Frances Fox Piven: Thomas Jefferson Would Be ‘Stunned’ at America Today (But Not For the Reason You Think)
by Kyle OlsonFrances Fox Piven, honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, can arguably be considered the mother of ACORN. At least, her ideas and theories set ACORN, and its parent, the National Welfare Rights Organization, onto a path of creating and manipulating crisis situations to further their agenda of a more equal “distribution of wealth” in America. In other words, socialism.
It’s a path, I believe, that runs contrary to our country’s original intent. But Piven doesn’t think so. In her book, “Challenging Authority,” she quoted both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
What I found most bizarre was the apparent disconnect in Piven’s mind between individual rights and property rights, particularly the idea of acquiring as much wealth as one wishes without fear of government encroachment. It’s impossible to believe that Jefferson, Adams and the other founders – most of them very successful entrepreneurs – could have envisioned or approved of a massive national government that siphons property and economic rights from private citizens.
The American Revolution they led was by no means a social revolution. It was a group of North American economic elites breaking away from an oppressive central authority in London. The leaders of the revolution had no interest in sharing their wealth with the masses. Most of them did not even favor extending the vote to common laborers.
It’s well documented that the founders were suspicious of a powerful central authority. That’s why they fought to rid themselves of King George III. That’s why they experimented for several years with a national confederation that had virtually no central government at all. They would be horrified at today’s progressive agenda, the very agenda Frances Fox Piven has been so successful at articulating and implementing for the last 40 years.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
85 Comments
I have often thought to myself that people would think twice about the way they vote if they had to pay property taxes to pay for it all. But then I think back to when I didn't own property and I would not have wanted to be denied a vote. But then again, I never had my hand out to the govt.
Progressivism is the poison that kills liberty.
The only problem with these "New" ideas, is that they aren't new at all. Another major flaw in these ideals, the ideologues cant seem to understand, that this type of governance invites the strongest and most brutal dictators, it is is easily overthrown. Progressivism defies the most basic tenets of nature and Darwin, Survival of the fittest and Natural selection. Hate to beat you with your own stick. But those are incontovertible facts, so I say to the progressives, THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS
I thought she was dead?
arm yourselvs.
The founders were very clear on property rights. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said " A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." Very clear. GOVT WILL LEAVE THEM FREE TO REGULATE THEIR OWN PURSUITS. In other words, get out of the peoples way government. Piven is just advocating stealing,,,,,,errrrr…..Socialism, which is just the opposite of what the founders wanted. And as to the point of denying the masses the vote, also known as Democracy, there was a simple reason. Democracy only works in a limited area, in a large area, representational democracy is the key. After all, as the Romans figured out to late to help them; "Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses" Today that would be earmarks and benifits.
It's just another example of how the Left twists words to suit their needs.
She had to look in her book to find what she said about Jefferson and Adams ??? Goes to show she just USED their names knowing the people that would read her book have no idea of our real history or the founding fathers..
Skeletor is asked at the end of the video if there's a better time than now. She responds with "I hope so…"
Well I hope you slither back from under what ever rock Obama has you under, and we begin talking about your end of life care soon, Skeltor…
This woman is clueless. When asked a simple question as to how todays time would sit with the founding fathers, smoke began to come out of her ears. Then she goes on to explain that we have an oligarchical society, and that's the problem. That people don't have a good understanding of their "rights". She's obviously just as out of touch as team Obama is…She has more contempt for the founding fathers, than she does the American people. She's evil, with out a soul, and in bad need of a haircut…I guess nobody ever said Liberal woman were hotties…!
She looks like the evil old alcoholic lady nobody wanted to visit on Halloween…!
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
It's time to start putting people in prison, or in the ground. Enough is enough.
Their faces should be placed on the walls of every POST OFFICE for the rewards. These are sick, demented children who were deprived of their slice of the pie. They didnt want to earn it…just STEAL (tax) it from others. America has awakened, thank God….. They will be totally defeated and annihilated this November.
Watch these Marxists "disappear" from the political media scene. But watch very closely for their new disguises !
This twisted view of history, on the part of leftists, is par for the course. How many times are we treated to the myth that the founders were atheists-lite (deists), when in fact, the vast majority were mainline Christians of various stripes? How many times do we hear Hitler and his Axis buddies were right-wingers, when they were in fact socialist oligarchs? How many times is the word "progressive" used in a positive light, when the "progressive" movement founding was steeped in racism and eugenics?
