This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cloward鈥揚iven strategy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I created this article because it is needed. It helps people understand the U.S. political scene. Syntacticus ( talk) 08:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a needed article. I say it should stay. Syntacticus ( talk) 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
For anyone who cares here is a link to the deletion discussion: [ [1]]. I have removed the deletion tag in according with WP policy and have explained same at the linked page. Syntacticus ( talk) 05:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I read the tag, as I already told you. It contained boilerplate. Maybe you, as an admin with great experience knew what it meant but I didn't. I didn't know there were three (or more) different routes to deletion. It was not obvious what the right course of action was. Syntacticus ( talk) 02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't imagine deleting this topic. Modify the title if needed, but keep. 68.83.72.162 ( talk) 12:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to remain. I understand some people like to call it "conspiracy theory", because some Pundits/TalkingHeads like to make connections to this strategy but the fact still remains that the strategy did exist and was in fact published in a major publication back in 1966. [1] The two authors were PHD's who educated and influenced young people for over four decades and helped bring about major legislation and political action. So in that context a published work by the couple is relevant. And it's especially relevant since it has been referenced by so many other sources in recent history regardless of the opinion some people have of those sources. I might point out that to this day in 2019, many people still say Wikipedia is not a "reliable" source. So do we want to make that true by simply removing history because we don't like what some people think about? Immto ( talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Arms & Hearts: my post is under the talk area of the link you provided. Is that correct? It seems correct to me. Do you mean my comment should appear directly under the main area. I added it there, is that how you mean?
I removed the Criticism subhead because the info under it wasn't criticism. If someone has valid criticisms of the Strategy from acceptable sources they should insert them. Syntacticus ( talk) 02:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. I had been thinking in the context of the article that criticism would mean people saying the concept itself is BS, as they did in the AfD discussion at [ [2]]. (You participated in this discussion.) If you want, I don't have a problem with you putting it back in. I guess I haven't moved beyond the AfD discussion. Syntacticus ( talk) 08:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Is now in my possession. In the process of editing in what they wrote and argued for in that article. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Just cut this out: ." [2] as it seems to have nothing to do with the '66 article in question. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Cut the following out. It might be appropriate to one or both of the bio articles on these people; seems to have nothing to do with this strategy tied to their '66 article. "In 1982, they proposed that social service workers be used to register people to vote, with the thought that implementation of such a proposal might lead to a "class-based realignment of American politics". [1] They later founded Human SERVE, an organization that supported passage of the National Voter Registration Act in 1993. [2] " This also appears irrelevant, or perhaps part of some strained synth effort? It might belong in the piven article. "In 1970, reporting on the state of welfare in New York City, the New York Times quoted Cloward as saying that poor people ordinarily only have influence through disruption, "and then only when society is afraid of them." [3]" Bali ultimate ( talk) 17:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the "when society is afraid of them" quotation is very helpful in terms of understanding the Strategy. Syntacticus ( talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that to treat this Wikipedia article as if it only refers to a single paper published in 1966 is a mistake. This "strategy" clearly evolved over time, which is why I added further references from 1970 and the 1980s. 聽Frank聽聽|聽 聽talk聽 06:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, Frank. I'm just getting a little burnt out on this article. You will have to argue with Bali. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Interesting discussion above regarding the use of the term "Cloward-Piven Strategy". It is easy for me to accept that the intent of the authors of this "strategy" were benign in the sense that they wished to end poverty. In the intervening years, as the liberal and conservative viewpoints have evolved into more of a mutually exclusive pair of positions, the "Strategy" has started to imply, to some observers, the deliberate disruption of the American economy from within, in order to precipitate a fundamental change in the way the American government works. This would be a different purpose than what was conceived by Cloward and Piven. Things can be re-purposed. For example, I have used a hammer, out in the garden, as an improvised digging tool to transplant small plants. It is entirely possible that there are some political interests which purport to deliberately use the Cloward Piven Strategy for a different purpose. JohnFornaro 05-30-13. 71.2.167.174 ( talk) 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
