More Game Workers at Microsoft's 'Blizzard' Join a Union (aftermath.site) 182
This week workers on Blizzard's "Story and Franchise Development" team "strongly voted" to join America's largest communications and media labor union, the Communications Workers of America.
From the union's announcement: The Story and Franchise Development team is Blizzard's in-house cinematics, animation, and narrative team, producing the trailers, promotional videos, in-game cutscenes, and other narrative content for Blizzard franchises — as well as franchise archival workers and historians. These workers will be the first in-house cinematic, animation, and narrative studio to form a union in the North American game industry, joining nearly 3,000 workers at Microsoft-owned studios who have organized with CWA to build better standards across the video game industry after Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard in 2023...
The announcement is the latest update in organizing the tech and video game industry, as over 6,000 workers in the United States and Canada have organized with the Campaign to Organize Digital Employees (CODE-CWA) since launching over five years ago. Last week, workers at Raven Software secured a historic contract with Microsoft, joining ZeniMax QA developers at CWA, who also secured a contract with the company in June.
"CWA says that Blizzard owner Microsoft has recognized the union," reports the gaming news site Aftermath, in accordance with the labor neutrality policy Microsoft agreed to in 2022, leading to several other union game studios at Microsoft: In July 2024, 500 workers on Blizzard-owned World of Warcraft formed a union that they called "the largest wall-to-wall union at a Microsoft-owned studio," alongside Blizzard QA workers in Austin. Other studios across Microsoft have also unionized in recent years, including at Bethesda, ZeniMax Online Studios, and ZeniMax QA, the latter of which finally reached a contract in May after nearly two years of bargaining. Unionized workers at Raven Studios reached a contract with Microsoft earlier this month.
The CWA's announcement this week included this quote from one organizing committee member (and a cinematic producer). "I'm excited that we have joined together in forming a union to protect my colleagues from things like misguided policies and instability as a result of layoffs."
From the union's announcement: The Story and Franchise Development team is Blizzard's in-house cinematics, animation, and narrative team, producing the trailers, promotional videos, in-game cutscenes, and other narrative content for Blizzard franchises — as well as franchise archival workers and historians. These workers will be the first in-house cinematic, animation, and narrative studio to form a union in the North American game industry, joining nearly 3,000 workers at Microsoft-owned studios who have organized with CWA to build better standards across the video game industry after Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard in 2023...
The announcement is the latest update in organizing the tech and video game industry, as over 6,000 workers in the United States and Canada have organized with the Campaign to Organize Digital Employees (CODE-CWA) since launching over five years ago. Last week, workers at Raven Software secured a historic contract with Microsoft, joining ZeniMax QA developers at CWA, who also secured a contract with the company in June.
"CWA says that Blizzard owner Microsoft has recognized the union," reports the gaming news site Aftermath, in accordance with the labor neutrality policy Microsoft agreed to in 2022, leading to several other union game studios at Microsoft: In July 2024, 500 workers on Blizzard-owned World of Warcraft formed a union that they called "the largest wall-to-wall union at a Microsoft-owned studio," alongside Blizzard QA workers in Austin. Other studios across Microsoft have also unionized in recent years, including at Bethesda, ZeniMax Online Studios, and ZeniMax QA, the latter of which finally reached a contract in May after nearly two years of bargaining. Unionized workers at Raven Studios reached a contract with Microsoft earlier this month.
The CWA's announcement this week included this quote from one organizing committee member (and a cinematic producer). "I'm excited that we have joined together in forming a union to protect my colleagues from things like misguided policies and instability as a result of layoffs."
In unrelated news (Score:2)
AI department receives 200% budget increase
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funny, though perhaps it needed to specify when the AIs were allowed to join the union.
Name is meh. (Score:2)
A union? Couldn't they call it a horde or something?
Re: (Score:2)
for the union!!!
Microsoft's "Blizzard"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was trying to avoid.
The use of quotes was correct (Score:3)
Yeah, I debated whether to use quotation marks in the headline. But the thing is, the word blizzard means a snowstorm. So when you read the words "Microsoft's Blizzard..." -- that literally sounds like Microsoft has some weather-controlling, blizzard-provoking.... Oh no wait, it's just talking about their gaming studio. That's what I was trying to avoid.
You were correct in either sense wrt the use of quotes, weather, or corporate culture/identity. "Blizzard" during the decades run by founders, and "Blizzard" run by others are very different companies. Worthy of quotes to make such a distinction.
Correct, not really "Blizzard" (Score:2)
Um, quotes..? Are they not really Blizzard?
Correct, not really "Blizzard". The Blizzard we tend to think of is the one that was run by its original founders for decades. A company that was quite different that its current and recent incarnations.
