How the Starbucks Worker Organizing Model Can Accelerate Unionization Across the Country


A Starbucks union drive is sweeping across the country. In an industry that has been all but impossible to unionize, these baristas have created an organizing model that can be replicated at similar corporate chains everywhere.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez meets with Starbucks Workers United members who are working to unionize their store in Astoria, Queens, New York, on March 27, 2022. 

(Starbucks Astoria Blvd / Twitter)


BYSHUVU BHATTARAI

JACOBIN
03.28.2022

The Starbucks Workers United campaign, having secured National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election victories at six out of seven stores, with well over 150 stores filing for an NLRB election as of last week, is one of the most invigorating labor campaigns in recent US history.

The Starbucks workers currently spearheading the SB Workers United drive have charted a way forward for organizing corporate chain stores. Their strategy should be carefully studied and implemented across other corporate chains and adjusted according to context.

The story of SB Workers United begins at the Genesee Street Starbucks near the Buffalo airport in 2019, when some Starbucks workers, some of them inspired by the Bernie Sanders campaign and affiliated with socialist organizations, began discussing the possibility of unionization.

After several months of underground organizing, the campaign went public on August 23, with the workers posting a declaration of the intent to unionize to Starbucks Corporate on Twitter through their own account. The workers chose to call themselves Starbucks Workers United and created a website with basic educational resources for Starbucks workers across the country about why they should form a union, as well as contact information for workers seeking to organize.

With their declaration made public, the union drive drew the coverage of various corporate media outlets and entered into public consciousness. Interest in unionizing Starbucks was sparked across the country, with workers reaching out to Starbucks Workers United and Starbucks customers directly talking to workers about the importance of unions.

With the victory of the first NLRB election at the Elmwood Avenue store in Buffalo on December 6, 2021, the first Starbucks store in the United States was unionized. This generated enormous media attention, and Starbucks Workers United received a flurry of unionization requests from workers around the country. The media attention of the union effort generated mass interest from workers, and the website allowed for this interest to be converted to action.The primary organizers of the Starbucks Workers United campaign are the Starbucks workers themselves.
Baristas Take the Lead

From its beginning to the present, the SB Workers United union campaign has been a worker-driven project. The union staff of Workers United, the union which SB Workers United is seeking to join, have played a critical but supporting role during this drive. Starbucks workers whose campaigns are already underway set up meetings between the union-interested workers and a worker-organizer point person, taking them through the process of charting their stores, preparing themselves for management backlash, and filing for a union election.

In stark contrast to some other union campaigns in fast food in which the staff organizers handle the bulk of organizing activity, in the case of Starbucks Workers United, the staff function as an educational resource for the Starbucks workers. The primary organizers of the SB Workers United campaign are the Starbucks workers themselves. As of this writing, workers in only nine stores have won NLRB elections, but SB Workers United has engagement from several thousands Starbucks workers across the country.

Through the creation of a space that encourages the creative talents and energies of enthusiastic workers, SB Workers United has been able to create a wealth of material, including community support guides, various social media outlets, and pro-union artwork, to build a highly resilient and capable movement that only continues to grow.

Though SB Workers United represents a small minority of all Starbucks workers, it has enough of a force to compel Starbucks to spend millions of dollars in its growing anti-union campaign, announce wage increases to try to head off the threat of a union contract, and even force former CEO Howard Schultz out of retirement. With a recent strike in Denver and the organization of rallies around the country in defense of fired pro-union workers, SB Workers United has already demonstrated that it can use weapons like strikes and community mobilization to win its demands.

A Reproducible Method

If we boil the SB Workers United Campaign down to its essentials, we’re left with a worker organizing method for corporate chains that can be sparked by any organization with sufficient labor and resources. The SB Workers United organizing history is summarized as follows:
A core group of workers reach out to a local union for support.
Workers create Starbucks Workers United, which handles media strategy and creates a central point of contact (a website) to which inspired workers around the country can reach out.
SB Workers United goes public with the notice of NLRB elections, which draws media attention.
Each victory is highly publicized, drawing in new worker leads through the SB Workers United website, which then sends them to professional union staff for training and support in organizing local stores.

The key to the success of SB Workers United is that they have built an independent organization of workers seeking to unionize, so that the workers themselves are the ones who lead the campaign. The critical role of a parent union is to provide Starbucks workers with strategic advice, technical tools, legal counsel, and financial support necessary to win.

How can their strategy be utilized to spark strong union campaigns for other corporate chains?

The answer to this question is that a method must be developed to build a core of class-conscious and militant workers across the corporate chain and to develop those workers to be effective organizers and leaders of the campaign. The greatest barrier to organizing chain stores is that class-conscious workers are isolated from one another. For this reason, developing a central point of contact should be the first step to unionizing, so that the workers who have the greatest interest in organizing will reach out to the central organizing body.

The method to organize corporate chains is as follows:
Build a central point of contact that workers seeking unionization can reach out to (like a website, email address, and social media accounts).
Focus on worker education, arming workers with knowledge of the steps to form a union and methods of creating support for unions within their workplace.
Having gathered and developed a core group of worker-organizers, connect the workers to each other to create the formation of a union outside the bounds of legality. At this stage, the workers must be prepared to take leadership of their union.
Build methods of public outreach for the new union group. Every chance to increase the visibility of the campaign, such as high-profile NLRB election victories, must be seized so that the most militant and inspired workers begin to reach out to the newly formed union.

With these basic steps, a new union will be birthed into existence. The nuances of the organization — its strategy, its ultimate mission, its leadership, its working groups — must be decided democratically by the workers themselves and are always subject to change depending on the changing conditions of the campaign.

Workers Themselves at the Helm

There are practical reasons why workers must be the ones driving and leading the unionization drive. For one, they are the ones who best understand and feel the numerous ways they are exploited by their management and thus are best able to develop tactics to use their shared conditions as a point of unity. Second, the common driving factor for workers seeking unionization is a lack of agency, which manifests itself in numerous forms: management abuse, poor pay, and unstable schedules. By creating a space where the workers are able to exert control over their workplace, through leadership of their unionization campaign, a space of empowerment is created that can bring forward the best from every worker. To create a force of highly motivated worker-organizers, worker control over strategy is an absolute precondition.

