Just had to sit through a mandatory 2-hour meeting at the health clinic where I work to train us on how to use “Language of Caring” when talking to patients. The takeaway: When a patient is upset that they are only allowed a limited number of visits with a therapist, or that the services are too expensive, we are supposed to very politely and with undivided attention inform them that they need to just deal with it.
I’m sorry, but that’s not caring for the patient, that’s caring for the image and brand of the corporation that runs our clinic! So please, don’t lecture the workers that it is WE who demonstrate insufficient caring for our customers, i mean, patients.
[Photo: A “drone shadow” created for the Istanbul Design Biennial. (STML/ Creative Commons/ Flickr)]
Phyllis Bennis: “This report is the beginning of chipping away at US impunity.”
Increasing drone strikes are causing “disproportionate civilian casualties,” and the U.S. and other states must not be permitted to continue hiding this trail of death from the public, charged a UN official in a recently released report.
In a damning 21-page report, UN special rapporteur on human rights Ben Emmerson identifies 30 drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Gaza in which civilians were killed, injured, or threatened by drone strikes.
This includes a December 2013 U.S. drone strike on a recent wedding procession in Yemen near the city of Rad’a that left 12 people dead and at least 15 wounded — an attack that the U.S. and Yemeni governments initially claimed had killed “militants.”
While the U.S. is leading the covert drone wars in all of these countries except for Gaza, and is backing that effort, the Obama administration has refused to acknowledge the full extent of the attacks, refused to publicly identify the people killed in drone attacks, and repeated the unverified claim that civilian deaths have been minimal.
Yet, data for 2013 shows that drone strikes in Afghanistan accounted for 40 percent of civilian deaths by pro-government forces, marking a three-fold increase since 2012, the report notes.
one thing that irks me is how people criticize socialist movements for turning authoritarian even thought the reason for that is typically because they're faced by outside onslaughts to remove them while ignoring that many french and american styled liberal revolutions typically failed for much the same reason. The only real exception to this was the US and that was literally because it was isolated enough to be able to focus on internal development peacefully.
Although, i wouldn’t really call the development of american capitalism and the united states as a formidable nation-state a “peaceful” process. since the nation was founded on the genocidal dispossession of the native population as well as on the enforced slavery of millions of Africans, from very early on the emerging American ruling class faced numerous rebellions, uprisings, and attacks from these oppressed populations. This meant that the young nation was born with a vision of “democracy” that excluded all but wealthy white males from participating. And this authoritarian version of “democracy” was enforced through the most violent and brutal mechanisms.
On other hand, as the slave system became increasingly untenable, it took a civil war for the more forward-looking and industrialized section of American capitalism in the North to defeat the more backward and agriculture-export section in the South. During this time, Lincoln imposed some of the most authoritarian measures in U.S. history within the territory of the Union, including suspension of freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the imposition of summary execution without trial, and a scorched-earth war strategy toward the Southern aristocracy.
In the decades that followed the Civil War, as industrial capital emerged triumphant, they reacted with barbaric violence towards the steadily growing industrial working class. Since unions were not legalized in this country until the 1930s, every effort by workers to organize, strike, or otherwise protest their horrendous working conditions, was treated as a criminal — even treasonous — act, and local police and military forces were frequently mobilized to quell any and all worker uprisings or demonstrations with extreme violence. It is not for nothing that labor unions and socialists popularly referred to the labor movement during this time as a class WAR.
so, basically, capitalism in America — before, during, and after the 1776 revolution — was actually born and developed using the most authoritarian, barbaric, and despotic means.
I consider myself very left-wing. But, I am a gun owner and I sometimes find myself on the same side as assholes. Is it ok? I live in an area full of right-wing nuts and methheads. I have to be able to defend myself because I live in working class neighborhood the police never go. I mean, how else could I wage a class war? I got a book of Marx in one hand and a Browning Hi-Power in the other. I also would never turn it on my fellow workers except to defend my life and my people. What do you say?
My position on gun control is similar to that laid out in the first Constitution established by the revolutionary socialist government of workers and peasants in Russia in 1917:
… For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that a Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.
In other words, I am for the current capitalist state (i.e., police and army) being disarmed and demobilized; I am for far-right fascist and reactionary organizations being disarmed; and I am for all remaining weaponry and arms to be placed in the possession of the organized working class, until such time as all implements of mass killing can be eradicated from the planet.
I don’t care whether individuals have weapons or not; for in the end, social revolution (or, conversely, reaction) is decided by mass organized force. An individual with a gun can end the life of a person or even persons, but cannot alone end the functioning of an entire social system.
hi, quick question sorry if you've been asked this before, but where exactly did you get the number for "Rape, By The Numbers." I imagine it's only a rough estimate but still?