Yes, Ms Piven, the people ARE rising – just not in the direction you wish them to; we are rising UP, not laying down any longer. Those who wish for LIBERTY, as opposed to oligarchy as you say we are, are finally letting their voices be heard en mass loud and clear. We will stop the nonsense of letting the government confiscate our land, money, jobs. and thoughts. We will STOP the nonsense of calling our 'representatives' our 'leaders'. Fools elect leaders. Americans elect representatives, who had better be responsive to their electorate. And to our own, I say this: one of the first two things that had better change is to require all elected representatives to hold themselves to whatever laws they pass on us, and second that they have to ASK US if they can get a raise.
"Sick of it" does not come close to describing how we feel about your roach-and-rat-type method of little-at-a-time destruction. You are in the bright lights now. You better scurry. Quick.
Like I mentioned in yesterdays thread, I took a class (side note: the class was 2 semesters long, 3 days a week, 3 hours a session [2 hours lecture, 1 hr discussion]), that was taught by a self proclaimed Socialist, that attempted to enlighten us to the greatness of Socialism. His main belief was that Socialism would only work under universal consent, that Socialism would fail if forced upon people. He warned heavily on the dangers of Alinsky, as well as, Cloward & Piven that their ideals of destroying the system to force a Socialist revamping could only lead to one conclusion, failure and great atrocities. The examples he used was the the usual suspects, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, NAZI Germany, China…
When asked for an example of a successful Socialist, the professor would only quip, when everybody EVOLVES will there be a successful TRUE Socialistic state.
He openly admits that Socialism is a type of religion, just not a deity based and compared people who try to force Socialism with groups like the Twelvers (see: Imami Shī‘ism) and other religious groups that have tried/trying to force the changes to bring on Paradise.
Wow. An honest socialist? Diogenes, call your office!
I am inclined to agree with your prof. Socialism can only work under universal consent. Of course, this means, with the exception of small populations with more or less homogeneous values, socialism does not work. Kibbutzim seem to manage, some of the time. Sweden got away with it for a little while, but that requisite cultural uniformity I mentioned earlier no longer prevails there, and it's circling the drain.
And of course, history has shown that culturally uniform socialist enclaves frequently make bad neighbors.
If socialists were willing to wait for humans to evolve, I'd have no quarrel with them. Many scientists say that lactose tolerance is the latest beneficial human mutation, so we're well on our way.
Check back in 10,000 years.
I'm always amused to hear folks on the left and the right throw Jefferson's quotes around to bolster their petty, ignorant opinions. The key phrase in the oft-quoted "wise and frugal gov't"….is often used to justify a laissez-faire philosophy….but if you think about it, the part which states that the gov't shall "restrain men from injuring one another" implies an active, regulatory role for government. Here's another quote for everybody:
"…..the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."
It's all about the plan of the obamasoros monster. Follow the money, it will lead you to king george the turd.
I agree with most of what Mr. Olson writes, but I think its not the whole truth that our Revolution "was a group of North American economic elites breaking away from an oppressive central authority in London." Those colonial elites were certainly a major part of the revolt, and they helped lead the way politically, but there was also a large proportion of small farmers, backwoods settlers, the middle class, craftsmen and poorer folks who were Rebels. It was a complex situation in part because it became a civil war, and I wouldn't over-emphasize the "elite" component.
Mr. Olson is right that the American Revolution wasn't a "social revolution" in the way the French Revolution was. And thank God it wasn't! A lot of the American Rebels wanted to preserve what they believed were their traditional rights as Englishmen, which were being encroached upon by an aggressive Parliament and King.
The Devil can always quote Scripture to further its own ends…
Why should this "creature" be any different…?
No such luck. She only looks it.
I think a derivation of that idea that is more central to todays world is that if you don't pay taxes period or get all your taxes refunded then you shouldn't be eleligable to vote. That would rule out nearly half the nation's population, but if you aren't paying in, why should you be able to determine where it goes?
Property rights are pre-requisite to individual freedom.
True socialism is that through the gift of one self to help another self. like helping a neighbor raise a barn, that the common good has been done for the community by the community. These are acts of selflessness and the perfection is in the act not actions forced on you by the government. Man is not perfect and will never be. That is the true test, otherwise it's just an overeach by others to tell you how to live. What if you don't like the nieghbor and his barn is blocking your view….maybe you don't want to help, I don't need government to help me make that decision!
Jefferson said it best:
"Any government Big enough to give you everything you want, is also STRONG enough to take everything you have"
Do they really think that, we the people, are going to wait until THAT happens…They made a BIG mistake!!