The SB Workers United drive is a clear reminder of what a union is in its essence. A union is formed not when the state recognizes it, but when the workers organize it. A union is formed when workers have connected with each other and created an organization that reflects their collective will.

It is important to note that Workers United has only a handful of staff to help assist the Starbucks workers. With the ongoing success of the SB Workers United drive, volunteer- and resource-rich organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) could take it upon themselves to apply this model to other unorganized chains. Through initiatives like the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) and numerous successful electoral campaigns, as well as DSA’s presence throughout the United States, the organization’s skilled members could help create a central point of contact for aspiring pro-union workers, provide education for the workers to organize and protect themselves from retaliation, fundraise for the workers, help workers with legal issues, and use its media expertise and connections to make sure the workers’ voices are heard far and wide. DSA could thus help workers organize across corporate chains, as EWOC has already begun to do.

The stunning growth of the SB Workers United movement has attracted support from labor unions, socialist organizations, community activists, and progressive forces throughout the country and has inspired numerous workers to challenge their bosses and reclaim their dignity. As this movement gains momentum, we can and should put our foot on the gas. Who knows where it could lead?

Correction: This article previously stated that Starbucks Workers United is independent of the union Workers United. Starbucks workers are organizing under Workers United, so that Starbucks locations that win union elections are winning the right to be represented by Workers United.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Shuvu Bhattarai is a Nepali-American labor organizer and a member of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America in Queens.

The Starbucks Union Drive in Calgary May Have Failed, but the Larger Battle Is Just Starting

The union drive at a Starbucks in Calgary, Alberta, was defeated by both the anti-union tactics of the company and the province’s ruling party. Successful votes elsewhere, however, indicate the Starbucks unionization wave is only just beginning in Canada.
The union drive failure in Calgary is yet another demonstration of the $24 billion company’s hostility toward unionization. (kevser/Unsplash)

BYJEREMY APPEL

JACOBIN
03.26.2022

A union drive by Starbucks workers at the Chinook Centre food court in Calgary, Alberta, has fallen short of the votes needed to certify a bargaining unit. The failure of the drive is yet another demonstration of the $24 billion company’s hostility to the labor movement.

Starbucks Canada was quick to file an appeal when it caught wind of the union bid. Because Starbucks employees can be loaned out by one location to another, the company argued that only “home” employees of the Chinook Centre location should be able to vote. On March 16, after a week of ballots sitting unopened due to the company’s delay tactics, the Chinook Centre workers learned that their attempt to unionize with United Steelworkers (USW) was unsuccessful.

Reached for comment, USW organizer for western Canada and the northern territories Pablo Guerra said:

This was quite a lengthy process for these workers as they faced multiple delays with the Alberta Labour Relations Board and union-busting tactics from their employer. The actions from Starbucks shows why these workers need a union now more than ever. We will continue fighting for Starbucks workers across Canada as every worker deserves better.

Guerra laid blame at the door of Alberta’s governing United Conservative Party (UCP), which, since forming out of the ashes of the populist right Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties, has made no secret of its anti-labor animus.

Guerra is calling on the government to bring back card check, which doesn’t require a vote if more than 65 percent of employees sign union cards. Restoring the card check system would allow workers to organize without fear of intimidation from the employer.

In 2017, the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) was in power and reintroduced card check union certification to the province. The return of the practice brought about a substantial increase in unionization in Alberta. Card check was eliminated by the UCP — in its second piece of legislation once in power — thereby keeping a campaign trail promise made by Premier Jason Kenney.

Bob Barnetson, an Edmonton-based labor studies professor at Athabasca University, writing for the Parkland Institute, notes that “card-check certification eliminates the opportunity for employers to interfere in what should be a free choice by employees.” Starbucks workers in Alberta are thus caught in the pincers of, on the one hand, the company’s union-busting techniques and, on the other, an aggressively anti-union provincial government.
From One Union-Busting CEO to Another

In the midst of a pandemic-fueled wave of Starbucks union drives across the United States, the company has bid farewell to its CEO Kevin Johnson. As the New York Times reports, the abrupt departure of Johnson was explicitly tied to the company’s declining image as a result of efforts to halt unionization.

The reason for the changing of the guard was spelled out in a letter sent to Johnson before his resignation by a group of Starbucks investors representing more than $1 billion in company stock. “We believe that Starbucks’ reputation may be jeopardized due to reporting of aggressive union-busting tactics,” the investors wrote.

But Johnson’s replacement is not a young Turk from whom we can expect significant changes in company policy. Starbucks has elected to choose Howard Shultz as interim CEO — a man who’s own deep-seated hostility toward organized labor is well documented. Starbucks stores and the Seattle roastery were union shops when Schultz purchased the company in 1987. Schultz made it clear that union organizers weren’t welcome at his Starbucks.


“He went ballistic screaming at me, telling me to get out of the plant,” Pam Blauman-Schmitz, the local union rep for the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), told the Times of her first roastery visit under Schultz’s ownership. “He followed me all the way out.”

Over the next few years, workers would vote to decertify — first at the stores and then the roastery — a move Schultz claimed in his autobiography was the initiative of one lone worker who “did some research on his own.” Schultz has summarized his philosophy regarding unionization by complaining that “if [workers] had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.”

Blauman-Schmitz said she believes that the lone anti-union worker instrumental to Starbucks’ decertification campaign was “handpicked” by Schultz. Dave Schmitz, who was a UFCW organizer at the time, told the Huffington Post that the company used strong-arm tactics during negotiations over a second contract. Schmitz recalls efforts to reduce health benefits, remove protections against arbitrary firing, and give the company the ability to change working conditions without consulting the union. Schultz, for his part, recalls surmising that the need to crush the union was a necessary precursor for Starbucks’ readiness to grow into the international brand we know today.
Workers Fight Back at the NLRB

A2004 effort from the Wobblies (Industrial Workers of the World) to organize Starbucks locations was unsuccessful, but it did result in several National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hearings. Evidence presented at the hearings revealed the company’s anti-union tactics and confirmed that executives worked in a coordinated fashion to stymie organizing efforts. These coordinated efforts included interviewing workers to determine whether they were anti-union — or, in the company’s terminology, “pro-Starbucks” — so as to stack the decks against organizing efforts by assigning them to stores undergoing unionization.