No Morhaime, no Pearce, ... its not Blizzard (Score:2)
When these founders ran the place, employees were treated better than union contracts would provide.
Union bashing (Score:5, Informative)
If you are not unionized, you are a sitting duck. HR has way more expertise in that field than you. They have way more time to spend on working on some ploy. It is like going to trial without a lawyer because you are smart and full of confidence that you can easily handle this with a bit of googling. If I was a CEO? I'd form a union exclusively for CEOs. Have trouble with the board? Ask advice from your union. They probably have experience with the exact situation you are in. Stops you from wasting time reinventing the wheel.
Erroneous to think US unions like EU (Score:2)
So I am in a union. You guessed it, I live in the EU. I do not get it when people say unions are not a good idea.
Because they are speaking of unions in the USA. Which are very different. According to my lifelong union member grandfather and father, today's unions are just another racket primarily conserved with serving the power and finances of the union leadership, pretty much like corporate leadership. Unions were once essential. However the just and valid things they once fought for are now law. Unions fight not over what is best for workers, but what is best for unions leadership. The unions of the 1920s and 30s n
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean it suffers from institutionalism? Any institution does, so sure. Abolishing it for that? That is way too black and white. Stop listening to the propaganda. If CEOs can fuck up sometimes, so can unions. It is complicated. Stick with trouble.
Re-read. I am NOT listening to propagandists. I am listening to lifelong members of major unions. Father, grandfather, their coworkers I grew up around. I get up in a union household, like my father, I visited the picket lines during strikes. I am sharing with you the characterization of today's unions, in the USA, according to men.
Its is NOT an isolated bad decision as you suggest. It is an ingrained culture. Decades in the making. US unions serve union leadership's interest, both in terms of money and
WTF....once again, commenters get off track from.. (Score:2)
Unions hurt everyone outside the unio (Score:2)
The idea on
Re:Why this spammy propaganda? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is socialism in the room with you now?
Boomers hear socialism and think North Korea or 1980s Romania. Young people hear socialism and see Europe and the Nordic countries where losing your job means you won’t go bankrupt from medical bills. Or having guaranteed vacation and sick time at work. You’re telling me America can’t use the massive wealth generated by the economy to make citizens lives better? The fact that the government built an internment camp in a month tells me all I need to know.
"Democratic Socialism" is not the same in USA (Score:2)
Young people hear socialism and see Europe and the Nordic countries where ...
Where it's paid for by Oil and Natural Gas exports. Not reproducible. Not sustainable.
... You’re telling me America can’t use the massive wealth generated by the economy to make citizens lives better?
It has. There are some improvements to be made, but the current system has delivered and can be improved without communism. Which is really what "Democratic Socialism" in the USA is, just a rebranding. In reality its the same old marxist radicalism from the 1960s/70s radicals.
"Democratic Socialism" may be a petroleum based nanny state in a Nordic country, but that it not what it is in the USA.
Re: "Democratic Socialism" is not the same in USA (Score:3)
The only one using that to find fund anything right now is Norway. The Dutch did it for a long time but ran out of gas. Now they do it based on taxes. Still works pretty well.
The others import gas and oil.
Re:"Democratic Socialism" is the same in the USA (Score:2)
Democratic Socialism in the United States is frequently misrepresented as a radical continuation of Marxist movements from the 1960s and 1970s, yet this characterization is both historically and factually inaccurate. While the term evokes European political traditions, the American variant is primarily a social-democratic reform movement, focused on achieving concrete policy goals within existing democratic and capitalist frameworks. Proponents advocate for universal healthcare, progressive taxation, strong
Re: (Score:2)
Democratic Socialism in the United States is frequently misrepresented as a radical continuation of Marxist movements from the 1960s and 1970s ...
ChatGPT is all about how you ask the question. You can direct the result to the answer you want with careful question crafting, as you did with the above response you guided ChatGPT too. If you give ChatGPT a more honest question, you get a completely different answer. Also you left out the most important part of ChatGPT's response to your flawed question: "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info."
Since I am being honest, I'll show my question to ChatGPT.
"Does the American Democratic Socialism m
Re:"Democratic Socialism" is the solution" (Score:2)
Your passage contains several problematic assertions that warrant careful examination. Most fundamentally, you claim that one can "direct the result to the answer you want with careful question crafting" and you state this demonstrates some form of deception or manipulation. This assertion misunderstands how AI systems fundamentally operate. All questions necessarily contain framing, context, and implicit assumptions. There is no such thing as a completely "neutral" question existing in a vacuum. Your suppo
Re:Why this spammy propaganda? (Score:4, Informative)
They do have "free" healthcare, but it's paid for through a tax system far more regressive than the U.S. In the U.S. you only pay 24% on income above $100k and up to $191k. In Sweden you pay 20% on anything above $60k and that's on top of the municipal tax rate which averages around 30% for every dollar of income. You may or may not pay additional state income tax in the U.S. but the overall tax burden for middle class individuals is much smaller. There's also the 25% VAT (though there are some goods or services that have half or quarter the rate) that you would have to admit is worse than the sales tax even in the most expensive cities in the most expansive states.
