Capitalism is predicated on violence -- but why do we have so much violence?

Photo credit: Philosophers for Change.

Gun violence is proof that trickle down theory works. It's the only part of it that works, but it works.
-- Jeff Gillenwater

Keep peeling away the layers, go past irrelevant debates about weaponry and Muslims, and get down to the heart of the matter.

The Structural Genocide That Is Capitalism, by Javier Sethness (Truthout)

Garry Leech, an author who had previously penned a book on the FARC insurgency in Colombia (2011), has assembled a forceful denunciation of the status quo with Capitalism: A Structural Genocide. In essence, he argues cogently in this work that the devastating structural violence experienced by societies subjected to the rule of capital since its historical emergence - and that particularly felt by the world's presently impoverished social majorities - is, instead of being an aberration or distortion of market imperatives, central and inherent to the division of society along class lines and the enthronement of private property. Even a cursory examination of the depth of human suffering perpetuated historically and contemporarily by the hegemony of capital should lead disinterested observers to agree with Leech that the catastrophic scale of violence for which this system is responsible can be considered nothing less than genocidal, however shocking such a conclusion might prove to be.

The pervasiveness of violence in America can be easily grasped via 10 minutes of Googling. Not that I'd want Bob Caesar thinking of me as anti-establishment, or anything quite so damaging to my social status.

It's like this: Garbage in, garbage out. A system founded on violence, violence as a chief by-product.


Violence Against LGBT People in America Is Astoundingly Common, by Emma Green (City Lab)

The attack on a gay club in Orlando on Sunday, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, is not an isolated crime.

---

Violence Against Women in the United States: Statistics (NOW)

Despite the fact that advocacy groups like NOW have worked for over three decades to halt the epidemic of gender-based violence and sexual assault, the numbers are still shocking.

---

Violence against blacks recalls civil-rights era, by Nichelle Smith (USA TODAY)

Black History Month in 2016 comes at a time of escalated violence against African Americans — much of it involving police — that recalls the troubled times of the late 1960s.

---

Violence Against American Indians Is a Pervasive Problem, by Susy Buchanan (Southern Poverty Law Center)

Racial violence against Native Americans has drawn attention from the federal government twice in recent years, but many hate crimes still seem to get a pass.

---

Child Abuse Statistics and Facts (Child Help)

Children are suffering from a hidden epidemic of child abuse and neglect. It’s a widespread war against our children that we have the power to stop, and understanding the issue is the first step. Just how bad is the issue of child abuse in the United States?

---

Atheists Face Discrimination On A Shocking Level (INFOGRAPHIC),by Yasmine Hafiz (American Humanist Association via HuffPost)

The American Humanist Association created this infographic which shows some of the ways in which atheists are socially and legally discriminated against.

---

That's enough for starters, isn't it?

Repost: "I'll even 'hari kari' if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun."

If I were to start carrying a gun (I'm guessing they're fairly easy to get, although I've never owned one), does it mean this idiotic one-way street in front of my house will start running two ways again?

See, it would be safer in my neighborhood that way, and right now, I don't feel safe at all with the street being one-way. Everyone keeps telling me that carrying a gun is about safety -- pack a piece, and you feel safer. So, does it really work?

Or is carrying a gun not enough, and I must go out and actually shoot the street in order to feel safer?

What's the best place to kill an unsafe one-way street -- near the center line, or near the useless bicycle lanes?

Should I aim for the Silver Creek beginning of the world's longest interstate entrance ramp, or closer to the Best Western down at the other end?

But wait: Ammo's not an absolute drop-dead requirement, is it?

I don't actually have to load my new gun, do I?

It's just the deterrent of being known to carry the gun, right?

It's all so confusing. Back in August, The Economist talked sensibly about it.

God, good guys and guns.

... This dilemma is an iteration of a broader question: whether keeping guns makes people safer. A growing majority of Americans think it does—another mistaken conviction. Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Centre for Gun and Policy Research says that, other factors being equal, keeping a gun at home is associated with a double or triple risk of homicide. What holds for homes is also true of states and countries: more guns mean more gun-related murders, tragic accidents and suicides.

"God, good guys and guns."

"I will not carry a gun, Frank. When I got thrown into this war I had a clear understanding with the Pentagon: no guns. I'll carry your books, I'll carry a torch, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over, carry forward, Cary Grant, cash and carry, carry me back to Old Virginia, I'll even 'hari kari' if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun!"
--Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce of television's M*A*S*H (quoted here in 2012)

I grew up around guns, and as an adult, I'd prefer guns not be around me.

To me, firearms are roughly akin to cars, sports and Viagra as penile enhancement devices, and I already have a penis, thanks. Pieces of machinery generally are value-neutral, their performance dependent on the guiding mind of humans. Conversely, human minds infected with machismo, conspiracy theories, hatred, kitchen table Formica and just plain variable mental health issues offer as much cause to be frightened as the typical armed robber, who after all, just wants money.

But: I'm no prohibitionist.

My own professional world of alcoholic beverages symbolizes "legal but heavily regulated," and that strikes me as utterly appropriate. You need a gun to cope, and I need a bottle. More alcoholic beverages to redress alcoholism? I'll get right on it. Whatever gets you through your life, it's all right.

Just leave me out of it.

Mass shootings: God, good guys and guns ... An understandable impulse to self-defence is nevertheless mistaken (The Economist)

 ... This dilemma is an iteration of a broader question: whether keeping guns makes people safer. A growing majority of Americans think it does—another mistaken conviction. Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Centre for Gun and Policy Research says that, other factors being equal, keeping a gun at home is associated with a double or triple risk of homicide. What holds for homes is also true of states and countries: more guns mean more gun-related murders, tragic accidents and suicides.

Yet, amid the drumbeat of bloody news, well-meaning, fearful individuals take the seemingly rational decision to arm themselves. Almost all plan to be prudent with their guns. That, alas, is what everyone thinks.

"Little white girl" on privilege and activism.

Some of us have said and done a lot. None of us have said and done enough.

Feeling better and doing better are two different things. This "little white girl", as she calls herself,  is well worth a listen.

Well a young man ... he ain't got nothin' in the world these days.

In case you were wondering, The Stone is a "forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless." This is a long and worthwhile read. Right, wrong or indifferent, it represents an attempt to think about root causes of phenomena, rather than our glib tendency as a nation to skate along the realm of symptoms.

Guns and the Decline of the Young Man, by Christy Wampole (The Stone, part of the New York Times Opinionator blog)

Adam Lanza was a young man. Jacob Roberts was a young man. James Holmes is a young man. Seung-Hui Cho was a young man. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were young men.

We can all name a dozen or so hypotheses about why they kill: their parents’ unlocked gun cabinet, easy access to weapons on the Internet, over- or under-medication, violent video games and TV programs, undiagnosed or misdiagnosed mental disorders, abusive or indifferent parents, no stable social network, bullying. However, young women are equally exposed to many of the same conditions yet rarely turn a weapon on others. This leaves us wondering about the young men.

There is something about life in the United States, it seems, that is conducive to young men planning and executing large-scale massacres. But the reasons elude us ...