As recently as March 15, 2022, an NLRB prosecutor determined that Starbucks’ firing of two workers at a unionizing Phoenix store was retaliatory in nature. The board issued a formal complaint against the company — the first since the unionization wave began in December 2021.

According to the complaint, one employee, Laila Dalton, who raised concerns to management about wages, hours, and short staffing, was written up and then suspended. Another employee, Alyssa Sanchez, was denied scheduling preferences and then fired, solely because of her support for unionization. If the complaint is successfully prosecuted through an administrative judge, Starbucks will have to advise their workers that complaining about work conditions is a protected activity.

The NLRB is also slated to hear charges related to the rights violations of Starbucks workers at a Memphis store that fired seven employees in February. The dismissals occurred after the workers allowed a journalist into the store after-hours to document their union drive.
The Case of Victoria

If the Chinook Centre Starbucks had been successful in its union bid, it would not have been the first Canadian location. That distinction belongs to the Douglas Street drive-through in Victoria, British Columbia, which inked its first union contract in June 2021 after voting to unionize in August 2020.

Although BC is run by a New Democratic Party government that successfully ran on a pledge to introduce card check, it abandoned that promise in 2017, when it came to power in a coalition with the neoliberal BC Green Party. This meant that the Starbucks workers had to hold a vote, running the same risk of losing as the workers in Calgary.

According to USW, the three-year contract includes provisions guarding against workplace violence and aggression, permits up to ten days paid leave for workers facing domestic violence, and offers up to $2.47 an hour in pay increase based on seniority. The Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper of record, called the agreement “a rarity in a sector that traditionally has minimal union representation.”

Izzy Adachi, a barista who was involved in the union drive, told the Globe that workers would face abuse from certain customers “for weeks and weeks and weeks” without receiving any meaningful support from management. Adachi called a provision that allows workers to file grievances against management the “biggest win” of the contract.

Stephen Hunt, director of USW Canada, told the Globe that coffee shops are generally tough to unionize because of their small staff size and frequent turnover. This fact seems borne out by the events of the Calgary location election, where there were only seventeen members, one of whom didn’t even vote.

High turnover, however, also means that one failed union vote isn’t the end of organizing efforts. For workers at the Chinook Centre Starbucks, it is the beginning of a long process of challenging a massive corporation that is willing to put its full weight on the scale against unionization.

Although card check is a valuable tool for unionizing, the successful votes in Victoria and elsewhere show that employer intimidation can be overcome. With increasing numbers of Starbucks workers joining unions in the United States, the Canadian Starbucks unionization wave is only just beginning.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jeremy Appel is a Calgary-based independent journalist and author of the Orchard newsletter on Substack. He cohosts the Forgotten Corner and Big Shiny Takes podcasts.

MARXIST LENNINIST LEFT

New cold war neocolonialism: West threatens Solomon Islands over China alliance

The Solomon Islands, a sovereign country in the Pacific, broke ties with Taiwan and allied with China. So the US backed a failed violent coup attempt. 

Australia now calls the area its “backyard,” and media moguls demand an invasion to prevent the nation from signing a security pact with Beijing.

By Benjamin Norton

Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in October 2019 (Photo credit: Xinhua)


The Solomon Islands is a sovereign nation in the Pacific, near Papua New Guinea and Australia, with a population of nearly 700,000 people (making it larger than EU/NATO member Luxembourg, NATO members Iceland and Montenegro, and EU member Malta).

As Western powers heat up their new cold war on China, they are increasingly treating the Solomon Islands as a colony, sponsoring a violent coup attempt and threatening the country for seeking to sign a security agreement with Beijing.

Top Australian government officials have referred to the sovereign nation as part of their “backyard,” and a media mogul has publicly called for the Australian military to invade and overthrow its government.

For decades, Washington used its economic leverage over the Solomon Islands to pressure the country to recognize Taiwan as an independent state.

Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China, a fact recognized by 93% of UN member states. Just a dozen small countries still claim it is a separate nation.

The Solomon Islands was one of them until 2019, when its democratically elected prime minister, Manasseh Sogavare, stood up to US pressure, ended diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, and formed an alliance with China.

The United States and Australia responded aggressively, seeking to sow chaos internally, and even backing a violent coup attempt in 2021.

When the central government of the Solomon Islands recognized China in 2019, the US pressured the local government in Malaita, the country’s most populous island, to reject federal policy and to maintain its ties with Taiwan.

Washington essentially bribed Malaita to continue recognizing Taiwan, pledging the province $25 million in US government aid.

Then in November 2021, violent rioters attempted to overthrow the democratically elected central government, attacking the parliament and setting fire to police stations, while also burning down Chinese businesses and assaulting ethnic Chinese.

Australia took advantage of the violence to send troops to the Solomon Islands.

Journalist Vijay Prashad noted that Washington “built a coalition of anti-communists and pro-Zionist Christians” to try to overthrow the pro-Chinese government. The flag of apartheid Israel could be seen in photos of the violent protests.

The putsch failed. But the Western efforts to destabilize the Pacific nation have continued.

This March 25, an Australian media mogul published an article openly calling on his nation’s military to invade the Solomon Islands, “capture” its islands, and “engineer regime change,” while also using “soft power” to advance Western interests.

The author, David Llewellyn-Smith, is the founding publisher and editor of the website MacroBusiness, and the founding publisher and global economy editor of the prominent political magazine The Diplomat.

Llewellyn-Smith used neocolonial rhetoric, referring to the Solomon Islands as part of Australia’s “backyard,” warning that “the CCP [Communist Party of China] occupies our backyard.”

Western governments and media pundits have ironically claimed that China is trying to turn the Solomon Islands into a puppet, while they back violent coup attempts and threaten a military invasion.

In reality, the Solomon Islands was historically colonized by the British, Germans, and Japanese, and it deeply values its hard-earned independence.

Faced with these Western threats, the Solomon Islands decided to draft a security agreement with China.

This enraged Australia, whose Prime Minister Scott Morrison said “there is great concern across the Pacific family.”

Australia’s home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, resorted to familiar neocolonial rhetoric, fuming, “That is our backyard, this is our neighbourhood, and we are very concerned of any activity that is taking place in the Pacific Islands.”

Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne implied the alliance would “undermine the stability and security of our region.”

The government of New Zealand made similar comments, claiming it could “destabilise the current institutions and arrangements that have long underpinned the Pacific region’s security.”

Many Western media outlets echoed this neocolonial rhetoric.

British state media giant the BBC warned, “China gains a foothold in Australia’s backyard.”

CNN said the region is “regarded by Canberra as its backyard.”

German state media DW wrote that “Australia and New Zealand have for decades seen the Pacific islands as their ‘backyard.’”

In a speech this March 29, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare criticized Western governments for this neocolonial attitude and for meddling in his nation’s internal affairs.

Sogavare called it “insulting” to “be branded as unfit to manage our sovereign affairs or have other motives in pursuing our national interests.”

He also revealed that the Solomon Islands security deal with China was “ready for signing.”

Opposition politicians in the Solomon Islands had conspired with the Australian government to leak a copy of this proposed security agreement. Prime Minister Sogavare blasted them as “agents of foreign interference.”

For its part, the Chinese government, which has helped lift 800 million citizens out of poverty since its 1949 revolution, said it “is ready to share its experience in poverty reduction and deepen development cooperation with Solomon Islands and other Pacific island countries, so as to help them find a path of poverty reduction and development that suits their national conditions, better cope with major public health events and natural disasters, and enhance their capacity to cope with climate change.”

EDMONTON ANARCHIST JOURNAL / BLACK CAT PRESS

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
TurboTax promised free tax filing — then hit customers with hidden charges, feds say

Hayley Fowler, The Charlotte Observer 

TurboTax is touting its online tax preparation services as free to millions of consumers before hitting them with hidden costs when it comes time to file, the Federal Trade Commission has said in a new civil lawsuit.

The FTC, a federal agency tasked with protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices, accused TurboTax’s parent company — Intuit Inc. — of deceptive advertising in a federal complaint filed on Monday, March 28, in the Northern District of California.

In addition to the lawsuit, the FTC has asked for a temporary restraining order that would block Intuit from continuing to advertise TurboTax as free.

“TurboTax is bombarding consumers with ads for ‘free’ tax filing services, and then hitting them with charges when it’s time to file,” Samuel Levine, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a news release. “We are asking a court to immediately halt this bait-and-switch, and to protect taxpayers at the peak of filing season.”

Intuit denied the allegations, saying in a statement that the FTC has painted an inaccurate picture of its advertising practices.

“The FTC’s arguments are simply not credible. Far from steering taxpayers away from free tax preparation offerings, our free advertising campaigns have led to more Americans filing their taxes for free than ever before and have been central to raising awareness of free tax prep,” Kerry McLean, executive vice president and general counsel of Intuit, said in a statement.

According to the FTC’s 31-page complaint, TurboTax lets customers with “simple” tax returns file for free but requires other customers to upgrade for a fee using what the FTC referred to as “hard stops.”

TurboTax asks customers a series of questions about their finances when they begin the filing process to determine if they are eligible for the free version, the FTC said.

For example, if they indicate the need to report certain types of income using a 1099 form, TurboTax will display a “hard stop” telling the customer they need to pay for an upgrade to accurately report that income. Some examples of taxpayers who use a 1099 form include independent contractors, ride-share drivers and food delivery workers.

About two-thirds of people who file taxes couldn’t use TurboTax’s free product in 2020, the FTC said.

Yet TurboTax promotes its services as “free” in television commercials and online, according to the complaint. Intuit aired at least six different advertisements during its “Free, Free, Free, Free” campaign “in which ‘free’ is essentially the only word spoken,” the FTC said. The TurboTax homepage has also boasted various promises about “free” filings over the years, according to the agency.

“Intuit continues to bombard consumers with the message that they can file their taxes for ‘free,’” the lawsuit states. “Intuit baits consumers with deceptive ads and then compound the deception with more false claims and buried disclosures.”

In response, Intuit has pointed to its status as a “founding member of the IRS Free File program,” which was formed in 2002 between the IRS and several online tax preparation companies.

Intuit said it has helped the IRS Free File program “far exceed its stated goals of making free tax preparation available to 70% of filers.” As a participant in the program, the company also said it had to follow certain marketing requirements set by the IRS.

“The fact that Intuit complied with the rules and regulations of one government agency, but is now being targeted by another, demonstrates a significant disconnect,” McLean, Intuit’s general counsel, said in the release.

Intuit left the Free File Program last year, the FTC said.

The company has since filed a notice of its intent to oppose the FTC’s bid for a temporary restraining order, saying the agency waited until just before taxes are due on April 18 to lodge a complaint based on alleged deceptive advertising practices it claims to have known about for years.

Intuit’s lawyers also said the company has already pulled some of the advertisements in questions — which the FTC allegedly knew before filing its lawsuit. Company officials reportedly told FTC on March 24 that they would remove the “free, free, free” television ads for the remainder of the tax season, court documents state.

The FTC, meanwhile, has said consumers “continue to suffer substantial injury” from Intuit’s TurboTax advertisements and called on a federal judge to issue the temporary restraining order.

©2022 The Charlotte Observer. Visit charlotteobserver.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/03/ftc-sues-intuit-to-stop-ads-claiming.html

Red Hot Chili Peppers: From the strip club to stadium tours

A star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a new album and a world tour: A look back at the history of the Red Hot Chili Peppers as they release "Unlimited Love."

Reunited: Anthony Kiedis, John Frusciante, Flea and Chad Smith

Too weird, too unconventional, too excessive — that's how many music critics rated the Red Hot Chili Peppers when the band started out back in the early 1980s.

But the California band built around childhood buddies Anthony Kiedis and Michael "Flea" Balzary has passed the test of time. Despite facing death, drug excesses and band fights, they successfully rocked their way into the 21st century.

On April 1, the band releases "Unlimited Love," their 12th studio album, which features the return of guitarist John Frusciante in the group after almost 15 years, and of producer Rick Rubin, who has been producing Red Hot Chili Peppers albums since the early '90s, starting with the legendary "Blood Sugar Sex Magik," which marked the band's international breakthrough.

'Funky Monks'

The Red Hot Chili Peppers start their world tour in June, ready to prove that they can still grab the crowds with their mix of punk, funk, metal and a good bit of "magic" almost 40 years after their formation.