The other Nordic countries are all similar. If they didn't have productive economies supported by some of the strongest free-market capitalist policies, they wouldn't be able to afford such a nice welfare state. If you want to look at what a welfare state under socialism looks like then take a gander at Venezuela which nationalized much of its large industries and drove them into the ground. The people there are slowly starving and some estimates indicate a fifth of the population [unrefugees.org] has fled to other countries. The U.S. government has had to build camps because a lot of them are making it to our boarders or have steady slipped across in the past several years.
That's what socialism is and what it does, but there will always be fools of any generation trying to defend it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what socialism is and what it does, but there will always be fools of any generation trying to defend it.
Socialism is a useless term because no one will ever agree on a definition or useful examples, so arguments about socialism are just people talking past one another.
The only -ism legislatures should practice is pragmatism. If their goal is to make everything fit a specific economic philosophy, they will likely make people suffer because they are too wrapped up in an ideology. That's a more important contrast between Sweden and Venezuela than whether one is truly socialist or not. The Swedes are much more pr
Re: (Score:2)
But what is socialism? What you describe as free-market policies of Sweden is much closer to what Marx wanted than what Venezuela has. So why is it that Sweden is free-market and Venezuela is socialism?
I will tell you why. Because socialism is an euphemism for what you don't like. Much like Nazism as a term. They don't have any meaning, your discourse just likes to throw around meaningless words to sound smart and keep arguing in circles.
The difference in Venezuela and Sweden is not socialism. It is corrupt
Re: (Score:2)
Ownership of the means of production is the usual issue that divides socialism from capatilism. In one, the means of production are owned by private individuals (which almost necessarily means the "capitalist" class - those with access to the capital to do the owning), in the other by the people (which almost always means, the state, since that it the body the people are deemed to have organised under). The argument being that the state owning the means of production will allow them to be directed towads th
Re: (Score:2)
You can startdiscussing. It
Re: (Score:2)
Young people are clearly quite on point about this, as your own reply a
Re: (Score:2)
Young people are clearly quite on point about this, as your own reply admits. You appear to want a set of glorious free market capitalist policies without much of a social safety net (the "welfare state"). Fuck that Heritage foundation pipe dream, and fuck you for wanting it too.
You can have a reasonably regulated economy where everyone of working age has to fend for themselves, or you can have a much more loosely regulated economy that is taxed so that people of working age are not at the complete mercy of ultracapitalist whims. And in either society must provide for its children (unless you're into eating your economic seed corn for short-term funsies and long-term disaster) and its elderly (because working people into the grave is not popular pretty much everywhere).
Go substantially outside of those options, and you get societal instability that can and does result in an involuntary reordering of those sitting at the top (the French empire, the U.S. guilded age and workers movements, etc.). And some of your free market capitalist peers will happily sell the revolting peasants the rope with which to accomplish that.
The claim that advocating for free-market capitalist policies equates to abandoning social responsibility misrepresents both economic theory and historical precedent. Market-oriented systems can, and frequently do, coexist with robust social safety nets that protect children, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations. The notion that limited government intervention inevitably leaves individuals “at the mercy” of market forces ignores the reality that many countries successfully combine marke
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from being part of an ideological framework from the last century, what does nationalizing an oil supply in Venezuela have to do with Nordic health care or game programmers unionizing at Microsoft?
I'll bet you the responses to this comment that the "people defending socialism" are, at best, barely interested in that terminology or the framework you've used to define it. They're just stuck trying to talk about largely unrelated ideas through this bizarre anachronistic ideological battle from the last c
Re: (Score:2)
Boomers hear socialism and think North Korea or 1980s Romania. Young people hear socialism and see Europe and the Nordic countries where losing your job means you won’t go bankrupt from medical bills. Or having guaranteed vacation and sick time at work. You’re telling me America can’t use the massive wealth generated by the economy to make citizens lives better? The fact that the government built an internment camp in a month tells me all I need to know.
North Korea yes on paper, but in practice it depends on what caste (songbun) you are and a few other things. If you're in the lower caste, then yeah, you're in a strictly socialist system. Higher castes typically get more economic freedom, but it's hard to say how much because that information doesn't make its way out of the country very often, and when it does, it's through the rare high-level defector or official state media.
1980s Romania: Definitely yes, without a doubt.