References
NYT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYTWelfare
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I've rv some of it as from non-reliable source, but could someone with access to the sources in the criticism section check exactly what they say? What's left still sounds a little close to the anti-capitalist conspiracy rubbish (the article was full of this before the afd) than say a sociology encyclopedia might be. Or does it acctually discuss the conspiracy theory that this was turned into? If so that should go in.聽 Misarxist 16:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Political analysis as to the goals of a movement or a strategy is not necessarily conspiracy theorizing. Although you appear sincere, your scare brackets do not contribute to this discussion. We have been through this all before. Syntacticus ( talk) 07:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the external link might not be entirely in line with Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:ELNO guidelines relating to external links. It is certainly not neutral, being an attack piece on Obama, specifically, and only tangentially related to the subject material; I have never seen these theories argued in any mainstream source, and it appears to be from an online publication that might not be reliable. Indeed, I could not find any external links (on a cursory Google search) that did not use the phrase "Cloward-Piven" in a way that would notable, or even WP:FRINGE. I've removed the link, but would be happy to further discuss it; I'll keep an eye on this page in case there's serious disagreement. Cheers, 97.73.64.167 ( talk) 23:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"Cloward-Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, bankrupting the government." [3] Guiliani also blamed the Cloward Piven strategy of welfare advocates for bankrupting the city. [4] Kauffner ( talk) 05:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This was recently added:
Obviously NYC's problem was politics, but that doesn't really explain anything. The short-term loans were an emergency measure to stave off bankrupty -- even the NYT article referred to doesn't present it as "the" cause. Arson and crime were chasing jobs and revenue out of the city, even as budget cutting proposals were opposed by the unions. There was a major strike every year, and even the police had a strike in 1971. Kauffner ( talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"then both sociologists and political activists"
WT-Heck - did they convert from sociologisism to Prebyterianism聽? Such biased one-sided nonsense. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 173.89.175.101 ( talk) 06:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be some confusion as to the topic covered by this Wikipedia article. Is the article about the strategies outlined by Cloward and Piven? Or is it about the mischaracerization of that strategy by Horowitz? I have undid some edits to the lede section that appear to violate WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Some of the content and refs could and should be used in the body of the article, but the article should still remain primarily about the strategy -- not portrayal by critics. Xenophrenic ( talk) 20:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include a neutral POV paragraph on how the Cloward-Pliven Strategy has been alluded to in recent years, notably via Glenn Beck? Apologies if this question has already been thrashed out in previous editions of this article. The Sanity Inspector ( talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing some searching, and I'm not finding any references to this term that don't originate within the last couple of years with conservative pundits. If this is the case, this article is seriously misleading. S蠂eptomaniac 蠂伪喂蟻蔚蟿蔚 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm new to posting on Wiki, so apologies for not quite understanding or necesarily following some of the protocols. But here goes:
Interesting discussion above regarding the use of the term "Cloward-Piven Strategy". It is easy for me to accept that the intent of the authors of this "strategy" were benign in the sense that they wished to end poverty, and suggested a strategy to do exactly and only that. In the intervening years, as the liberal and conservative viewpoints have evolved into more of a mutually exclusive pair of positions, the "Strategy" has started to imply, to some observers, the deliberate disruption of the American economy from within, in order to precipitate a fundamental change in the way the American government works. This would be a different purpose than what was conceived by Cloward and Piven.
Things can be re-purposed. For example, I have used a hammer, out in the garden, as an improvised digging tool to transplant small plants. It is entirely possible that there are some political interests which purport to deliberately use the Cloward Piven Strategy for a different purpose.
Recent postings by Ann Barnhardt, who was a financial advisor and seems, to me at least, to speak sensibly about the larger issues of the nation's finances, has been suggesting that she believes that the recent explosion in government debt is evidence of a deliberate strategy to disrupt the American economy. She atributes nefarious purposes behind this possible disruption, having to do with her religious principles, but the point that I am focused on is that "strategies" can be repurposed. Other current observers have made similar comments about the Cloward Piven Strategy.
