that means. He was about the creation of pressure on decision-makers. Mass protests with specific asks were his style. And as for C-P, their ideas were shown not to work in practice, so why would somebody be using them now? And no I don't see this as an application of C-P because it was never just about creating a crisis. It was supposed to cause the pain of certain aspects of the Democratic electorate so they would pressure their representatives. The people who are suffering in the border crisis currently aren't Americans.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Alinsky didn't use the idea of overload, what ever that means. He was about the creation of pressure on decision-makers. Mass protests with specific asks were his style. And as for C-P, their ideas were shown not to work in practice, so why would somebody be using them now? And no I don't see this as an application of C-P because it was never just about creating a crisis. It was supposed to cause the pain of certain aspects of the Democratic electorate so they would pressure their representatives. The people who are suffering in the border crisis currently aren't Americans.

I'm interested in how their radical ideas INFLUENCED those behind them. I agree the presenting conditions of their native context are not present, but there aren't a million Alinskys or C-P's, are there? They were influential radicals. I believe the idea of overload IS being used today, under guise of "compassion" (the poor, the disenfranchised, the immigrant, etc.) to tear us down. I'm not alone in this belief. You seem to disagree. Fair enough.

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm interested in how their radical ideas INFLUENCED those behind them. I agree the presenting conditions of their native context are not present, but there aren't a million Alinskys or C-P's, are there? They were influential radicals. I believe the idea of overload IS being used today, under guise of "compassion" (the poor, the disenfranchised, the immigrant, etc.) to tear us down. I'm not alone in this belief. You seem to disagree. Fair enough.

What's the end goal?

 

[Redwingfan9]

Cloward-Piven Strategy is defined by WikiPedia as follows:

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a socialist system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

More can be learned at the link...
Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia

The spirit of the strategy is OVERLOAD THE SYSTEM, ostensibly for good. Some say Cloward-Piven is the fruit of Saul Alinksy's "Rules for Radicals". Godless radicals don’t know true goodness, so at best they can offer a self-righteous counterfeit.

I see this strategy at work in the patently engineered (promoted/financed) migrations occurring, for one.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure it's wise to cite Wikipedia for anything. Anyone can edit Wikipedia pages and thus say anything they want, true or false. If you're going to yap about Cloward-Pivin it's probably wiser to cite them directly.