Nordic model, definitely NOT. In f
Re: (Score:2)
Is socialism in the room with you now?
Boomers hear socialism and think North Korea or 1980s Romania. Young people hear socialism and see Europe and the Nordic countries where losing your job means you won’t go bankrupt from medical bills. Or having guaranteed vacation and sick time at work. You’re telling me America can’t use the massive wealth generated by the economy to make citizens lives better? The fact that the government built an internment camp in a month tells me all I need to know.
Most of the people responding this and saying "but Nordic countries aren't socialist!" are missing your point entirely. Actual socialism isn't even in the discussion here of course. Policies or programs that make economies and societies more livable for most people, like universal health care or unionization, to provide good working conditions and wages, are attacked by right-wingers as "Socialism!" which is bullshit.
Re:Why this spammy propaganda? (Score:5, Insightful)
... Every story seems to be pushing socialism or some big gay guy named Al.
Socialisms? You mean like our fire and police departments, our water, sewer and power grids, our public roads and public parks, our libraries and public schools, public airports, train stations and public transit, our military, garbage collection, public defenders, the coast guard, border services, public health workers, etc, etc., etc.
We couldn't survive without these socialisms. In fact, when we privatize public infrastructure, it never goes well for we the people. It does however let the rich get needlessly richer. Me, I'm just so tired of people using our societal progress as some kind of slur. Make no mistake, this is a smear campaign against our communities and against co-operation. These types of comments are made by the privileged who resent paying their fair share and need to put themselves above others. Just saying.
This is exactly what classists do, they're dismissive of anything that levels the playing field. Ask yourself, why would anybody resent that which enriches us all?
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live that all of these are functions of the (presumably local) government? My water and sewer company (same company) is private, our power company is private, our garbage collection is private, airports, roads and school are a mix (the baseline service is public, but if you want faster/better you pay for private).
Re: (Score:2)
nice try, the fact is most places have public stuff, if you don't, I feel for you, maybe you live in Texas? or maybe you're trolling?
Most places have regulated private utilities (Score:2)
nice try, the fact is most places have public stuff, if you don't, I feel for you, maybe you live in Texas? or maybe you're trolling?
You are mistaken. Most places in the USA have regulated private utilities to a large degree. My public utilities are the water and sewage. Regulated private are Electricity, Natural Gas, and Trash Collection. This has been true for multiple towns in two very liberal states, states that are Democratic strongholds.
Re: (Score:2)
you drive on public roads don't you, and the US where you live isn't most places, besides you're just cherry picking and distorting the situation, we're surrounded by public infrastructure despite your denial
most of what you claim is private was built with public funds, I can't help it if your governments have been corrupted and taken over by private interests
Re: (Score:2)
\you drive on public roads don't you
Here too some are public/private partnerships.
... besides you're just cherry picking and distorting the situation
Nope. I am pointing out that some social services are public/private partnerships or regulated private. That is simply a fact. And this occurs in the EU too, not just the US.
we're surrounded by public infrastructure
No, we are surround by infrastructure. Some public, some public/private, some regulated private. In the US and in the EU. Why does it offend you to point out that sometimes even government sees the private sector as good solution?
Re: (Score:2)
it's all really public until it's been taken over and privatized when it's done with tax dollars, nice try at denying the obvious
the truth is most of our infrastructure was built using taxes so, it's public or it should be, what I see ids theft by the rich and the powerful from the poor and the powerless
privatization sure looks like theft from the public which is evil, just saying
Re: (Score:2)
it's all really public until it's been taken over and privatized when it's done with tax dollars, nice try at denying the obvious
Staw man. That's often not the case. Many private services did NOT start out as public. Which by the way is reflected in the category you ignore, the regulated private utilities. Here we typically have a purely private entity that one day government decides is so important that
Re: (Score:2)
honestly, after your abusive tactics, i'm sorry, but you don't deserve a response
Re: (Score:2)
This has been true for multiple towns in two very liberal states, states that are Democratic strongholds.
I feel like that is a logical fallacy. You are using cherry picked data that uses the exception (2/50) to prove your point. Example of your fallacy: Both my neighbors drive sports cars in the snow. Most people drive a sport car in the snow.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been true for multiple towns in two very liberal states, states that are Democratic strongholds.
I feel like that is a logical fallacy. You are using cherry picked data that uses the exception (2/50) to prove your point.
The fallacy here is your assumption the other 48 are any different. I did not comments on the details of the other 48 since I have not paid for those services in the other 48. I can't name whether a particular service is public or private, it varies from town to town, let alone state to state. The sample breakdown I provided is just an example of the mix where I live.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee you none of that is truly private. A private company may bill you for water, but they don't get to decide whether or not you have a water connection, same with power, same with garbage. All of those are government controlled but privately operated. That is not free market capitalism.