So, should the article say something about this latest development regarding the repurposing of the Cloward Piven Strategy?
JohnFornaro 05-30-13. 71.2.167.174 ( talk) 14:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyone have access to the New York Times archives? If so, can they check this source? I seriously doubt the quote attributed to Howard Phillips had anything to do with the article here. The original article was written almost 20 years before the quote, in 1984, and the next reference to it in any media is almost 20 years later. My guess is that someone thought it advanced the argument they wanted to make, but I doubt it had anything to do with this topic. S蠂eptomaniac 蠂伪喂蟻蔚蟿蔚 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what the perceived lack of neutral point of view refers to. Is there some dispute as to what Cloward and Piven were advancing when they first conceived their activism? (They espoused a decidedly partisan point of view; if the article reflects that point of view, well...isn't that what it should do?) 聽Frank聽聽|聽 聽talk聽 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1. that the article more clearly needs to state the use of "Cloward Piven Strategy" to support conspiracy theories described by Glenn Beck and on sites like ww.infowars.com. 2. That since "Cloward Piven Strategy" is a term invented and almost exclusively used by conspiracy theorists, it is not neutral to call this article by that name; it should be renamed to the actual name of the 1966 essay, with a redirect from "Cloward Piven Strategy". Jonathanwallace ( talk) 14:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
We need to centralise discussion about the article's title, so I'm starting a new section. Dougweller ( talk) 14:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I made the changes we discussed above by adding a new section keyed to Glenn Beck's mentions of Cloward Piven and the Nation's response.
I also deleted a New York Times 1970 reference which said only that the Times discussed Cloward Piven without providing any further information; provided actual quotes from the referenced Weir and McWhorter sources; moved the Chandler quote about Cloward Piven causing the NYC bankruptcy to a para listing conspiracist accusations against Cloward Piven in the new section. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The section outlining the strategy seems to lack appropriate context. The article quotes only the section about redistribution of income. This is appropriate since this is the most controversial part of the article. But couldn't we include the entire paragraph for context? Or at least an in-text link to the article itself instead of burying it in the citations? The entire paragraph reads:
"The ultimate objective of this strategy--to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income--will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income. Instead, programs are demanded to enable people to become economically competitive. But such programs are of no use to millions of today's poor. For example, one-third of the 35 million poor Americans are in families headed by females; these heads of family cannot be aided appreciably by job retraining, higher minimum wages, accelerated rates of economic growth, or employment in public works projects. Nor can the 5 million aged who are poor, nor those whose poverty results from the ill health of the wage earner. Programs to enhance individual mobility will chiefly benefit the very young, if not the as yet unborn. Individual mobility is no answer to the question of how to abolish the massive problem of poverty now."
As it reads now, the article makes it clear Cloward-Piven advocates for redistribution of income, but provides no context as to why. It seems to support the recent Glenn Beck-esque assertions that Cloward-Piven was some kind of massive Marxist conspiracy to destroy the government. In reading the article in The Nation, one should realize that the idea was to force the government to directly lift people out of poverty (via direct annual payments) in lieu of using techniques to enhance economic mobility. This article should reflect that, but clearly doesn't. Wikilost ( talk) 21:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no evidence that this article was well-known at all, or was widely perceived as setting out any "strategy" with any meaningful real-world consequences, until Glenn Beck somewhat arbitrarily chose to pluck it out of obscurity. Glenn Beack should be prominently mentioned in the lead paragraph. AnonMoos ( talk) 14:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Reworded "left-wing" to "liberal". Twice. Best believe "far right" (US context) is routinely edited as "conservative" on en.wikipedia. - 74.196.17.155 ( talk) 15:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry, above should've been "new section". - 74.196.17.155 ( talk) 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Horowitz and Poe in their recent book ("The Shadow Party") give a lot of detail and history about Clovard and Piven. They discuss the movement to overtax the welfare system, and a second strategy to overtax the election system. 2601:600:9080:22A0:4DED:ACA5:B42F:38D9 ( talk) 03:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Explained. [9]. (The external link is Charlie Kirk ranting about Marxists under the bed.) Dan Murphy ( talk) 23:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
While this article was largely political drivel one day ago, it did have a description of what the theory was intended to do (from the very biased perspective of that editor). I do think this article could benefit from a well-sourced description of the strategy in the lead rather than just its authors. 2601:44:180:98B0:C476:3D35:1A64:9FA1 ( talk) 19:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Congradulations! You've just exposed yourselves as the left wing propaganda machines that you really are! You can continue supressing your political opponents, but you can't hide the truth! 67.2.32.215 ( talk) 23:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The top of the article says "The strategy aims to create a "bureaucratic and fiscal crisis" by overloading the welfare system via an increase in welfare claims, forcing the creation of a system of guaranteed minimum income." and then later on there is an "Impact of the strategy" section. How can one mention criticisms of the impact of the strategy if there is no documentation of actual concerted efforts to implement the strategy?
