Explore the vast range of titles available.

Why is the United States the only advanced capitalist country with no labor party? This question is one of the great enduring puzzles of American political development, and it lies at the heart of a fundamental debate about the nature of American society. Tackling this debate head-on, Robin Archer puts forward a new explanation for why there is no American labor party--an explanation that suggests that much of the conventional wisdom about \"American exceptionalism\" is untenable. Conventional explanations rely on comparison with Europe. Archer challenges these explanations by comparing the United States with its most similar New World counterpart--Australia. This comparison is particularly revealing, not only because the United States and Australia share many fundamental historical, political, and social characteristics, but also because Australian unions established a labor party in the late nineteenth century, just when American unions, against a common backdrop of industrial defeat and depression, came closest to doing something similar. Archer examines each of the factors that could help explain the American outcome, and his systematic comparison yields unexpected conclusions. He argues that prosperity, democracy, liberalism, and racial hostility often promoted the very changes they are said to have obstructed. And he shows that it was not these characteristics that left the United States without a labor party, but, rather, the powerful impact of repression, religion, and political sectarianism.

In the early twentieth century, the labour movement was the most important force seeking to prevent war and restrain militarism. Comparison of the Australian labour movement's response to World War I has been rare, but it shows the Australian experience was distinctive in two ways. Elsewhere, socialist and labour leaders engaged in a frantic round of efforts to stop the war prior to its outbreak, although most soon abandoned their opposition once the conflict had begun. In Australia, similar efforts were virtually absent. Yet during a second wave of opposition in the English-speaking countries, the Australian labour movement was uniquely successful in stopping the introduction of conscription. How can we account for these two differences? Cross-country comparison of labour's political strength suggests that this may help to account for both.

But while the memory of the conscription campaigns once loomed large, it has increasingly been overshadowed by a preoccupation with the sacrifice and heroism of Australian soldiers a preoccupation that has been reinforced during the centennial commemorations.

It has long been argued that the prevalence of liberal values is one of the main reasons why there is no labour party in the United States. This article seeks to reassess these arguments by comparing the United States with Australia, where the influence of liberal values was also strong. It focuses on the early 1890s, when Australian unionists established an electorally successful labour party, and when their American counterparts came closest to doing something similar. The article tests the claim that the prevalence of the idea of individual freedom was a constraint on the emergence of a labour party, by examining how labour leaders themselves responded to this idea and made use of it. It finds that, far from being a constraint, the prevalence of the idea of individual freedom was treated as an ideological opportunity by those who were seeking to establish a labour party.

This book argues that socialism could return to the centre of political life in the advanced capitalist countries by pursuing the goal of economic democracy. Its principal aim is to convince socialists and nonsocialists alike that there is both a strong moral case for economic democracy and a feasible strategy for achieving it.

There are a number of reasons for thinking that the pursuit of change through revolution is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, after over two centuries of debate, Burkean conservatives seem to have won the argument. They have made a strong case against revolutionary change by demonstrating how it has regularly produced some of the worst atrocities we have known. They point out that despite the fact that revolutionary movements have often been the repositories of some of our highest aspirations, their unintended consequences have produced enormous human suffering. And they show how the pursuit of gradual change in some countries brought about the very same goals to which revolutionaries aspired in others, but with far less bloodshed and suffering.But are the conservatives right? In this article, I consider various problems with their argument. One of the biggest is that the gradual changes they admire were closely entwined with the revolutions they deplore. Not only did revolutions provide incrementalists with a kind of compass that set the direction of change, but they also induced fear in powerful elites: fear that gave these elites an incentive to accept incremental changes they would otherwise have resisted. Indeed, because of these kinds of effects, countries that are usually seen as paradigm examples of the virtues of conservative change may have ultimately been among the major beneficiaries of revolution. In short, there is a good case for arguing that modern conservatism has been free riding on revolution.

The latest volume demonstrates that during the New Labour years - but not, it should be noted, during the preceding Thatcher years - public attitudes, including the attitudes of Labour Party supporters themselves, have all shifted markedly to the right in response to a range of standard questions about the welfare state, business interests, economic inequality, and government action to redress it. [...]almost no one made the obvious point that the deficit was caused by the banking crisis and that what the election really required was a debate about failure of the neo-liberal paradigm of economic policy-making that has dominated the last three decades.

The present study utilized Q methodology to understand what rural counselors perceive to be the clinical supervision interventions most like they would want/need from their supervisor when working with a rural client at risk for suicide. Thirty-five rural counselors participated in the present study, sorting 39 clinical supervision intervention statements based on their perceptions, and answered post-sort questions about their sorts to assist in the interpretation of the factors that emerged. Two factors emerged from a principal components analysis with a varimax rotation, representing rural counselors’ perceptions of what clinical interventions they would prefer when working with a rural client at risk for suicide. Results imply rural counselors on one factor prefer clinical supervision interventions geared to address the personal reactions of a counselor when a client attempts suicide, whereas the rural counselors on the second factor may prefer clinical supervision interventions that focus on knowledge and skill in prevention of client suicide. Implications for the field of Counselor Education and Supervision are discussed.

For 15 years, a small community hospital has sent registered nurses into the home to do a preoperative visit with patients planning joint replacement surgery. These visits help the patient by providing a better understanding of what to expect from the preadmission visit through the recovery period. It also ensures a safe environment for the recovery process whether at home or alternative environment with family/friends or at a short-term rehabilitation facility. Its success in patient and nurse satisfaction has not only saved it from cost cutting measures but also allowed it to expand over the years to include follow-up home visits and now includes patients undergoing shoulder replacement. This was a great undertaking for a hospital of this size in 1993 and is one of the few, if not the only, such home visit programs in Massachusetts, doing both pre and postoperative visits, funded by a hospital, utilizing nursing hours.