Re:1960s/70s radicals coopted "Democratic Socialis (Score:4, Interesting)
wow, talk about sly red-baiting, t5he truth is this is all a slur campaign by trying to paint all 'social' programs as some kind of unfair wealth distribution when in fact most are simply the best way to use our common resources and fund our infrastructure
this is just greedy selfish and irresponsible people who resent paying their fair share. privileged people need to maintain their privilege by ensuring others pay the bill while they enjoy a free ride
Re:1960s/70s radicals coopted "Democratic Socialis (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. It's nothing about individual social programs. I haven't commented on any programs besides pointing out some are actually public/private partnerships, and that some utilities are regulated private services. Any references to "red" are purely with respect to the so called USA incarnation of "Democratic Socialism". A rebranding of 1960s/70s radicalism. Something entirely different from EU parties of the same name. The 60s/70s radicalism, and public or public/private social programs are two very different things.
more rhetoric, it's not wrong to call you for red-baiting, that's what you're doing, pretending that infrastructure is any different than 'social programs' whatever those are
all socialism is democratic, otherwise it's not socialism, it's despotism which is why you're confused
even hutterite colonies and the kibbutz movement are democratic as our our public institutions which are social and societal endeavors
here we see the same old misframing of greed and corruption as some kind of heroic thing, when all it is selfish people taking far more than their fair share of the common pie that we all contribute to even when it means others receive far less than a fair share
this is what exactly exploitation looks like, which is what classism and privitization are
Re: (Score:2)
no, red baiting is red baiting. It's never accurate to be insulting or dismissive. You are trolling, which is unethical no matter how well you dress it up, or self-justify.
wow, argumentative, rhetorical and dismissive. It's not my theory. Diction matters. I use the word as it's defined but obviously a deflection from discussion on your part.
Society, social socialism. They share something you can't deny and need to consider. Ethical and sincere people use the language to communicate ideas but some people wea
Re:notice how he changed the title, typical (Score:2)
I noticed how you changed the title, what an unethical thing do , and to use that word, well just shows how low you need to go
Re: (Score:2)
no, red baiting is red baiting. It's never accurate to be insulting or dismissive.
It's not insulting or dismissive to describe someone as marxist inspired when they self-identify as marxist inspired, or preach marxist or neo-marxist ideology. Its simply recognizing that this is not the "socialism" you are thinking of.
Society, social socialism. They share something you can't deny and need to consider.
What can't be denied is that you are arguing a straw man. No one is arguing the many modern US practices have a component of European Democratic Socialism. The disagreement you fail to address is that American Democratic Socialism is something quite different. In the USA the
Re: (Score:2)
changing the title and in such a way is abusive, typical
Re: (Score:2)
changing the title and in such a way is abusive, typical
The new title perfectly puts your faulty logic on display. That putting the word "socialist" in your moniker literally tells us nothing about a movement's policies. Is there some better example of the co-opting, the misrepresentation, than the one I offered?
The fact remains, the moniker "Democratic Socialism" is the USA has been coopted and the USA based movement is nothing like a Scandinavian party of the same name. In the USA its literally a re-emergence of 1960s/70s marxist inspired radicalism. Ala t
Re:this guy DMB is abusive and defensive (Score:2)
wow, such a move clearly demonstrates I got to you, you really got my point to so over-react to it, perfectly demonstrates how you needed to lash out because the truth hurt so much
it's gratifying to know i've made an impact
The label "Democratic Socialism" is coopted too (Score:2)
Its is erroneous and naive to think that because a party or movement uses "socialism" in their name that they act according to your theory of socialism. Do you need to be reminded that the Nazis also had the words "Socialist" and "Workers Party" in their name? My point is, that in the USA, the label "Democratic Socialism" is coopted by 1960s/70s era radicals. Unless you are coming from a marxist perspective, their "socialism" is not the sort you are expecting.
wow, such a move clearly demonstrates I got to you, you really got my point to so over-react to it, ...
Nope. Not at all.
... perfectly demonstrates how you needed to lash out because the truth hurt so much. it's gratifying to know i've made an impact
LOL. Quite the opposite actually, you are merely engaging in pyschological projection.
Re:dmb is abusive (Score:2)
jeez, talk about doubling down on being abusive
Re:more dmb abuse (Score:2)
insults peak volumes about the insulter
Re: (Score:2)
insults peak volumes about the insulter
It's more of the case of false claims of abuse speaking volumes about the claimant. You are intellectually unable to respond to dissent and historical reality, you change the topic to your micro-agressions. Its a classic move in lightweight academia.
