First of all, for the record, I will note that not a single word of you post are your own words. You totally lifted them from the highly biased article that you posted- focused on buzzwords and phrases like "the complete control of citizens through Socialism/Communism." and "The strategy also rejected that a person could overcome poverty through any “institution of private enterprise”, signaling that hard work, education, and personal responsibility are not a solution to poverty.
The fact is that you have mindlessly endorsed this biased interpretation of Cloward and Piven and i am willing to bet that you do not even understand what you are doing.
I studied Cloward and Piven in graduate school . I read their book, Regulating the Poor , and still have it on my bookshelf.
The fact is, that their strategy was intended to save Capitalism. They understood that because the very nature of capitalism involved a cycle of expansion and contraction of the economy-unemployment and poverty were inevitable. Therefore, to quell civil unrest in times of high unemployment, and to keep the workforce healthy for when they would be needed again, a strong social safety net was needed.
An analysis of their work:
Selected excerpts:
Not only does it ensure a ready and willing workforce to serve capitalism, but it also ensures that the employers have access to workers with low wage expectations.
ANOTHER PATHETIC AND FAILED MORONIC OP BY GHOST