Piven Rings In New Year By Calling For A Viloent Revolution

Since our resident progressives on this site were all giggly like little girls over the wrestler getting all violent on a reporter who doesn't eat the liberal shit pie:

FRANCES FOX PIVEN RINGS IN THE NEW YEAR BY CALLING FOR VIOLENT REVOLUTION
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 4:33pm by Jonathon M. Seidl

She’s considered by many as the grandmother of using the American welfare state to implement revolution. Make people dependent on the government, overload the government rolls, and once government services become unsustainable, the people will rise up, overthrow the oppressive capitalist system, and finally create income equality. Collapse the system and create a new one. That‘s the simplified version of Frances Fox Piven’s philosophy originally put forth in the pages of The Nation in the 60s.

Now, as the new year ball drops, Piven is at it again, ringing in 2011 with renewed calls for revolution.

In a chilling and almost unbelievable editorial again in The Nation (”Mobilizing the Jobless,” January 10/17, 2011 edition), she calls on the jobless to rise up in a violent show of solidarity and force. As before, those calls are dripping with language of class struggle. Language she and her late husband Richard Cloward made popular in the 60s.

“So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs?” she writes. “After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEOs report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn’t the unemployed be on the march? Why aren’t they demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs?”

Those are the questions that frame what can best be called a roadmap for revolution. And it’s not long before those questions give way to directions. The first instruction: get angry.

“efore people can mobilize for collective action, they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity,” she writes. “They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant.”

And along with anger must come a denunciation of personal responsibility. Instead, workers must realize that others have put them in their current, uneasy situation: “[T]he out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible.”

Only then, once their rage has been properly stoked, can the angry take action. And when they do, sh says, the “protesters need targets.”

For Piven, the best “targets” are the people or organizations “capable of making some kind of response to angry demands.” Regular demands, notice, just won’t do. No, people must be fired up and not easily deterred. Angry and not quickly placated. It’s a concoction Piven has seen recently in other countries — countries such as England and Greece, which she uses as models for American unrest:

• An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.

“What she is calling for is nothing less than the chaos and violence engulfing Europe,” writes Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Ron Radosh on his blog. “Disgruntled leftist unionists, students who expect an education without cost, and citizens of social-democratic states cannot accept that the old terms of the social contract they thought would last forever have worn out their welcome. The European welfare-state governments can no longer function with the kind of social programs that now far exceed their nation’s budgets and hence are moving their countries to the precipice of total collapse.”

But violence has always been Piven’s preferred method of collapse. In 2004, she admitted as much, saying that violence is condoned as long as it is part of a grand plan:

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ELvINNajtCQ&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ELvINNajtCQ&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

What may be new is the brazen way in which Piven is now making her intentions known. No longer do her and people like her have to hide in the shadows. Now, they feel comfortable enough with the political climate to espouse their views openly, freely, unabashedly. It’s a phenomenon Radosh believes has to do with the current administration: leftists see a renewed opportunity now that Obama is in power.

“Now, as President Barack Obama is beginning the mid-point of his first and possibly only term in office, the Left is again trying to advance a new form of the old strategy,” he writes. And “as our national economy and many state and city budgets again are at the breaking point,” he adds, “Frances Fox Piven has issued a new call to repeat and build upon the ruinous strategies that she and her late husband advanced decades ago.”

In 1966 when Cloward and Piven published their first manifesto in The Nation, Americans were spell bound — especially poorer Americans who sucked up the couple’s call like a dying desert cactus. The New Republic’s John McWhorter writes:

• But when Piven and Cloward published a manifesto in The Nation, there were 30,000 reprint requests. One thousand neighborhood service centers nationwide encouraged people to go on welfare who would not have otherwise. In the ’60s, one-third of the people whose incomes made them eligible for AFDC were on the rolls. By 1971, 90 percent were.

An old strategy for a new year. Let‘s hope it doesn’t have the same effect.

 

There SHOULD be a revolution... to drive all of the tit-suckers, Socialists, Leftists, Communists... into the sea.

America was meant to be the "land of opportunity"... not the "land of entitlement".

 

Who is this person again? You're going to have to explain to us in your own words who she is and why she matters. Not another copy and paste job.
I watched the youtube video, she said she has tremendous respect for the non-violence movement.
Case closed, in my book.

 

.

Why? It's obvious words don't matter to you.

 

That women is a nobody.The Republican party has leaders threating civil war though



Threats of Secession and Other Recent Republican Rhetoric



Am I the only one who upon reading that the governor of Texas has now referred to the possibility of seceding from the union as one of "a lot of different scenarios", wondered why the good people of Texas hadn't thought of that before the 2000 election. On a more serious note, this latest GOP tactic seems, at first, more surreal than offensive. Texas, of course, will not secede from the US. The threat of secession is not a realistic one but it suggests that the fabric of our democracy may be woven far less tightly than we would like to think.

Extreme partisan rancor is never pretty, but in a democracy like ours probably far more common and unavoidable than we would like to think. Dressing up in revolutionary war costumes, calling for the overthrow of the government and waving teabags at the behest of wealthy right wing funders is, while a little pathetic and strange, well within the realm of constitutionally protected behavior and may even play a somewhat constructive role in our democracy. The notion that Obama is a socialist because he wants a minor tax increase for a tiny fraction of Americans and would prefer to spend our treasure on helping people rather than on conducting wars of dubious origin or intention is more than a little strange, but if a small minority of people want to assert it, that is again well within their rights.

Floating the idea of secession over this, even in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner, is a very different story. The history of secession in the US is not a pretty one. It was tried once and the seceding states were brought back into the union, but the cost was high as the country was torn apart by what was, at that time, one of the bloodiest wars in human history.










-----------



Tennessee Republican floats secession threat




(CNN) – Texas Gov. Rick Perry's suggestion in April 2009 that his state might consider secession drew a round of mockery nationwide, but his blustery populist rhetoric earned him serious traction among GOP primary voters in his re-election fight against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Perry, riding a tide of anti-Washington sentiment, went on to trounce Hutchison and another candidate in the Republican primary earlier this year.

Now another gubernatorial hopeful is test-driving a similar message.
Rep. Zach Wamp, one of three candidates seeking the GOP gubernatorial nomination in Tennessee, told Hotline OnCall that Perry had the right idea. Wamp argued that mandates forced on the states by the Obama administration's health care bill have put secession on the table.

 

Yeah, and Obama has buddies who actually bombed the White House. Texas has a right to secede from the union if they so chose. Either way, there's a decent chance the USA will balkanize in the coming decades anyhow.

 

Texas has been threatening secession since the early 1900's so that's nothing new, unless you think it is.

 

Openly Rooting for Revolution, The Left Calls For American Civil Unrest & Riots (Frances Fox Piven, Lib Talkers, Journalists, Van Jones, Rev Wright, English Protest Leader, etc)

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgpmFSQI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

 

Listen carefully. "All the pieces are in place for a massive defiant movement" Stop paying your mortgage, tmarket, and rise up and fight for your right to live free in this country!

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgpqJdwI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

 

I'm certainly no constitutional scholar but I agree.

What's the point of living in a "free" country if you're not allowed to leave when you want?

Hey, maybe that will be Obama's legacy. The second POTUS to preside over states seceding from the union. He is a fan of Lincoln anyway isn't he?