The first paragraph under the "Impact of the Strategy" section mentions: "Cloward and Piven argued that mass unrest ... lead to a massive expansion of welfare rolls" and "Robert Albritton disagreed, writing ... the data did not support this thesis; he offered an alternative explanation for the rise in welfare caseloads". Neither of those touch on strategy as stated which is to intentional create a crisis which forces a system of guaranteed minimum income.
Seems in general that much of this article is conflating 1) an interest in getting more people enrolled in welfare w/ 2) the strategy of overloading it and forcing a creation of guaranteed minimum income. If there are going to be criticisms of the impact of the strategy then at the very least there should be some proof that their was a concerted effort to implement the full strategy. I think the "Impact of the Strategy" section is authored with a political axe to grind. If there are actual instances of politicians, etc. consciously implementing this as a strategy then that should be documented prior mentioning the impacts. Dmtram ( talk) 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cloward鈥揚iven strategy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I created this article because it is needed. It helps people understand the U.S. political scene. Syntacticus ( talk) 08:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a needed article. I say it should stay. Syntacticus ( talk) 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
For anyone who cares here is a link to the deletion discussion: [ [1]]. I have removed the deletion tag in according with WP policy and have explained same at the linked page. Syntacticus ( talk) 05:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I read the tag, as I already told you. It contained boilerplate. Maybe you, as an admin with great experience knew what it meant but I didn't. I didn't know there were three (or more) different routes to deletion. It was not obvious what the right course of action was. Syntacticus ( talk) 02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't imagine deleting this topic. Modify the title if needed, but keep. 68.83.72.162 ( talk) 12:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to remain. I understand some people like to call it "conspiracy theory", because some Pundits/TalkingHeads like to make connections to this strategy but the fact still remains that the strategy did exist and was in fact published in a major publication back in 1966. [1] The two authors were PHD's who educated and influenced young people for over four decades and helped bring about major legislation and political action. So in that context a published work by the couple is relevant. And it's especially relevant since it has been referenced by so many other sources in recent history regardless of the opinion some people have of those sources. I might point out that to this day in 2019, many people still say Wikipedia is not a "reliable" source. So do we want to make that true by simply removing history because we don't like what some people think about? Immto ( talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Arms & Hearts: my post is under the talk area of the link you provided. Is that correct? It seems correct to me. Do you mean my comment should appear directly under the main area. I added it there, is that how you mean?
