The Hegelian Dialectic; Cloward-Piven Strategy; Rules for Radicals

The Hegelian Dialectic

“Hegelian dialectic / (hɪˈɡeɪlɪan, heɪˈɡiː-) / noun. philosophy an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)”

“The Hegelian Dialectic is, in short, the critical process by which the ruling elite create a problem, anticipating in advance the reaction that the population will have to the given crisis, and thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. When the population is properly conditioned, the desired agenda of the ruling elite is presented as the solution. The solution isn't intended to solve the problem, but rather to serve as the basis for a new problem or exacerbate the existing one.

When the newly inflamed difficulty reaches the boiling point of a crisis, it becomes the foundation upon which arguments may again be made for change. Hence, the process is repeated, over and over, moving society toward whatever end the planners have in mind.”

Open link for complete article

—

The Cloward-Piven Strategy: Orchestrating A Crisis So Government Can “Solve” It

“Last Fall, Conduit for Action published an article titled “Are you the victim of Rules for Radicals?” to highlight the political tactics of those seeking to diminish liberty. At the end of the article there was a tease for a future breakdown of The Cloward-Piven Strategy. This is that article.

The end goal of the Cloward-Piven strategy is the creation of a political crisis leading to a guaranteed annual income.[1] Essentially, the Cloward-Piven strategy would lead to the complete control of citizens through Socialism/Communism.

As a background, Frances Fox Piven is a professor of political science and sociology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.[2] The late Richard Cloward was an sociologist and liberal activist, and Piven’s spouse.[3]”

Open link for article

—

Rules for Radicals

Amazon:

“This country's leading hell-raiser" (The Nation) shares his impassioned counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change and know “the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one.”

First published in 1971 and written in the midst of radical political developments whose direction Alinsky was one of the first to question, this volume exhibits his style at its best. Like Thomas Paine before him, Alinsky was able to combine, both in his person and his writing, the intensity of political engagement with an absolute insistence on rational political discourse and adherence to the American democratic tradition.

Open link for book

—

SEE: Positivism and Behaviorism:

Positivism and Behaviorism; Booker T. Washington on a certain class of race-problem solvers