Speaking of stage shows, one of the band's trademarks is their penchant for performing shirtless, whether at the 2014 Super Bowl or their induction into the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame in 2012.

Founding members Flea and Anthony Kiedis (r)

Until the early 2000s, the Peppers would sometimes perform wearing nothing but tube socks over their genitalia, a tradition that started in 1983 at one of their first concerts. At the time, the band played at the famous Kit Kat Club strip club in Hollywood, and decided that to go with the flow, everything but the sock had to come off.

After that, many came to the club not just for the music, but also for the revealing show.

The band made more of a name for itself, the gigs expanded, as did the band's drug use. While bassist Flea stuck to marijuana, singer Anthony Kiedis and then-guitarist Hillel Slovak were very fond of harder drugs.

In a 1999 interview for VH1- Behind The Music, Kiedis said he tried heroin for the first time when he was 14, thinking it was cocaine. The singer began to smoke pot regularly when he was a teenager after his dad gave him his first joint.

'Me & My Friends'

Kiedis met the boys who would later become members of the band in the late '70s at Fairfax High School. With Flea and Hillel Slovak in particular, Kiedis shares a deep friendship.

Nothing but tube socks: Onstage in 2000 in Seattle

Flea was born in Melbourne, Australia and moved to California with his single mother and siblings in the late '60s. His stepfather was a jazz musician, and young Flea was often allowed to sit in on jam sessions. He was a talented trumpet player and loved jazz.

His friend Hillel Slovak, an avid guitarist, taught Flea how to play bass when he was 16. Slovak and his Jewish family moved to Los Angeles from Israel — his first guitar was a bar mitzvah gift.

Jack Irons on drums completed the original  Red Hot Chili Peppers line-up. It was not to stay together for long. While things were looking up for the band from the mid-80s onwards, two band members were spiraling downwards. Kiedis' heroin addiction worsened considerably over the years.

'Fight like a Brave'

"Fight like a Brave" on the album "The Uplift Mofo Party Plan" is about Kiedis' struggle with severe addiction. It would be many years and several stints at rehab before the musician managed to kick the addiction and stay clean. Today, Kiedis is a true health fanatic, a vegan who stays away from alcohol and drugs.

The band's guitarist Hillel Slovak lost the battle against drugs. At first, things looked good when the band went on tour in 1988 with "The Uplift Mofo Party Plan" — Kiedis and Slovak refrained from taking drugs.

But back in the US, both relapsed. On June 25, 1988, Slovak died of a heroin overdose. He was 26 years old.

Red Hot Chili Peppers in 1988, with Jack Irons on drums

Grieving the death of his friend, drummer Jack Irons left the band.

Flea and Kiedis wanted to continue, so they hired new musicians: 18-year-old guitarist John Frusciante, a huge fan of the band who knew all their songs, and Chad Smith on the drums. In this formation, the Peppers had their greatest commercial successes.

'Under the Bridge'

The album "Mother's Milk" was released in 1989, followed two years later by "Blood Sugar Sex Magik," which catapulted the Red Hot Chili Peppers to international mega-fame.

The ballad "Under the Bridge," not a typical Red Hot Chili Peppers song at all, reached number 2 in the US Billboard pop charts.

It only ended up on the album by chance. Producer Rick Rubin had leafed through Kiedis' notebook during rehearsals one day and came across a poem about the singer's drug experiences, but the singer told him, "It's not a Chili Peppers song," as he wrote in his autobiography "Scar Tissue." Rubin convinced Kiedis to turn the poem into a song, and it became the band's biggest hit ever.

Kiedis, Flea and Smith enjoyed the fame, but Kiedis recalls in "Scar Tissue" that Frusciante was uncomfortable with it. He felt the band was too popular, it was a kind of success he didn't need.

The guitarist left the band in 1992, and he too struggled with drug problems in the years that followed, but returned to the Peppers in 1998 as things were not going well with his successor, Dave Navarro. The band recorded only one album in six years with Navarro, "One Hot Minute."

Lead singer Anthony Kiedis writes about his struggle with drug addicition in his autobiography, 'Scar Tissue'

With Frusciante back on board, the Red Hot Chili Peppers recorded the very successful  albums "Californication" (1999), "By the Way" (2002) and "Stadium Arcadium" (2006).

In 2009, Frusciante left again to tackle solo projects. Josh Klinghoffer replaced him on guitar and recorded "I'm with You" (2011) with the band.

Ten years later, the band parted ways with Klinghoffer, and John Frusciante returned once again. "It just works out better with him," the band said in an interview with Rolling Stone music magazine. "On an artistic level, and being able to communicate with the same [musical] language, it was easier with John," Flea said. "Being back in a room together and just letting things run their course ... that was really exciting."

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the four musicians retreated to their home studios to write songs. Of the 100 written, 17 are on the new album. "Black Summer" is the first single release.

The band's legendary status is now being honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on March 31.
 

This article was originally written in German.

Mother of Russian soldier: Ukraine war is a 'bloodbath'

A 26-year-old Russian soldier was killed in the first days of the Ukraine war during an attack on the Hostomel airport near Kyiv. DW spoke with his grieving mother who still defends Russia's actions.



Russian troops have faced fierce resistance from Ukrainians, slowing down their advance

On February 24, Russia launched war on Ukraine though Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to refer to the campaign as a "special military operation." Scores of Russian soldiers have been killed since fighting broke out roughly one month ago. But often, neither the soldiers nor their families are told where they will be been sent to fight.

So far, Russia's Ministry of Defense has only twice reported fatality figures relating to its troops. On March 25, authorities acknowledged a total of 1,351 Russian servicemen had been killed in Ukraine. Yet a NATO source cited in the Washington Post estimates roughly 7,000 to 15,000 Russian soldiers could have fallen since February 24. On March 20, Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda reported 9,861 Russian deaths, citing the Ministry of Defense. The piece was quickly removed from the website, with editors claiming the newspaper had been hacked.

26-year-old staff sergeant Yevgeny was killed in the early days of the war near Ukraine's capital Kyiv. He had never taken part in combat operations before.

Despite losing her son Yevgeny, Natalya (not her actual name) argues the invasion of Ukraine is justified. Yet she thinks Russia's campaign amounts to a full-fledged war, rather than a "special operation."