I removed the Criticism subhead because the info under it wasn't criticism. If someone has valid criticisms of the Strategy from acceptable sources they should insert them. Syntacticus ( talk) 02:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. I had been thinking in the context of the article that criticism would mean people saying the concept itself is BS, as they did in the AfD discussion at [ [2]]. (You participated in this discussion.) If you want, I don't have a problem with you putting it back in. I guess I haven't moved beyond the AfD discussion. Syntacticus ( talk) 08:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Is now in my possession. In the process of editing in what they wrote and argued for in that article. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Just cut this out: ." [2] as it seems to have nothing to do with the '66 article in question. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Cut the following out. It might be appropriate to one or both of the bio articles on these people; seems to have nothing to do with this strategy tied to their '66 article. "In 1982, they proposed that social service workers be used to register people to vote, with the thought that implementation of such a proposal might lead to a "class-based realignment of American politics". [1] They later founded Human SERVE, an organization that supported passage of the National Voter Registration Act in 1993. [2] " This also appears irrelevant, or perhaps part of some strained synth effort? It might belong in the piven article. "In 1970, reporting on the state of welfare in New York City, the New York Times quoted Cloward as saying that poor people ordinarily only have influence through disruption, "and then only when society is afraid of them." [3]" Bali ultimate ( talk) 17:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the "when society is afraid of them" quotation is very helpful in terms of understanding the Strategy. Syntacticus ( talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that to treat this Wikipedia article as if it only refers to a single paper published in 1966 is a mistake. This "strategy" clearly evolved over time, which is why I added further references from 1970 and the 1980s. 聽Frank聽聽|聽 聽talk聽 06:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, Frank. I'm just getting a little burnt out on this article. You will have to argue with Bali. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Interesting discussion above regarding the use of the term "Cloward-Piven Strategy". It is easy for me to accept that the intent of the authors of this "strategy" were benign in the sense that they wished to end poverty. In the intervening years, as the liberal and conservative viewpoints have evolved into more of a mutually exclusive pair of positions, the "Strategy" has started to imply, to some observers, the deliberate disruption of the American economy from within, in order to precipitate a fundamental change in the way the American government works. This would be a different purpose than what was conceived by Cloward and Piven. Things can be re-purposed. For example, I have used a hammer, out in the garden, as an improvised digging tool to transplant small plants. It is entirely possible that there are some political interests which purport to deliberately use the Cloward Piven Strategy for a different purpose. JohnFornaro 05-30-13. 71.2.167.174 ( talk) 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
References
NYT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYTWelfare
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I've rv some of it as from non-reliable source, but could someone with access to the sources in the criticism section check exactly what they say? What's left still sounds a little close to the anti-capitalist conspiracy rubbish (the article was full of this before the afd) than say a sociology encyclopedia might be. Or does it acctually discuss the conspiracy theory that this was turned into? If so that should go in.聽 Misarxist 16:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Political analysis as to the goals of a movement or a strategy is not necessarily conspiracy theorizing. Although you appear sincere, your scare brackets do not contribute to this discussion. We have been through this all before. Syntacticus ( talk) 07:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the external link might not be entirely in line with Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:ELNO guidelines relating to external links. It is certainly not neutral, being an attack piece on Obama, specifically, and only tangentially related to the subject material; I have never seen these theories argued in any mainstream source, and it appears to be from an online publication that might not be reliable. Indeed, I could not find any external links (on a cursory Google search) that did not use the phrase "Cloward-Piven" in a way that would notable, or even WP:FRINGE. I've removed the link, but would be happy to further discuss it; I'll keep an eye on this page in case there's serious disagreement. Cheers, 97.73.64.167 ( talk) 23:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"Cloward-Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, bankrupting the government." [3] Guiliani also blamed the Cloward Piven strategy of welfare advocates for bankrupting the city. [4] Kauffner ( talk) 05:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This was recently added:
