tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post4700970900675330940..comments2023-11-06T00:01:30.085+13:00Comments on New Zeal: 1966 - Cloward - Piven Strategy Unveiled at Socialist Scholars ConferenceTrevor Loudonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17040453691836232676noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post-35603290790670944352010-08-18T00:35:29.285+12:002010-08-18T00:35:29.285+12:00http://www.nytimes.com/1985/01/31/nyregion/alice-w...http://www.nytimes.com/1985/01/31/nyregion/alice-widener.html<br /><br />the link above is for Widener USA MagazineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post-82819196290178651372010-06-27T14:43:33.120+12:002010-06-27T14:43:33.120+12:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jim Simpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743897601209977920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post-41464596479315928922010-06-27T14:09:42.786+12:002010-06-27T14:09:42.786+12:00Like most bolsheviks, they're corrupt and inep...Like most bolsheviks, they're corrupt and inept, stalin wasn't a very good bank robber, from what I have read.john mario colarossihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12800288607006137511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post-55070846460740980722010-06-27T11:55:33.826+12:002010-06-27T11:55:33.826+12:00I fear that Cloward & Piven were shockingly in...I fear that Cloward & Piven were shockingly inept socialists. State welfare is "to each according to his need": state welfare <i>is</i> socialism. In attempting to crash the U.S. economy by overloading the state welfare system, Cloward & Piven were unwittingly trying to destroy a socialist system. Our two academic dunces were intent on exposing socialism's most glaring defect: need is highly elastic and capable of growing until halted by state bankruptcy. Evidently Cloward & Piven had no idea what capitalism is: "to each according to the value of his work". Under capitalism, one's needs are held in check by the value of one's work, and one always arrives at the point where the satisfaction of additional needs is not worth the exertion required by additional work.<br /><br />It is beyond me why the learned socialist scholars didn't send Cloward & Piven to the back of the room to sit on stools.Eugene Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497089070091630854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post-8223182920859819892010-06-27T10:23:50.964+12:002010-06-27T10:23:50.964+12:00Thanks anon-you are right. late night mistake. The...Thanks anon-you are right. late night mistake. The quote was not from USA Today, but from Widener's own publication, "USA Magazine"Trevor Loudonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17040453691836232676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post-12894473480890833942010-06-27T09:33:00.047+12:002010-06-27T09:33:00.047+12:00Yep, judging from her bibliography, it looks like ...Yep, judging from her bibliography, it looks like Alice Widener had this movement nailed. (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Cp_27%3AAlice%20Widener&field-author=Alice%20Widener&page=1)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post-35481943466956424042010-06-27T08:40:35.645+12:002010-06-27T08:40:35.645+12:00It is regrettable that 'the Party's chief ...It is regrettable that 'the Party's chief theoretician Herbert Aptheker' is no longer around to entertain us, but his (in)famous daughter Bettina Aptheker carries on in the family tradition. According to feminist Bettina, her father abused her sexually from the age of 4 to the age of 13.<br /><br />Well, really.Eugene Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497089070091630854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post-34331846074793612822010-06-27T04:33:25.638+12:002010-06-27T04:33:25.638+12:00"In 1988, an attempt was made to bring the br..."In 1988, an attempt was made to bring the breezy style of USA Today to television."<br /><br />USA Today did not START in 1988. As far as I can tell, it started in 1982.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18947592.post-29452131881726805682010-06-27T03:08:37.578+12:002010-06-27T03:08:37.578+12:00How could this have appeared in USA Today in 1966 ...How could this have appeared in USA Today in 1966 when USA Today started in 1982?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com