When I help you through my own volition it is called altruism. When I "help" you because the government has a gun to my head it is called socialism.
As was once said by someone much wiser than I " When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always rely on the backing of Paul!"
Personel attacks on appearence ussually fall flat with me (pudgy, balding, old guy) BUT your last line was priceless thank you
My apologies if you are unfortunate enough to resemble Skeletor…LOL
Skeletor was the arch-nemisis of He-Man if anyone was wondering…
" When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always rely on the backing of Paul!"
Umm, not when applied to the Foreign Aid Industry.
A socialist under any other name is still a socialist. Let's look back in history and think of a good socialist, someone who really advanced liberty and society. Mmmm. Do Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot come to mind? Who else besides today's Democrats?
what a creepy beeeaattchh
You have to be a total twit to take 7 words out of 56 designed to limit the role of government to justify an "active regulatory role of government" Putting it in context of the times the fear was the mob, loosely joined groups with goals to control others behavior beliefs or steal property. (Think pirates raping and pillaging.) Society needed and wanted protection from anarchy not regulations on the language of warnings of suffocation hazards on plastic bags. As to your second quote from Jefferson’s letter to Weightman regarding not being able to attend, along with a handful of original signatories, the 50th anniversary of the American independence. It is not a statement of socialism or communism it is a statement reiterating the innate freedom of man and his 50 year later proven ability to SELF govern. Quoted below in context.“
any socio-economic system that depends on more perfect humans to succeed is doomed to fail. the great advantage of capitalism is that it takes advantage of man's natural inclination to act in his own self-interest. it does not foolishly pretend such motivations do not, or at least should not, exist.
10,000 yrs? given that little or nothing has changed in this regard in the last 10,000, i'd say we'd better wait at least 100,000 yrs before we bother checking for any enlightened evolution…
.“I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. CONTINUED
That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”
From Jefferson's letter to Roger C. Weightman
Monticello, June 24, 1826
Her book should have been entitled "Lapdogs for authoritarians."
They're going to start calling themselves 'Populists'.
Exactly – there are too many that get representation without taxation; leaving the rest of us to foot the bill for all the non-taxpayers feel good programs.
Oh how I remember – that was my eldest son's favorite show. By the power of Greyskull! LOL
When describing the current economic system in the United States , I like to call it 'Corporate State Socialism.' There's a lot in that term to confuse the average conservative, leftist, moderate or even libertarian.
Why should we defend corporations, which exist as creatures of the state, which survive on government grants of monopoly privilege as well as corporate welfare, special contracts with the state, and the benefits of eminent domain?
Not all corporations are all bad, and certainly some are far worse than others. Most people working within the corporate structure, including managers, are working hard and honestly within the predominant economic framework that is available to them. But to the extent that the state helps some corporations at the expense of the American taxpayer and the free market, you must agree with the left that there is 'corporatism' going on.
Piven has lived in an insulated environment, among the drone of similar voices. How many trails lead back to Columbia?
Hippies never grow up; they just grow old.
Frances Piven?
There is nothing more pitiful, than a semi-senile, has been academic who has espoused her propaganda for a genertaion, trying to make sense in her geriatric years. She makes the living case for euthanasia. It was she, and those of her ilk, who have turned this once great nation into a quivering cesspool of a welfare state.
Thomas Jefferson would be stunned by the trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street that was blessed by Republican President George W. Bush!! It seems like conservatives are against bailouts unless the bailout is for Wall Street.
This woman looks like she could have come out of central casting for the movie"WHATEVER HAPPEND TO BABY JANE". What a bunch of goblie gook. Liberalism is a mental disorder!
Read the complete patriot's guide to oligarchical collectivism: its theory and practice.
"It is the policy of the American Government to keep its citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." Thomas Jefferson.
I think TJ was pretty clear on the purpose of our governement. No need to "spin" or interpret "implied" meanings here.
Sadly you and the rest of the Christian Founders rah rah cheerleaders should drop that. It's a red hearing. You can't use any of that data because it was coerced. All of our Founders were at one time British Citizens and thus if they wanted to continue in the good graces of the grown and those sent by the crown to govern (including themselves) they had to belong to the Anglican Church, of which the majority did. The others were mostly off shoots of that. So in short, you should stop cheerleading that which you can not defend or prove.
It is not revisionist history that Washing was a Diest…he admitted it, his pastor admitted it. It was common knowledge. He spoke of our Creator, the Great Architect, etc. Never God. And never, ever Jesus.