DW decided to publish this interview with Natalya as a testimonial of a mother who lost her son to the Russian-led war on Ukraine. She makes claims about the origins of the war that contradict current developments. DW has decided to leave her answers unedited as they clearly show the effects of the longstanding propaganda of the Russian state.

DW: Natalya, how do you feel?

Natalja: It is very hard, it hurts deeply. It is not my fault, nobody will bring back my son.

When did Yevgeny enlist?

Right after his exams in 2014, he joined the army. He was sent to a special unit with the foreign military intelligence agency GRU. They offered him a contract but I convinced him not to sign up, as he would had to serve in conflict zones.

A destroyed Russian tank near Kyiv, photographed on March 10

Afterwards, he made a living working for a security firm and applied to join the police force. He did not like the job, however and decided to return to the army. They took him back immediately, we had only one evening to say goodbye. Yevgeny served in the national guard. He liked it there, rising to become a team leader. His job was to disband protests in Moscow.

He became a father in 2017. He met his wife from his time at the security agency. She moved to join him in Moscow, and they married.

How did he end up being sent to Ukraine?

It was late January, around the 25th or 26th. My son called me, telling me they would be sent to the city of Smolensk [in western Russia, 80 kilometers from the Belarusian border] for drills with Belarus. I asked him: "Are you lying? What drills?" I went online to research the military maneuvers and found that a drill with Belarus had been conducted in the past. I kept searching, trying to find out where we are at war. I did not even think of Ukraine. The next day, I remembered the unrest in Ukraine.

Are you saying you understood you son was not being sent to participate in a military exercise?

Yes. I told Yevgeny I am not stupid and do not believe you are being sent to Smolensk. I kept researching more and realized that he would be going to Ukraine.

I wanted to dissuade him from going. I told him he may not return. He replied: "What are you talking about!" He had no idea where he was being sent. Either they brainwashed him, making him think they really were going to participate in drills. Or he knew what was coming but could not fathom what a bloodbath it would be. I suppose nobody expected that, not even Putin.

Were you in touch after he left?

He left on February 13. I jokingly asked him if he liked Smolensk and what kind of food they were eating. He laughed, telling me everything was fine.

The last time I heard from him was on the morning of February 24, when everything started. He wrote to me using a fellow soldier's WhatsApp account, telling me: "Mum, war has broken out." And I replied: "My son, I can see it on television." And he said: "Can you imagine, an entire unit with our boys was killed at the border." I asked: "Where are you?" To which he replied: "I am in Smolensk, mum."

I think he was somewhere near there. It was only from there near the border that he could have been flown to the airport [Hostomel, near Kyiv]. I told him: "Hang in there, son." And he wrote back: "Alright, goodbye mum. I have to go. Tell my wife everything is fine." Then, we never heard from him again.

What were those two weeks like when you had no contact with him?

I had my phone with me constantly. I spent days watching television, and reading on the internet. I thought maybe I would spot his face somewhere. I went to church everyday, lit a candle and prayed for him. But by then, he was long dead.

Yevgeny was in Hostomel on February 24. He did not die on February 27, as his death certificate says. He was killed much earlier, probably on the night between February 24 and 25.

What makes you think so?

I read online that our soldiers conquered Hostomel on February 24. All our boys were then sent there. But then they came under fire from Kyiv. Our boys were encircled and nobody came to their aid. They were shot at and bombed for a full day. Think about it, the airport is basically an open field.

On February 25, our soldiers regained control of Hostomel. On February 26, they found Yevgeny. But I was only informed on March 8. His unit called me around 1:30 p.m. and told me my son had died in a battle near Rostov [Rostov-on-Don, a city in southern Russia, some 60 kilometers from the Ukrainian border]. I almost lost my mind.

Why did they say he died near Rostov-on-Don?

I do not know why they reported that. Maybe because his body was sent to a morgue in Rostov, and they had no verified information about his death.

Did you ever discuss Ukraine with your son in the past?

To be honest, no.

Do you understand why this war was begun?

I think if we had not started bombing them, the Ukrainians would have bombed us. We had no choice. But something went wrong, nobody saw it coming. Now that so many soldiers have died, we cannot stop. We need to press on until we achieve victory.

Do you understand why Russia is fighting in Ukraine? What was Yevgeny fighting for?

My son fought for us, for Russia and the Russians. So that we can keep using our phones, eat and drink like before. He did not die in vain, he died for us, so that we can lead long, happy lives, so that we don't have to live through war and that bombs fall on us.

In Russia, it is illegal to call this conflict a war. Do you regard this as a war or a "special operation"?

I do not see this as a "special operation." This is a proper war. I am aware we are not supposed to call it that, but it is a war. It's a bloodbath.


The interview was conducted by Oxana Ivanova.

Opinion: The Taliban must not get away with suppressing girls' education

The West can't afford to simply stand by and watch how the Taliban turn back the clock in Afghanistan. For the sake of the people there and in its own self-interest it must act, says Waslat Hasrat-Nazimi.


The Taliban's U-turn means girls are isolated from education yet again

Girls crying; teachers sobbing, news readers losing their composure — the Taliban's decision not to open schools for girls from the sixth grade up, despite earlier announcements to the contrary, triggered widespread shock and anger.

The Taliban kept the people of Afghanistan and the international community waiting for months, arguing that they wanted to create the necessary conditions to ensure the safety of girls and young women. Both in bilateral talks and in statements to the media, the Taliban repeatedly claimed that Afghan girls should have the right to education.

For 187 days, girls in Afghanistan waited. Just one day before school started, the Taliban released a statement that schools would be open to all. But with the dawning of the next day came the bitter realization that girls would still be excluded. The Taliban said this was due to organizational issues — as if seven months had not been enough to sort them out. Why this 180-degree U-turn?
No interest in international recognition?

It should come as no surprise that the goals of the Taliban, or at least those of the hardliners, are still the same as they were in the 1990s.

Despite the outcry of Afghan women and the vociferous criticism of the international community, the Taliban are showing no signs of relenting. Instead, they're imposing further restrictions.