Re: (Score:2)
insults speak volumes about the insulter
Re: (Score:2)
hardly, dismissive comments are rhetorical
classic ad hominin
even the trolling has become predictable
looks like this you trying to get in the last word
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
hardly, dismissive comments are rhetorical
You confuse dissent with dismissive. Your philosophy was met with dissent. It's only your micro aggression silliness that is dismissed for the foolishness it is. The lack of an intellectual resins to dissent that it represents.
classic ad hominin
LOL. Says the person who claimed abuse at dissent, at hearing. evidence contrary to their belief.
Re: (Score:2)
insults speak volumes about the insulter
LOL. Says the guy who shifted to insult when unable to offer an intellectual response to evidence contrary to their philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no confusion here, I know a troll by the way you try to turn things around in an attempt to distract from a topic you can't deal with
we depend upon socialism and anyone dismissive of socialism hasn't really thought about it and is both misunderstand the term and misusing it
we all exist within a social structure based on mutual co-operation, only greedy selfish and self-serving people resent and deny this
care to discuss these issues?
Re: (Score:2)
yup, call you out is my responsibility, or rather, my respond ability
get it?
so, let's talk about how socialism is always democratic and never autocratic
Socialism, as a philosophy, is democratic in design because it aims to distribute both economic power and decision-making broadly among the population.
Autocracy is antithetical to the theory of socialism, because it concentrates power rather than sharing it.
Re: (Score:2)
nah, i consider discourse to be a troll eliminator, so let's see how well you do
Consider that Socialism emphasizes collective welfare, shared resources, and economic equality. While it aims to promote fairness and societal stability, individuals motivated by self-interest often view it with suspicion or hostility. At its core, socialism requires sharing through wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, and public programs, which can feel like a direct loss to those prioritizing personal gain.
It also chal
Re: (Score:2)
insults are not responses, how about responding to the original topic? asking you politely to do so ...
"Democratic Socialism" coopted in the USA (Score:2)
There's no confusion here, I know a troll by the way you try to turn things around in an attempt to distract from a topic you can't deal with
As with your fake "abuse" distraction.
we depend upon socialism and anyone dismissive of socialism ...
Again, you present a false straw man. The issue is not socialistic policies in a western democratic government. That is your misrepresentation of my comments. The issue is that "Democratic Socialism" in the USA is something entirely different than in the EU. In the USA the moniker has been coopted by 1960s/70s era radicals, literally - ex Weather Underground members now in academia, community organizing, and local politics. Working from the inside as they and the next g
Radicals co-opt "Democratic Socialism" in USA (Score:2)
so, let's talk about how socialism ...
The issue is not socialistic policies in a western democratic government. That is your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of my comments. The issue is that "Democratic Socialism" in the USA is something entirely different than in the EU. In the USA the moniker has been coopted by 1960s/70s era radicals, literally - ex Weather Underground members now in academia, community organizing, and local politics. Working from the inside as they and the next generation they have trained have stated.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that Socialism ...
The issue is not socialistic policies in a western democratic government. That is your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my comments. The issue is that "Democratic Socialism" in the USA is something entirely different than in the EU. In the USA the moniker has been coopted by 1960s/70s era radicals, literally - for example Weather Underground members now in academia, community organizing, and local politics. Working from the inside as they and the next generation they have trained have stated.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that U.S. Democratic Socialism is primarily the product of former 1960s and 1970s radicals is misleading and historically inaccurate. While it is true that the term “Democratic Socialism” carries different connotations in the United States compared to Europe, suggesting that contemporary Democratic Socialist politicians and academics are direct successors of groups like the Weather Underground oversimplifies the movement and misrepresents its origins. There is no documented organizatio
Re: "Democratic Socialism" is just that, DMB abuse (Score:2)
Again the troll changes the title so I had to change it back. I'll need to check everything carefully
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that Democratic Socialism in the U.S. is primarily the work of 1960s radicals is both historically inaccurate and misleading. Contemporary Democratic Socialists, including politicians and academics, clearly focus on concrete policy issues like universal healthcare, labor rights, climate action, and economic inequality, not on advancing a decades-old "radical" agendas. There is absolutely no evidence connecting groups like the Weather Underground to today’s Democratic Socialist movement, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that Democratic Socialism in the U.S. is primarily ...
ChatGPT is all about how you ask the question. You influenced the result and put it on a "no" path with your use of "primary". If you give ChatGPT are more honest question, you get a completely different answer. Also you left out the most important part of ChatGPT's response to your flawed question: "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info."
"Does the American Democratic Socialism movement have an ideological connection to the political radicals of the 1960s or 1970s?"