So, let it go before it's your undoing. You lose your arguement and the high grown. A man's faith or God isn't the point of this fight. Our rights as Free Men are. Please stick to the battle at hand and stop being a distraction sir.
cl
I wouldn't call Bush a conservative. No true conservatives supported TARP, Porkulus I, Porkulus II, etc. …
Yeah, she'd better pray to Stalin that she'll be on the list for a hospital bed, soon from the looks of her, if Obamacare is forced on us.
What statement is she trying to make with the "reverse skunk "look?
Ohhhh, this is what an aged, anorexic skunk looks like talking out of its a#s .
Thank You lefties.
That is precisely why the government needs to be removed from taxation. Some form of BASIC taxation must exist to fund basic constitutional governmental function but it needs to be a flat tax or some other form that cannot allow favortism toward one group or another by legislators. Then, the corpoations and individuals will be able to co-exist equally.
Hear, Hear!! A Republican progressive is worse than a Democratic one because they come under a flag of truce. Bull@#$$it!!!
This is video evidence of a sick and twisted mind. I would love to hear Beck's take on this.
Crazy twit will be in hell soon enough
Joshua Muravchik (among others) has shown how even in the kibbutzim, the most favorable situation imaginable for an experiment in voluntary socialism, the concept eventually devours itself and private incentives (and inequality) must be allowed if the society is to survive. The Pilgrims figured that out too.
Epic takedown, my Jewish brother. Epic.
She's not twisting words. She presumes to channel the thought of a man dead for over two hundred years but doesn't back it up with his quotes from the time. She's outright lying.
Let the next French Revolution begin! Off with their heads!
I was going to say she reminded me of one of the elderly characters from Rosemary's Baby, waiting for the birth of Satan's spawn. (The more and more I learn about progressivism and the Fabian Society, the more I'm reminded of the cast of characters from Rosemary's Baby)
Reminds me of when the Soviet Union collapsed and Moscovians toured the communist elitist opulent island in the middle of a lake near Moscow.The party elitists lived in luxury while everyone elses wealth was "redistributed".Are the opulent secret rooms in the capital building any different?Camp David?Hawaii for that matter?The only property rights these elitists believe in are properties that are really,really nice and only open for their use…..How's that job hunt going??
As long as you pay your taxes on that property it is….
What's ironic about this comment is that France started communism via the commune, AND started fascism via the 'third way'…Talk about hedging your bets.
Yes ,"heads will roll, legally.";Adolf Hitler–In other words, be very careful what you wish for…
Madison in Federalist no. 10:
"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate… The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results;"
Yes these men knew their way around property rights, especially the talking human kind. I've seen Jefferson's slave quarters and his property lived in conditions we wouldn't allow for cows and pigs today.
I hope this person will become known as the person that helped destroy America for every one including herself.
I hope you're not including Jefferson amongst the list of successful entrepreneurs. Here's a guy who received most of his wealth from his father-in-law including a massive amount of debt and hundreds of slaves. HIs was a profligate lifestyle from which he could never get out from under that crushing burden of debt. The meager nail factory that he had at Monticello was run with child slave labor. So yes, I absolutely agree, the leaders of the revolution had no intention of sharing their wealth with the masses — in Jefferson's case he was more interested in stealing his wealth from his slaves. Would the founders have been horrified by today's progressive agenda? Some would — but not Thomas Paine. Paine in his book "Agrarian Justice" argued for a system of social security to be paid for by a system of progressive taxation.
Couldn't explain her intellectual theology (Connivers scheme) that netted her millions, without her glasses…..Hhhmmmm….. Are charges pending yet, maybe it needs to be investigated, hidden motives seem to be apparent, she fit the red flag profile of someone exposed! A painters portrait of her, would have the look of guilt as the perceptive message of the subjects thoughts! But then, maybe I watch too many movies where those mood shots are accentuated (kind of like hers)! !! I seldom watch movies….so that can't be it… I have worked behind the stage before though, I've seen them in the making! Knowing an actor/actress and seeing an actor/actress are two different things
When she used the words "concentration of consumption" I automatically thought of the extreme environmental issues,
that this woman obviously considers, and she also must believe in social engineering . I mean really, what can we expect from someone like her?
What can we expect from someone that has a much different belief system then many of us? They don't consider God and his plan for his children, and his plan of salvation. They build there own belief system from man'.s educational system.