Waslat Hasrat-Wazimi is head of DW's Dari-Pashto service

For example, women without male relatives are not allowed to travel within the country or abroad, and women are only allowed to visit parks in cities on certain days; men without beards and traditional Afghan dress are no longer allowed to work in Afghan government offices; national media outlets have been banned from broadcasting foreign media coverage, including DW, because they allegedly put out content that disrespects Islamic and Afghan values.

It appears the Taliban do not care about the reaction of the international community. Yet, it has been made clear to them time and again that their disregard for women's rights will prevent their international recognition.

Indeed, that seems to be off the table. The Taliban did not respond to the demand to open schools for girls immediately. Instead, there have been meetings with high-ranking Russian and Chinese representatives in Kabul recently. Both sides assured each other of mutual support and good relations.

It would be convenient for the Taliban's two powerful partners if the latter were now to break completely with the West. Russia and China have their eyes on Afghanistan's rich natural resources. China wants to start mining copper at the Mes Aynak mine in the east of the country. The contract was signed back in 2012, but has been at a standstill due to the security situation.

China also wants to export goods from Afghanistan, a multi-million dollar business for the Taliban. Consideration for women's rights or press freedom are not part of the deal. Neighbors Iran and Pakistan, which have been accused of financing the Taliban for years, will not shift their course anytime soon. Who needs the West then?


LIFE IN AFGHANISTAN UNDER THE TALIBAN
New but old dress code
Although it is not yet mandatory for women to wear a burqa, many do so out of fear of reprisals. This Afghan woman is visiting a local market with her children. There is a large supply of second-hand clothes as many refugees have left their clothes behind.
123456789

The West must act

The window of opportunity for the West to exert influence on the Taliban is almost, but not quite, closed. Above all, the EU and the United States must act quickly and effectively to prevent Afghanistan from relapsing into conditions as they were more than 20 years ago. Sanctions against the Taliban and their families in Qatar and Pakistan as well as travel restrictions are the least they can do. Empty words and expressions of regret are not enough.

Western states may well have lost sight of Afghanistan, but history has shown that the West ignores Afghanistan at its own peril. The specters of the past could come back to haunt the West. The fear that Afghanistan will become another terrorist retreat is not unfounded. After all, terror knows no borders and will not stop at the gates of Europe. After 20 years of leading futile operations in Afghanistan, the West must not allow history to repeat itself.

This piece was originally published in German.

Edited by: Andreas Illmer

Whose Family Values?

Unplanned pregnancy is 'a crisis all around us'

A report from the UN's Population Fund says pregnancy is an inevitability, not a choice, for many women lacking education, autonomy or contraception.



Unintended pregnancies are common in crisis situations that cause mass migration, like the war in Ukraine

Pregnancy isn’t always planned. For many women, this is because they can’t access contraception. For others, it is because their contraception fails. And for others, it is because they don’t have a choice.

Pregnancy isn't always planned. For many women, it is because they can't access contraception. For some, it is because their contraception fails. And for others, it is because they don't have a choice.

Each year, about 121 million pregnancies across the globe are unintended, according to a report published Wednesday by the United Nation's Population Fund (UNFPA). The UNFPA studies, among other things, sexual and reproductive health trends.

"This is a crisis that's all around us," said UNFPA Executive Director Natalia Kanem in an interview with DW. "But it's unseen. It's unrecognized and that is part of a global failure to prioritize women and girls and to uphold the basic human rights for women and adolescents."

Many pregnancies end in unsafe abortions

Over 60% of those unplanned pregnancies end in abortion. The rest are carried to term.

For women in rich countries where abortion is legal, termination procedures are largely safe. But nearly half — the UNFPA says it's 45% — are unsafe abortions.

Those unsafe abortions account for up to 13% of maternal deaths worldwide.

In developed countries, the number of unintended pregnancies has fallen dramatically since the 1990s. That is due in part, says the report, to an increase in the availability of contraceptives and sexual education.

That is not the case in sub-Saharan Africa, where the number of unintended pregnancies has fallen by a mere 12%. And when you account for global population growth, the report says the absolute number of women who experience an unintended pregnancy worldwide has in fact increased by 13%.

Women often feel at a loss if they get pregnant unintentionally. They don't know how to feel or what to do about it. The UN report says that although some pregnancies are terminated and others are celebrated, many are met with ambivalence.

"These pregnancies may be not quite unintended but not fully deliberate either, taking place when an individual lacks the possibility to fully articulate what they want in their lives — or even to imagine a life in which pregnancy is a choice," write the report authors.

Contraception: From access to misconception

Methods for contraception exist. But the report says that many women are prevented from exercising a basic right to bodily autonomy — for example, a right to choose to use contraception if they want. That is why, say the report authors, there is no material "magic bullet" or solution to "solve" the problem.

Some women who can access contraception methods abstain from using them. There are many reasons for this, ranging from stigmatization in certain communities or misconceptions — such as some perimenopausal women think they don't need contraception.

Many other women are in relationships with men who want children and deny their partners a right to birth control. That can either force the women to use birth control in secret or carry children for whom they feel unprepared.

The report notes that the responsibility to prevent pregnancy falls, in most cases, on women. But that does not mean they always have a choice. The report cites data collected in sub-Saharan Africa between the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, which showed that the majority of men desired children more than women desired them.

Kanem told DW this indicated a "mismatch between what women want and need and what men believe to be the ideal."

"It's the mother of the family who typically is selfless. She plans the meals. She decides who is going to get which shoes to go to school. And she's a realist when it comes to [questions like]: How much can I bear? What is the investment in each of my children going to cost?" Kanem said.

Even when contraception is used perfectly, it can fail. For every 100 women who use condoms as their main method of birth control, 13 will become pregnant. And even for women who use highly effective forms of contraception, such as an Intrauterine Device (IUD), unintended pregnancies can still happen.

The report refers to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which conducts abortions in the UK. In 2016, the service says that more than half of about 60,000 women who had an abortion at one of their centers that year were using birth control.

Crisis situations upend routines

Conflicts and other crises can exacerbate the problem.

"If you have 15 minutes or half an hour to decide what you are going to do and you're caught up in a conflict… as you grab your children and race out the door, contraception, your menstrual supplies — they may not really be top of mind. I mean, if you have a passport, you're going to grab it, you're going to make sure that you can fit whatever you can into a little backpack and go," said Kanem.