Yes, the American Democrat
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, you know people change and mature, I'm sure these people if they are still involved have moved past what you see as radical, no more radical than say Nixon moving us to a fiat currency or dropping nuclear weapons on civilians instead of military targets, talking about destructive radicalisms, maybe you should take a deep look into that dark distorted mirror you keeping use.
Not really. They are not longer committing arson and bombings, but they still believe in and promote the concepts of soviet inspired neo-marxism. The anti-western mantra created to promote communism in developing Africa in the 1970s. In short, the ideology hasn't changed, the tactics have. As they themselves admit, we're working from the inside to tear it all down.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that U.S. Democratic Socialism is primarily ...
ChatGPT is all about how you ask the question. You can direct the result to the answer you want with careful question crafting, as you did with your use of "primary". If you give ChatGPT are more honest question, you get a completely different answer. Also you left out the most important part of ChatGPT's response to your flawed question: "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info."
"Does the American Democratic Socialism movement have an ideological connection to the political radicals of the 1960s
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that modern American Democratic Socialism is merely an ideological continuation of the radical movements of the 1960s and 1970s misrepresents both its origins and its current nature. While superficial similarities exist—such as a general critique of capitalism and a concern for social justice—these are broad themes common to numerous political traditions and cannot be used as proof of direct ideological lineage.
First, modern American Democratic Socialism is rooted more in longstanding
Re: Radicals aren't the real problem, trolls are (Score:2)
The assertion that modern American Democratic Socialists “still believe in and promote the concepts of Soviet-inspired neo-Marxism” and are “working from the inside to tear it all down” is inaccurate, misleading, and unsupported by evidence.
First, modern Democratic Socialists explicitly reject Soviet-style communism. Organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have consistently condemned authoritarian socialism, emphasizing democracy, civil liberties, and the rule o
Re: (Score:2)
An AI, even mistaking ones are preferable to your 100% bull. You're so misguided it's easy to to counter your corporate propoganda. The claim that “ChatGPT is wrong 40% of the time” is grossly misleading because it oversimplifies AI performance metrics and misrepresents how accuracy is measured.
First, there is no single, universal error rate like “40%” that applies across all contexts. ChatGPT’s accuracy varies widely depending on the domain, question clarity, and data availabl
Re: (Score:2)
No Chatgpt or any other AI, I don't need an AI to refute your false narrative.
Re: Democratic Socialism is ethical (Score:2)
In the landscape of modern political and economic theory, democratic socialism stands as a compelling alternative to both unfettered capitalism and authoritarian socialism. By marrying democratic political institutions with socialist economic principles, this ideology has exerted considerable influence on policy-making and political discourse across the globe. While the term "ethical socialism" lacks precise definition in contemporary political science, the moral dimensions of socialist thought remain centr
Re: Republican Party co-opted in the USA (Score:2)
If anyone is radical, it's the republicans and your president. Talk about a radical agenda. Fascism is always radical and always destructive. Let's talk about how Fascism and classism are the real radicalisms going on in the US these days. Sad to see the US descend into corruption and moral decay. Greed is ending your country, and it's destroyed America's moral leadership. It can't be long before the current administration destroys what's left of freedom in America. People get the governments they deserve a
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead, carry right on with your trolling, it's actually quite amusing to see you twist about so. All you pseudo-conservatives are so easily baited. Thanks for letting me get the word out.
Re: Republican radicalism and dishonesty (Score:2)
If anyone is making false claims it's you. Of course, all my responses to you clearly demonstrate this. No micro-aggression here, it's not needed. All I have is pity for you. It's not hard to see through self-justification. All privileged people defend their privilege and are dismissive of those with an ethical understanding. It bothers pseudo-cons when you're called out for being selfish and not willing to do your fair share despite the fact you've takin far more than what you've ever earned. Indeed, look
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone is making false claims it's you. Of course, all my responses to you clearly demonstrate this. No micro-aggression here
LOL. A casual reading of your posts proves otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to use ChatGPT to refute your false narrative..
And yet you do. And you still do not show that question you used to guide ChatGPT to the answer you desired.
Re: (Score:2)
An AI, even mistaking ones are preferable to your 100% bull.
That summarizes you perfectly. Objective/Historical reality makes you uncomfortable. To point it out to you is "abuse". You prefer the warm comfy support of your ideological information silo. Afraid to venture out. So it's not surprising you embrace an erroneous ChatGPT response that lands inside your ideological silo.
Re: (Score:2)
The assertion that modern American Democratic Socialists “still believe in and promote the concepts of Soviet-inspired neo-Marxism” and are “working from the inside to tear it all down” is inaccurate, misleading, and unsupported by evidence.
