In 1966, Piven and Richard Cloward published “The Weight of the Poor” in the Nation magazine. The essay elaborates what has since been dubbed the “Cloward-Piven Strategy”: the mass enrollment of the poor onto welfare rolls. If all who were entitled to government benefits claimed them, they argued, the system would buckle, exposing the magnitude of American poverty and the inadequacy of its safety net. The ensuing political crisis would provide an opening in which to enact broad and lasting anti-poverty policy. Cloward and Piven published the article in the midst of an intense period of grassroots activity among welfare recipients. That same year, anti-poverty groups around the country formed a broad coalition that became the National Welfare Rights Organization, of which Piven was a founding member. - Maya Adereth & Jack Gross, 2020
The Cloward–Piven Strategy is one of those theories that evokes fury from the right and admiration from the left in America. The left likes to paint the picture of compassionate sociologists concerned about the welfare of the poor, while the right claims it's a tool to destroy America and turn it into a permanent welfare state. When you look at the description of the strategy, "overwhelming" the U.S. welfare system intentionally certy sounds like a tool for destruction.
A lot of the strategy revolves around guaranteed income, and because I've worked on guaranteed income programs before, decades ago, I know a thing or two about this and feel confident enough to talk about it responsibly.
Guaranteed income, or universal basic income (UBI), was an interesting theory to me in the past from an economic standpoint. But as we all saw during COVID, free money doesn't necessarily help low-income people in the long term. It just provides an incentive to spend money in the short term. Unfortunately, low-income people are generally very bad at managing their money and other resources, as one would expect. It's hard to deploy a UBI program without empowering, and supercharging, the nanny state. In America, at least, free money almost always goes to consumer goods and rent, and the consumer spending largely benefits the mega-corporations. There's no point in simply padding the S&P 500’s balance sheet.
Anyways, back to Cloward-Piven. Here is a snapshot of the theory:
The Cloward-Piven Theory, concocted in the 1960s by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, is a political strategy aimed at expanding welfare provisions to address social inequities. The approach involves:
Enrolling as many people as possible in welfare programs to strain the system.
Creating a situation that provokes public outcry and demands for change.
Watching the unsustainable system break down.
Replacing the old welfare system with a comprehensive, more effective one.
A more direct version of the strategy is as follows:
Overload and break the welfare system.
Watch chaos ensue.
Take control in the chaos.
Implement socialism and communism through government force.
The strategy also believes in the following:
Guaranteed Income: Cloward and Piven advocated for a guaranteed minimum income as a way to ensure that all individuals have a basic standard of living. They believed that economic stability for the poor would address poverty more effectively than piecemeal welfare programs.
Welfare as a Right: They viewed access to welfare benefits not as charity but as a fundamental right. They argued that a robust welfare state is necessary to protect the economic security of all citizens, especially the most vulnerable.
Systemic Change: Cloward and Piven believed that incremental reforms were insufficient to address the root causes of poverty. They saw a need for systemic changes to the welfare system to provide more comprehensive support to the poor.
Economic Redistribution: Their proposals often involved redistributive policies, aiming to shift resources from the wealthy to the poor to reduce economic inequality.
Crisis as Catalyst: The strategy suggested that creating a crisis in the welfare system by encouraging mass enrollment would force political and social change, leading to more extensive and effective social safety nets.
Have a look at this drivel, written as a refresh - by the original authors - for The Nation in 2010.
The right to income must be guaranteed, or the oppression of the welfare poor will not be eliminated. Because benefits are conditional under the present public welfare system, submission to arbitrary governmental power is regularly made the price of sustenance. People have been coerced into attending literacy classes or participating in medical or vocational rehabilitation regimes, on pain of having their benefits terminated. Men are forced into labor on virtually any terms lest they forfeit their welfare aid. One can prize literacy, health, and work, while still vigorously opposing the right of government to compel compliance with these values. Conditional benefits thus result in violations of civil liberties throughout the nation, and in a pervasive oppression of the poor. These violations are not less real because the impulse leading to them is altruistic and the agency is professional. If new systems of income distribution continue to permit the professional bureaucracies to choose when to give and when to withhold financial relief, the poor will once again be surrendered to an arrangement in which their rights are diminished in the name of overcoming their vices. Those who lead an attack on the welfare system must therefore be alert to the pitfalls of inadequate but placating reforms, which give the appearance of victory to what is in truth defeat. - Piven & Cloward, 2010
The Cloward–Piven Strategy, in many ways, seeks to destroy capitalism. The authors of this theory have discussed how the modern American welfare system is oppressive and needs to be revolutionized. They wish to revolutionize it by overloading the system.
The strategy wishes to accelerate the downfall of capitalism by inundating government systems with unmanageable demands, racking up enormous national debt, and employing tactics like unrestrained immigration. This approach seeks to break society and systems by overburdening the system.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy is so evil because it deliberately seeks to undermine and destroy the very foundations of society. By intentionally overloading the welfare system, the strategy creates intense chaos and promotes economic collapse. This approach isn't about helping the poor but rather about using the poor as pawns to achieve a radical agenda.
The strategy’s endgame is to force a crisis that allows for the implementation of socialism or communism through government force. Instead of fostering independence and self-sufficiency, it creates a cycle of dependency and control. By pushing society to the brink, the Cloward-Piven Strategy threatens to replace a free and prosperous society with one dominated by government overreach and authoritarian rule, making it not just misguided but deeply malevolent.
The problem with academia - in this case I’m referring to sociologists - is that many of these academics wish to implement their wonky theories into the real world, whether or not they actually end up working is another concern, but often not the primary concern of the academic. If academics want to come up with radical theories to read amongst friend’s, or to brag amongst the far-left so be it, but to have this strategy accepted in any, way shape or form, would be a hijacking of America, and fast-track the demise of our capitalist economy.
I personally think the fact that some politicians even promote this idea, should be disqualifying. Regardless, here in the land of the free, free speech is accepted. Fair enough. At least we can endlessly write the counter-arguments.
It's my belief that states should decide how best to divvy out welfare. Not the federal government. Did you read how the strategy condemns the state for having welfare participants “ attend literacy classes or participating in medical or vocational rehabilitation regimes, on pain of having their benefits terminated”?
What's your vision for America? Is it a nation that fully supports those trapped in chronic poverty (including a growing number of drug addicts, homeless individuals, and illegal immigrants) without checks and balances, or one that remains the land of the free (free-markets in this case, with strong states' rights and economic opportunity?
It’s quite obvious. You can show compassion towards those less fortunate without bankrupting the system or becoming an illogical radical.
This can be achieved without demonizing social outlooks or high achievement.
And capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history.
