The "“Cloward-Piven Strategy” known as the "crisis strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse."

On that note check out this video (Rahm Emanuel: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste)

Social change from capitalism to socialism is exactly the goal of this administration. If you consider the rising national debt, the nationalization of large organizations and health care, it has happened.

"Capitalism is an economic and social system in which most trade and industry are privately controlled for profit rather than by the state. The means of production (also known as capital), are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits by private individuals, either singly or jointly."

vs.

"Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation. Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism (the disappearance of class and the state) would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution after a transitional stage from capitalism called the Dictatorship of the proletariat."

Consider -

"Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism."

Based on what I know about the theory, it seems to be flawed. Having too many people on welfare would only lead to the end of welfare programs not capitalism, as long as the majority are not on welfare. If a government is spending too much on welfare when most people aren't using such programs then that majority would respond by cutting spending on those programs long before giving up capitalism because the majority will by then see such programs as a burden rather than a safety net. Also any kind of attempt of an overthrow of the government by any group would only hurt the cause because those involve in the overthrow would be viewed as radical and violent. Only exception I could think where this theory might become reality is if the majority of the population is out of work and dependent on welfare.

One can look at Honduras to illustrate my point. In the country 40% of the population live in poverty and yet Socialism has not been able to replace Capitalism. This is because the majority is made up of the middle and upper classes(people who are less likely to use welfare programs). This also contributed to how the government was able to kick the leftist Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.