Obviously NYC's problem was politics, but that doesn't really explain anything. The short-term loans were an emergency measure to stave off bankrupty -- even the NYT article referred to doesn't present it as "the" cause. Arson and crime were chasing jobs and revenue out of the city, even as budget cutting proposals were opposed by the unions. There was a major strike every year, and even the police had a strike in 1971. Kauffner ( talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"then both sociologists and political activists"
WT-Heck - did they convert from sociologisism to Prebyterianism聽? Such biased one-sided nonsense. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 173.89.175.101 ( talk) 06:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be some confusion as to the topic covered by this Wikipedia article. Is the article about the strategies outlined by Cloward and Piven? Or is it about the mischaracerization of that strategy by Horowitz? I have undid some edits to the lede section that appear to violate WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Some of the content and refs could and should be used in the body of the article, but the article should still remain primarily about the strategy -- not portrayal by critics. Xenophrenic ( talk) 20:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include a neutral POV paragraph on how the Cloward-Pliven Strategy has been alluded to in recent years, notably via Glenn Beck? Apologies if this question has already been thrashed out in previous editions of this article. The Sanity Inspector ( talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing some searching, and I'm not finding any references to this term that don't originate within the last couple of years with conservative pundits. If this is the case, this article is seriously misleading. S蠂eptomaniac 蠂伪喂蟻蔚蟿蔚 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm new to posting on Wiki, so apologies for not quite understanding or necesarily following some of the protocols. But here goes:
Interesting discussion above regarding the use of the term "Cloward-Piven Strategy". It is easy for me to accept that the intent of the authors of this "strategy" were benign in the sense that they wished to end poverty, and suggested a strategy to do exactly and only that. In the intervening years, as the liberal and conservative viewpoints have evolved into more of a mutually exclusive pair of positions, the "Strategy" has started to imply, to some observers, the deliberate disruption of the American economy from within, in order to precipitate a fundamental change in the way the American government works. This would be a different purpose than what was conceived by Cloward and Piven.
Things can be re-purposed. For example, I have used a hammer, out in the garden, as an improvised digging tool to transplant small plants. It is entirely possible that there are some political interests which purport to deliberately use the Cloward Piven Strategy for a different purpose.
Recent postings by Ann Barnhardt, who was a financial advisor and seems, to me at least, to speak sensibly about the larger issues of the nation's finances, has been suggesting that she believes that the recent explosion in government debt is evidence of a deliberate strategy to disrupt the American economy. She atributes nefarious purposes behind this possible disruption, having to do with her religious principles, but the point that I am focused on is that "strategies" can be repurposed. Other current observers have made similar comments about the Cloward Piven Strategy.
So, should the article say something about this latest development regarding the repurposing of the Cloward Piven Strategy?
JohnFornaro 05-30-13. 71.2.167.174 ( talk) 14:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyone have access to the New York Times archives? If so, can they check this source? I seriously doubt the quote attributed to Howard Phillips had anything to do with the article here. The original article was written almost 20 years before the quote, in 1984, and the next reference to it in any media is almost 20 years later. My guess is that someone thought it advanced the argument they wanted to make, but I doubt it had anything to do with this topic. S蠂eptomaniac 蠂伪喂蟻蔚蟿蔚 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what the perceived lack of neutral point of view refers to. Is there some dispute as to what Cloward and Piven were advancing when they first conceived their activism? (They espoused a decidedly partisan point of view; if the article reflects that point of view, well...isn't that what it should do?) 聽Frank聽聽|聽 聽talk聽 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1. that the article more clearly needs to state the use of "Cloward Piven Strategy" to support conspiracy theories described by Glenn Beck and on sites like ww.infowars.com. 2. That since "Cloward Piven Strategy" is a term invented and almost exclusively used by conspiracy theorists, it is not neutral to call this article by that name; it should be renamed to the actual name of the 1966 essay, with a redirect from "Cloward Piven Strategy". Jonathanwallace ( talk) 14:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
We need to centralise discussion about the article's title, so I'm starting a new section. Dougweller ( talk) 14:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I made the changes we discussed above by adding a new section keyed to Glenn Beck's mentions of Cloward Piven and the Nation's response.
