Posted on 01/05/2010 4:31:08 PM PST by reasonisfaith
But is that really the strategy pursued by Obama today? Isn't it just more Chicago politics? Increase the number of clients and you increase your vote. Nothing about a system breakdown or a breakthrough to a new order, just big city politics as usual.
“To be precise, Piven was using the poor for her own severely narcissistic fantasy.”
They all use the poor. That’s why the ghetto is still the ghetto. As big of a disaster now, if not bigger, than when Elvis sang about it.
But you forget that liberals actually think that the poor are somehow better off if there are no rich.
The agenda of every leftist is driven at its deepest level by pride and envy.
If Piven herself were to be elected president, she would compromise her initial agenda in favor of maintaining personal power.
And although we can see this happening to some extent with Obama, he’s doing a pretty good job of sticking to the initial plan for system breakdown.
I think you’re probably right, but I don’t understand it enough to know how it fits in with the rest of the picture.
Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". New York: The Nation.
I don’t agree with the “victim” angle. People sit around on welfare because that’s what they do. Anyone can make that choice, just stop being responsible and let their personal dodo hit the fan. They can also make the choice to take care of themselves, there are no traps. Our own personal destiny is always up to us.
It’s all about “equality”. They know that there is no way to make everyone rich so they will settle for making everyone else poor (except the liberal elite, of course).
I don’t have the article, but would like to see it. I’d also like to see the photo of Hillary with Cloward-Piven.
Let me know if you ever find them.
It is not “that liberals actually think that the poor are somehow better off if there are no rich.” They think of the poor as different than they themselves are. A different class of people, with a lack of intelligence, education, wisdom, breeding, class AND the money to live well. But of course they will employ them to wash their cars, mow the lawns, or even build their houses. They simply do not want them occupying the social strata alongside THEM. The kindest thing is to allow them to settle for dependence, it is how they iz happiest. The bestest thing to does wit da po is gives dem direck shun and housin, with a o not they bees cuh luhd or jes white trash. Dats da fax
You make a fair point.
But human nature is what it is. I believe welfare, to a very significant extent, discourages achievement and brings misery.
If this were not true, we wouldn’t have a reason to oppose it in the first place.
My above post is not to demean any class of people or race, it is truly what I believe liberals/socialists/Marxists/Democrats of today are motivated by. They want to protect those “lower” and unable to do for themselves.
Liberals are motivated by the desire to protect their view of themselves, and by their desire to feed their own envy.
She had no intention of ever helping the poor. She wanted power over people, and it was falsely camouflaged as something that would help the common man. Make no mistake about it, people like Frances Piven had or have no more intention of helping people, than Elena Ceucescu did.
Liberals believe it’s all about tearing down the injustice to build a better world. They are too stupid to see or understand or admit the utter inability of collectivism to “build” anything except destruction.
Leftists, however, know it’s nothing less than total war against the U.S. - the goal is simply to destroy the country, for international, global collectivist warfare purposes.
To Leftists, liberals are Stalin’s useful idiots, while liberals think Leftists are their Best Friends Forever. Seeing them together is like watching a rattlesnake hiding underneath a full-diapered, stinking toddler who’s screaming “no “.
More on the motivation of Cloward-Piven.
Although they claim to oppose “greed,” Cloward-Piven (and others of their political persuasion) are themselves very greedy—greedy for intellect. That is, they are not happy with the intellect they have, and constantly want more. Not that they can obtain more—what I mean to say is that their activism is inspired by a state of mind which arises from a deep sense of resentment over their perception of their own intellectual deficits.
When there is finally the crisis. Then the Statist collectivist elitist takeover. Is nothing more than slow-motion Anarchy
I don’t oppose the idea of safety nets, as long as it’s the state that is providing it because I don’t believe that the power to operate compulsory social programs is granted to the Federal govt in the Constitution. People can find themselves down on their luck and I think it is moral for the state to help them, can’t watch people starving in the streets.
I oppose the idea of it as a way of life, however, and that is what the C/P strategy is about. But they have to have people willing to sit there on it. My life is a story of rags to upper middle class and I didn’t get there by choosing to sit around on handouts all my life, nor did I ever take any, although as a young single mom at one point, I could have.
Wanting to control others is big with liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.