Except for when members self describe as marxists, marxist trained, offer such Neo-marxist ideology virtually verbatim, etc. The language of much of the modern far left, many of whom identify as Democratic Socialists, ie co-opting it, is the language of the 1960s/70s US radicals. The radicals went into academic and trained the next generation, similar with community organizing. We see it all on display on American college campuses, we see it in some local politics.
First, modern Democratic Socialists explicitly reject Soviet-style communism.
A straw man, the US radicals were influence
Re: (Score:2)
Let's talk about how Fascism ...
Sure, if you have a definition better than "something I don't like" which seems to be the current definition the far left uses.
... and classism ...
The Neo-marxists of the 60s/70s moved away from class as the basis of revolution. It just wasn't working in the EU or US. They moved on to racism as the basis for the revolution, especially so. Hence the replacement of the melting point with balkanizing us all into the many little identity groups. That is the current strategy for tearing down the system, falsely equating western l
Democratic Socialism is ethical, except USA form (Score:2)
In the landscape of modern political and economic theory, democratic socialism stands as a compelling alternative to both unfettered capitalism and authoritarian socialism.
Perhaps in the EU, but not in the USA. In the USA. it's about embracing a 1960s/70s radicalism born of Vietnam era protests. Radicalism inspired by marxism, Maoism, anti-western anti-capitalism Soviet ideology, etc. As these radicals lost support with the end of the war, they reluctantly moved into academia, community organizing, local politics, etc to continue their revolution from the inside. The American far left that has co-opted America's interpretation of Democratic Socialism are the ideological desc
Re: (Score:2)
Godwin's Law in action, a classic case of Reductio ad Hitlerum
classic trolling at it's best, this troll is using every old trick he can, good to see nothing changes under the bridge
Re: (Score:2)
Godwin's Law in action, a classic case of Reductio ad Hitlerum classic trolling at it's best, this troll is using every old trick he can, good to see nothing changes under the bridge
Nope. An accurate historical fact that fits the context of the conversation does not count for Godwin. For example pointing out that having "Socialist" in a party name does not mean much. It's about ideology and actions. Not a word in name. As is the case with "Democratic Socialism" in the USA, its co-opted by radicals, unlike in the EU.
Re: more trolling by DMB (Score:2)
You are clearly still being abusive and doing so in public. Were you raised this way or did you cultivate rudeness all on your own? Just asking
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing radical about socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing radical about socialism.
Except when it is implemented by radicals. Which is the case in the USA, unlike the EU with respect to "Democratic Socialism". In the USA the moniker has been coopted by 1960s/70s era radicals, literally - ex Weather Underground members now in academia, community organizing, and local politics. Working from the inside as they and the next generation they have trained have stated.
Re: (Score:2)
Except when it is implemented by radicals. Which is the case in the USA, unlike the EU with respect to "Democratic Socialism". In the USA the moniker has been coopted by 1960s/70s era radicals, literally - ex Weather Underground members now in academia, community organizing, and local politics. Working from the inside as they and the next generation they have trained have stated.
Sure Democratic Socialism is an ideology that seeks to combine democratic political systems with social ownership or strong regulation of the economy, aiming to reduce inequality and expand social welfare. However, there's nothing radical about this. While the core principles are similar across regions, the practical expression of Democratic Socialism differs significantly between the United States and Europe, reflecting historical, cultural, and political contexts. Of course, this is also true for any othe
Re: (Score:2)
Except when it is implemented by radicals. Which is the case in the USA, unlike the EU with respect to "Democratic Socialism". In the USA the moniker has been coopted by 1960s/70s era radicals, literally - ex Weather Underground members now in academia, community organizing, and local politics. Working from the inside as they and the next generation they have trained have stated.
Sure Democratic Socialism is an ideology that seeks to combine democratic political systems with social ownership or strong regulation of the economy, aiming to reduce inequality and expand social welfare.
Perhaps in the EU, but not in the USA. In the USA. it's about embracing old anti-western anti-capitalism Soviet ideology. Hence the working from the inside to take down the system ideology of the old radicals that co-opted the moniker of "Democratic Socialism".
ChatGPT lead you astray, or more likely in this case ChatGPT went in the direction your carefully crafted question intended it too. If you give ChatGPT are more honest question, you get a completely different answer. Also you left out the most impo
Re: (Score:2)
actually yes, they are, social endeavors require cooperation, that's the point of society
you're denial is obvious, selfishness is based in greed and irresponsibility, some people just can't play well with others
Re: (Score:2)
Where? If socialism existed then there would be no need for a union.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is a far left website. Most of its posters are far left. Of course it pushes socialism.
Source.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Slashdot is a far left website. Most of its posters are far left. Of course it pushes socialism.
Source.
That is a very nice respectful way of saying he is a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Much as I hate to admit it, one of the ACs may have had a point. But I still would have preferred not having been induced to look.