I also deleted a New York Times 1970 reference which said only that the Times discussed Cloward Piven without providing any further information; provided actual quotes from the referenced Weir and McWhorter sources; moved the Chandler quote about Cloward Piven causing the NYC bankruptcy to a para listing conspiracist accusations against Cloward Piven in the new section. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The section outlining the strategy seems to lack appropriate context. The article quotes only the section about redistribution of income. This is appropriate since this is the most controversial part of the article. But couldn't we include the entire paragraph for context? Or at least an in-text link to the article itself instead of burying it in the citations? The entire paragraph reads:
"The ultimate objective of this strategy--to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income--will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income. Instead, programs are demanded to enable people to become economically competitive. But such programs are of no use to millions of today's poor. For example, one-third of the 35 million poor Americans are in families headed by females; these heads of family cannot be aided appreciably by job retraining, higher minimum wages, accelerated rates of economic growth, or employment in public works projects. Nor can the 5 million aged who are poor, nor those whose poverty results from the ill health of the wage earner. Programs to enhance individual mobility will chiefly benefit the very young, if not the as yet unborn. Individual mobility is no answer to the question of how to abolish the massive problem of poverty now."
As it reads now, the article makes it clear Cloward-Piven advocates for redistribution of income, but provides no context as to why. It seems to support the recent Glenn Beck-esque assertions that Cloward-Piven was some kind of massive Marxist conspiracy to destroy the government. In reading the article in The Nation, one should realize that the idea was to force the government to directly lift people out of poverty (via direct annual payments) in lieu of using techniques to enhance economic mobility. This article should reflect that, but clearly doesn't. Wikilost ( talk) 21:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no evidence that this article was well-known at all, or was widely perceived as setting out any "strategy" with any meaningful real-world consequences, until Glenn Beck somewhat arbitrarily chose to pluck it out of obscurity. Glenn Beack should be prominently mentioned in the lead paragraph. AnonMoos ( talk) 14:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Reworded "left-wing" to "liberal". Twice. Best believe "far right" (US context) is routinely edited as "conservative" on en.wikipedia. - 74.196.17.155 ( talk) 15:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry, above should've been "new section". - 74.196.17.155 ( talk) 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Horowitz and Poe in their recent book ("The Shadow Party") give a lot of detail and history about Clovard and Piven. They discuss the movement to overtax the welfare system, and a second strategy to overtax the election system. 2601:600:9080:22A0:4DED:ACA5:B42F:38D9 ( talk) 03:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Explained. [9]. (The external link is Charlie Kirk ranting about Marxists under the bed.) Dan Murphy ( talk) 23:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
While this article was largely political drivel one day ago, it did have a description of what the theory was intended to do (from the very biased perspective of that editor). I do think this article could benefit from a well-sourced description of the strategy in the lead rather than just its authors. 2601:44:180:98B0:C476:3D35:1A64:9FA1 ( talk) 19:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Congradulations! You've just exposed yourselves as the left wing propaganda machines that you really are! You can continue supressing your political opponents, but you can't hide the truth! 67.2.32.215 ( talk) 23:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The top of the article says "The strategy aims to create a "bureaucratic and fiscal crisis" by overloading the welfare system via an increase in welfare claims, forcing the creation of a system of guaranteed minimum income." and then later on there is an "Impact of the strategy" section. How can one mention criticisms of the impact of the strategy if there is no documentation of actual concerted efforts to implement the strategy?
The first paragraph under the "Impact of the Strategy" section mentions: "Cloward and Piven argued that mass unrest ... lead to a massive expansion of welfare rolls" and "Robert Albritton disagreed, writing ... the data did not support this thesis; he offered an alternative explanation for the rise in welfare caseloads". Neither of those touch on strategy as stated which is to intentional create a crisis which forces a system of guaranteed minimum income.
Seems in general that much of this article is conflating 1) an interest in getting more people enrolled in welfare w/ 2) the strategy of overloading it and forcing a creation of guaranteed minimum income. If there are going to be criticisms of the impact of the strategy then at the very least there should be some proof that their was a concerted effort to implement the full strategy. I think the "Impact of the Strategy" section is authored with a political axe to grind. If there are actual instances of politicians, etc. consciously implementing this as a strategy then that should be documented prior mentioning the impacts. Dmtram ( talk) 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)