Kanem said that this makes women fleeing conflict situations especially vulnerable to unintended pregnancies. Many women rely on monthly supplies of birth control. When they are displaced, they no longer have access to their usual supplies.

Damaged health care systems can also result in unintended pregnancies, Kanem said.

In Afghanistan, for instance, disruption to the healthcare system is expected to lead to around 1 million extra unintended pregnancies through to 2025.

Poor communities lack education most

Unintended pregnancies can affect any woman, regardless of financial or educational background. But they are more likely to happen in countries where women have lower levels of education and autonomy, says the report.

Africa has the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies, viewed country by country. The continent sees the highest number of women giving birth under the age of 18 and outside of marriage.

"While the overall rates around the world dropped in the 1990s, it was slowest in sub-Saharan Africa," Kanem said. "Regions of Africa showed some of the lowest scores on the index of bodily autonomy."

Kanem said this was largely due to a lack of education. And education is linked to access to contraception.

If women don't know what they want and need, they can't ask for it. And when sexual education is spread through word of mouth, it can easily get tangled up in misconceptions.

"Part of choice is being able to choose the method that's right for you and we saw striking myths about contraception very active among young women in Africa," said Kanem, who wanted to stress that contraception does not jeopardize future fertility, but rather safeguards women's health.

Edited by: Zulfikar Abbany

121 Million Unintended Pregnancies Per Year Reveals 'Global Failure' on Women's Rights: Report

Governments around the world must establish "comprehensive sexuality education," the agency said.

"For too many, the most life-altering reproductive choice is no choice at all," said the United Nations Population Fund.

A pregnant woman wearing a face mask walks past a mural in Caracas, Venezuela on January 19, 2021. (Photo: Federico Parra/AFP via Getty Images)

INCLUDING ALL G20 CONTRIES

JULIA CONLEY

COMMON DREAMS

March 30, 2022

The United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency on Wednesday said global policymakers have utterly failed to uphold women's rights as it reported that despite the wide availability of contraception in wealthy countries, nearly half of all pregnancies around the world—121 million per year—are unintended.

"Nothing is more fundamental to bodily autonomy than the ability to decide whether or not to become pregnant," said the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) in its new report, titled Seeing the Unseen. "Yet for too many, the most life-altering reproductive choice is no choice at all."

A lack of sexual and reproductive healthcare and education and gender inequality are major drivers of unintended pregnancies, which are especially common in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa according to a separate report released last week by the World Health Organization.

"By putting the power to make this most fundamental decision squarely in the hands of women and girls, societies can ensure that motherhood is an aspiration and not an inevitability."

According to the UNFPA, 23% of women report feeling unable to reject demands for sex, while an estimated 257 million women around the world are not using safe, effective forms of birth control despite wanting to avoid pregnancy—in some cases because contraceptives that suit their circumstances are not available to them, and in others because of rampant misinformation.

The agency surveyed women from countries around the world, finding that many women in both the Global North and the Global South avoid using contraceptives due to beliefs that they cause infertility, cancer, and other health conditions.

A 44-year-old respondent in Algeria told the UNFPA that she had learned "condoms should only be used for sex outside marriage, the pill makes you sterile, the IUD causes hemorrhages."

According to the report, more than a quarter of women who don't use contraceptives say they want to avoid side effects.

"We need more research into other kinds of contraceptives, including those with fewer side effects and male contraceptives," the UNFPA said.

Harmful societal norms regarding women's control of their bodies, shaming in health services, and sexual violence—which often increases in places experiencing conflicts—also contribute to high rates of unintended pregnancy.

"I didn't have sexuality education like they have today," another woman said. "You wanted to ask, and the answer was, 'Shut up, you shouldn't ask that.'"

Governments around the world must establish "comprehensive sexuality education," the agency said.

"Done properly, this education can combat myths and misperceptions, and it can promote communication, consent, and respectful relationships," according to the report. "It can address gender and power and teach adolescents about confidential contraceptive care."

Natalia Kanem, executive director of UNFPA, called the report a "wakeup call" regarding an "invisible crisis."

The "staggering number of unintended pregnancies represents a global failure to uphold women and girls' basic human rights," Kanem said in a statement.

Unintended pregnancies can have serious health and safety consequences for women in countries where they can't access safe abortion care. More than 60% of unintended pregnancies result in abortions, and around the world, "a staggering 45% of all abortions are unsafe."

High rates of unintended pregnancies can have "profound consequences for societies, women and girls, and global health," the agency said.

Women and girls around the world "see other opportunities dwindle" after being "robbed of the chance to choose whether or not to become pregnant."

Many girls are forced to leave school or their jobs, increasing the chances that their families will face poverty.

"The slide into poverty can be steep and swift, with poorer nutrition and less schooling following close behind," the UNFPA reported.

With 6% or more of the world's women experiencing an unintended pregnancy each year, the agency said, the rate "begs an uncomfortable question: Do these societies fully value the potential of women beyond their reproductive capacities?"

The report called on policymakers to: 

 

Prioritize bodily autonomy and ensure women and girls are empowered to prevent these pregnancies in the first place;

Strengthen health and education systems, which have a human rights obligation to provide accurate information about reproduction and contraception and should instill in young people the ability to articulate their choices and goals and the duty to respect those of their partners;

Ensure contraceptives are accessible, affordable, and available in a range of forms acceptable to those using them;

Invest in research to better understand the causes and consequences of unintended pregnancy and to spearhead contraceptive technologies that allay women’s anxieties over side effects and broaden the options available for men; and

Address justice systems that too often fail to hold perpetrators of sexual violence and coercion to account, leaving survivors to bear the stigma of both unwanted sex and the consequences of a potential pregnancy.

"By putting the power to make this most fundamental decision squarely in the hands of women and girls, societies can ensure that motherhood is an aspiration and not an inevitability," concluded the UNFPA chief.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Whose Family Values?

Women and the Social Reproduction of Capitalism

"proletarii, propertyless citizens whose service to the State was to raise children (proles).”
Classical Antiquity; Rome, Perry Anderson, Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism, Verso Press 1974

The issue facing women working at home or in capitalist society is the matter of unwaged servitude versus wage-slavery. The social reproduction of capitalist society is found both in the workplace and the home.

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/01/whose-family-values.html