FRANCES FOX PIVEN: Well, I think that there’s a certain amount of just accident that he picked me or picked Richard and me, partly accident, partly not so accidental, because there were at the time, in the late 1960s, early 1970s, there were a number of people who had moved from being on the left, further to the left than me, who were moving to the right, where the pay is better. And in making that move, they sort of took with them their familiarity with the work that we had done and then exaggerated, demonized it. You know, I think that—
Here’s an example of Mrs. Piven’s work. Hopefully providing it directly doesn’t exaggerate it or demonize it.
Why would anybody be opposed to intentionally overwhelming the welfare system to cause a “profound financial and political crisis” in America so you can bring about “wealth redistribution” and a “guaranteed annual income” for everybody? A guaranteed income provided by magic, or the federal government, or something.
These are the smart people that some of you apparently revere.
I remember taking part in a protest at my university in my younger days. We essentially chased our Misiter for Education around a university campus, blockaded his car, and chanted at him.
The guy that tried to let air out of his tyres was physically restrained. Why? Well that act would have transformed us from “legimate protesters” into “unruly rioters”.
Good thing too - the Minister came off looking like an idiot on national news, while the protestors amply made their point.
No, I’m not. Others in this thread may have, but not me.
Rather, it looks to me like you’re conflating a statement of fact with an endorsement. It is quite true that in order to actually affect government policy public protests must be large, widespread and highly emotional (if not actually violent). To achieve their goals (assuming they have them) they need to reach a point at which it is unsafe for politicians to ignore them.
To say that is not to say that I think people should riot (I don’t, except in *very *extreme circumstances which don’t remotely apply in modern America). It is also not to say that I think politicians should acquiesce in the face of a few peaceful protests; it would be wrong for a few rabblerousers to affect the course of government appointed by the majority. It is simply a recognition of the way things work in America.
I’m not denying that what she is proposing is extreme. But please note that it is also entirely legal.
I see her line of reasoning as this:
The current welfare system is inefficient and ineffective.
The government’s solution to this is to discourage people who are legally eligible for benefits from applying for them, even though this inflicts a real hardship on those people.
If we make sure that all those people who are eligible for benefits sign up, the flaws in the system will become evident.
[del]Profit![/del] The government will be forced to implement a more efficient, effective and equitable welfare system that isn’t reliant on attempting to trick people into not claiming what they are allowed under the system.
Bearing in mind that this is 1966 and we have the benefit of hindsight, her proposal strikes me as overly optimistic about the way that government works. But it’s not poorly reasoned and when you dig down to the details what she’s asking for is not out of line with what you get in a lot of countries: basic assistance for food and rent, and special “non-recurring” grants for clothing and basic furniture.
Yes, she wants “a new program for direct income distribution”. That makes her a proper liberal (which was much closer to the center in 1966 than it is now, especially in light of Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty”). It doesn’t make her an anarchist. She wants to use the system to fix it, hardly the action of a violent revolutionary.
In fact that article you cite goes on to describe the likely political and economic ramifications of her plan, how it might fail and what alternate outcomes might be. But go right ahead ACORN-izing another person trying to help the poor. Don’t let facts (or perhaps reading comprehension) stop you. After all, you’ve clearly got a deeper understanding of a “smart person I [del]have never heard of before[/del] revere” than I do.
How 'bout putting that statement into the context in which it was said.
Beck was contending that the Democratic Party is playing a dangerous game by using far-left radical revolutionaries to help achieve political aims. And his point was that the Democrats will never be able to placate or satisfy said revolutionaries, who will likely take a violent turn.
“You (the Democrats) are going to have to shoot them (the radical revolutionaries) in the head. But they may shoot you first.”
But way to warp that into Beck calling for shooting people. Media Matters would be proud of you.
As for Beck’s comment about Michael Moore, there’s no excusing it that I can see, and he shouldn’t have said it. He’s got to learn to not let far-left loons frustrate him to the point of saying such things. This web site helped me to achieve that enlightenment long, long ago.
*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.
Um, have you seen footage of what’s been going on in Greece?
That sounds a bit like anarchy. That sounds a bit like calling for violent, revolutionary action.
“You are going to have to shoot them in the head” isn’t calling for some people to shoot others in, say, the head? I won’t touch the ‘far left’ nonsense because everyone knows that the American right’s definition of ‘leftist’ is ‘people who don’t believe the garbage we spew’.
The problem with Sam Stone’s argument, if you can call it that, is that the rhetoric we are objecting to specifically calls for violence, while Piven’s quote only implies it. If what Piven said was the worst that anyone on the right had said, I wouldn’t bat an eye.
I’m sorry, but telling people to become more forceful in their rioting is not the same thing as giving fake poison to your opponent’s look-alike.
I dunno- it sounds to me as if she’s saying that any sort of protest which doesn’t go as far as the riots in Greece did will simply be ineffectual. Hardly a call to violence; more like a recognition of the powerlessness of the unemployed.
As calls to violence go, this one is remarkably passive and nonspecific. It’s funny that the Right keeps pointing towards this quote as an example of Piven advocating violence, when they can’t seem to recognize when those on the Right call for it openly.
Try reading the entire transcript instead of just one snippet taken out of context. Beck is talking about people who believe in something as opposed to those who don’t, and he uses himself as an example, saying that someone will have to shoot HIM in the head to get him to stop. He then uses that same analogy to describe others, and of course, that’s what get quoted. Emphasis mine.
Not only that, but as I pointed out earlier, he never even insinuates that leaders like Obama, Pelosi, et al, be shot, but that THEY would have to shoot the ideologues from the left who oppose them.
Quick question. If Keith Olberman was calling for people to shoot Tea Party members. Who, as it happens, are ideologues on the far right, what would you say? Would it be wrong then?
That there Beck quote is just full-on crazy. Never mind the “shoot me in the head” stuff, he’s stating outright that Nancy Pelosi, for one, is a Communist revolutionary bent on instigating a civil war in which millions will die in order to overthrow the government.
Of course, Glenn Beck is not suggesting for a moment that that people should shoot them pre-emptively, but of course the good people of Germany, Venezuela, Russia and Cuba did nothing and look what happened to them?
Yes. And if Beck said it, it would also be wrong. But I don’t think that’s what was done here. I think Beck was simply making a point about the level that certain people are driven by ideology. He’s calling for people to realize that certain groups will not be satisfied with any compromise, that you must ignore them, because reasoning with them is futile. That the only way that they will give up on their mission is if they are shot.
Now, a question for you: do you think Beck instructed anyone to shoot anyone else? If so, please explain who, according to Beck’s words,is to do the shooting and who is to be shot.