Her and the progressive agenda is really only one aspect of a much bigger agenda and that being global governance and making the earth our god. They don't believe in God! And they want to control the population and in their minds preserve earth and to try and create their own salvation. Think of the tower of babel.
I might also add that some of us believe that the woman in revelation represents the church, and that woman sought refuge in the wilderness from the beast system which was for only a short while.
That wilderness is America and specifically The United States of America!
It wont last forever BUT it will last as long as God intends for it and we are responsible to help it last.
First off, lern 2 spel or uze spl chek. Second, as much as your ilk protest to the contrary, all ( ALL ) of the founders were Christians to one degree or another. In fact I have been in a church in Virginia built in the early 1600's in which five of the founders worshipped at different times. A METHODIST church, not Anglican. These men were willing to risk the hangman's noose for their POLITICAL views. Don't you think they would have risked much more than that for their religioussones? I believe that is self evident for thinking folk. It is only the few that want to FUNDAMENTALLY change America that argue that the founders were not what they were. Re-writing history is a hallmark for Marxists. Read for yourself and learn the truth.
Jefferson did believe in taxing the rich
Where you are not objectively wrong, your logic is spurious. I assume when you write "Washing" you are referring to "George Washington." Unless you have at your disposal some historical reference which scholars lack, the statement "Washing[sic] was a Diest" is without foundation.
As to the names of G-d, you're argument is laughable. Pious Jews avoid most names besides "Hashem" when casually speaking of the creator. The name one uses to refer to the Creator does not, absent obvious intentions of disrespect or contempt, reflect on the piety of the individual.
You clearly have much invested in the illusion that the founding fathers were not religious men. So be it. But your prejudice has little bearing on historical fact. I have little to gain rhetorically with the observation that the founders where most all Christians (look at my name again). I say it simply because it is the truth.
The one thing about socialism is that people like her are usually the first to be dealt with by those that finally seize the power.
Good point, Enough. And her line of logic as to how Jefferson was more in line with her way of thinking was faulty. Jefferson would be doing back-flips in his grave if he knew this woman was invoking his name.
This woman could be Helen Thomas' long-lost sister! Egad.
I have very few words to say her other than Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell.
The money they are spending, this road better be marble,silver, and gold plated….or at least something that will withstand the extreme temperature.Now we know where all that asbestos goes that they take out of all the old school buildings.
Great Post by Kyle Olson and it's been my experience that "surface" Intellectuals tend to be unpractical and dysfunctional members of society! I take it that Frances Fox Piven is an "surface" intellectual because she sounds like an educated idiot to me! I suppose she is "theoretical" in thought, but even that would be as one saying that the world is flat after having encircled our globe numerous times in spacecrafts! To make a long story short, it is just like throwing away money (which we do not even have) to disprove the law of gravity!
And, Brother, is she OLD!
Her transition from describing the kind of society Jefferson envisioned "sturdy men who could stand on their own" to her description of how that fits the progressive mentality "we've become a very unequal society where very few people own everything" showed one of two things. She is either trying to be duplicitous in her speech or she is an example of a well educated imbecile.
Olson is not honorable. He lied to get Piven to talk to him. "Contacted by phone at his Michigan office, Olson hung up as soon as he was asked about his interview with Piven. When called again for comment, his colleague, Steve Gunn, answered for him. "He doesn't have any interest in talking with you. He doesn't care anything about you," Gunn said. "If you call again, I'll call 911. You have a miserable day."
You say a "more equal distribution of wealth" like it is a bad thing. Do you think that wealth is justly distributed in this country? Is it fair that 10% of the people have 85% of the wealth? If you had 10 sons and you baked a cake, would you give 85% of the cake to one of them? Even if he is the most well behaved or the one gets the better grades?
No matter what others say, I think it is still interesting and useful maybe necessary to improve some minor things
Surprise I have to express this is fantastic. Even writing that post should have taken you a seriously long time. Thank you for the hard work!
I’m so glad I randomly found your blog. It looks cool and has great posts.
Do you have a spam problem on this blog; I also use Blog Engine, and I was wondering about your situation; we have developed some excellent practices and we would like to exchange thoughts with others, please Email me if interested.
Improve your vision naturally!…
Thanks. Left you a trackback to help your readers improve eye vision naturally….
… [Trackback]…
[...] Read More: biggovernment.com/kolson/2010/02/09/frances-fox-piven-thomas-jefferson-would-be-stunned-at-america-today-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think/ [...]…
You must be logged in to post a comment.