Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 06 2017, @11:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the Retaliation?-or-Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc? dept.

DNAinfo and Gothamist Are Shut Down After Vote to Unionize

A week ago, reporters and editors in the combined newsroom of DNAinfo and Gothamist, two of New York City's leading digital purveyors of local news, celebrated victory in their vote to join a union.

On Thursday, they lost their jobs, as Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade who owned the sites, shut them down.

At 5 p.m., a post went up on the sites from Mr. Ricketts announcing the decision. He praised them for reporting "tens of thousands of stories that have informed, impacted and inspired millions of people." But he added, "DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure."

[...] in the financially daunting era of digital journalism, there has been no tougher nut to crack than making local news profitable, a lesson Mr. Ricketts, who lost money every month of DNAinfo's existence, is just the latest to learn. In New York City, the nation's biggest media market, established organizations such as The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal and The Daily News have slashed staff or withdrawn from street-level reporting. The Voice stopped publishing its print edition in September.

What about The Daily Planet and Gotham Globe?

Gothamist's NY Writing Staff Votes to Unionize; Owner Shutters All *ist Sites

Deadspin reports:

Joe Ricketts, TD Ameritrade founder, billionaire, and father of Chicago Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts, shut down the local news network of DNAinfo and Gothamist sites today, a week after the writers voted to unionize.

[...] With the sites' articles functionally locked, the reported 115 newly jobless writers now have no clips [to which they can refer potential employers] as they search for work.

Deadspin has scathing comments about Ricketts's explanation for his action.

The Los Angeles Daily News reports:

Angelenos hoping to read the latest local reporting from LAist.com [on November 2] were instead greeted by a letter from the news site's CEO, announcing he had shuttered the parent media company and all of its local news sites.

[...] [Ricketts bought news company DNAinfo in 2010 and, in March 2017, DNAinfo] purchased Gothamist, which ran news sites in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington D.C.

[...] Julia Wick, editor-in-chief at LAist, [...] said she and her Los Angeles team supported the New York staff's decision to unionize. Originally, she said, all five Gothamist sites planned to join the union, but the Chicago newsroom dropped out, ending the collective effort.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:21AM (60 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:21AM (#593380) Homepage Journal

    There's no maybe to it. That's what "ownership" means. When it comes right down to it, not even the most die-hard socialist wants their own ownership rights made subject of debate, only everyone else's.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:28AM (22 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:28AM (#593384) Journal

    That would be the owner of the shut sites that you speak about.

    You telling me that he can block the former employees if they want to revive the site under a different name? (so that this story may actually have a continuation)?
    If I remember well, it didn't worked this way for S/N case.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:40AM (3 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:40AM (#593389) Journal

      He paid for the content produced under the old company. He decided to keep it.

      Nobody said the writers could never write again. You made that up.
      I suspect if those writers want to go out and start a new site they can do just that. (They are glorified bloggers after all - that's what they do).

      He took down his content. Probably knowing full well the writers had kept copies. Ball is in the writer's court. If they want to violate the owner's copyright and build a site around pirated content they kept on home computers, there may be more drama. (You know that was exactly their plan).

      If they want to go off and form their own company (hopefully after throwing a few hangers-on overboard) and come up with new content, and publish new rags, well, more power to them.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:10AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:10AM (#593407) Journal

        Nobcdy said the writers could never write again. You made that up.

        Pay attention, mate, read it good this time, I'll try to be as precise as possible.

        "If the sites that closed down have had a profitable business model before the acquisition, then the writers can start their own site building on top of that business model, without the current owner being able to stop them
        This is where the issue of profitability before the acquisition may come into play as being relevant."

        There's no question of content, or trademark, or copyright in what I said.

        Now, do you have anything to object to what I said?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:29AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:29AM (#593524) Journal

          "If the sites that closed down have had a profitable business model before the acquisition, then the writers can start their own site building on top of that business model, without the current owner being able to stop them

          They can, but they're not going to have the infrastructure and other assets that the old company had. The business model is not the only thing that makes a business profitable. Here, "the sites" won't respawn because the identifying IP (trademarks and copyright) that made them "the sites" is still owned by the old owner. These former employees can start their own business with the same business model and the same writers, but it's not going to be the same sites.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:49AM (#593477)

        > If they want to violate the owner's copyright and build a site around pirated content they kept on home computers, there may be more drama. (You know that was exactly their plan).

        No, I don't know that. What makes you think they planned such a thing?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by BK on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:46AM (1 child)

      by BK (4868) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:46AM (#593392)

      If I remember well, it didn't worked this way for S/N case.

      Well, if you remember so well, you'll remember that SN didn't import content from any old green sites into this one.

      And there is another key difference. SN doesn't claim to own most of the content of this site. So you can repost your posts on some other site if you want. You'll find that commercial news sites take a different approach.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:02AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:02AM (#593402) Journal

        Well, if you remember so well, you'll remember that SN didn't import content from any old green sites into this one.

        I didn't say they would.

        And there is another key difference. SN doesn't claim to own most of the content of this site. So you can repost your posts on some other site if you want. You'll find that commercial news sites take a different approach.

        True, but it has no bearing on the current issue.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:50AM (15 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:50AM (#593394) Homepage Journal

      If I remember well, it didn't worked this way for S/N case.

      We used not one bit of the green site's content, no. Every byte of content we have is what we as a community created. If we'd scraped up all /.'s past stories, we'd very rightfully have been sued into oblivion our first month.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:59AM (14 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:59AM (#593401) Journal

        And did I suggest that they may take anything from the old site other than the model of running it as a profitable business?
        (remember my "If there is a model those sites can make money. ...")

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:34AM (13 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:34AM (#593525) Journal
          Yes, you did because you kept referring to the new business as "the site", "those sites", etc. In particular, "revive the site" most certainly is not merely use a similar business model (and what is the model anyway? A: blog/write and collect revenue from ads).
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:09AM (12 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:09AM (#593594) Journal

            No, I didn't.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:41PM (11 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:41PM (#593651) Journal

              If there is a model those sites can make money. one can expect the sites to respawn (perhaps under another name).

              You telling me that he can block the former employees if they want to revive the site under a different name? (so that this story may actually have a continuation)?

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:12PM (10 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:12PM (#593796) Journal

                Your understanding of terms. Respawn and revive doesn't necessary mean "take the older content".
                For a news site, the readers are mostly interested in the news, it's not literature.

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:01PM (9 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:01PM (#593813) Journal

                  Respawn and revive doesn't necessary mean "take the older content" [and IP!].

                  They merely heavily imply it when used in conjunction with "the" and "those" "website(s)". After all, a website is not a business model. It is at least a concrete implementation.

                  The reason I'm bothering with this silly thread in the first place is your dismissal of several repliers who pointed out the legitimate problem with what you said. Then you coyly doubled down [soylentnews.org], repeating the erroneous terminology (also excise "you telling me" from your vocabulary, as in your linked post, that is too often a segue into straw men arguments). If there's confusion over something said, then get the wood out of your ass and just politely correct them. Not say the same thing again and then mischaracterize the previous poster's concerns.

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:12PM (8 children)

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:12PM (#593815) Journal

                    No, I didn't

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:25PM (7 children)

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:25PM (#593824) Journal

                      It is little use to argue with the khallow. He keeps his own dictionary in his head, and edits it on the fly as he sees fit. At least he wasn't triggered like TMB and jmorris the Lesser. Wait a minute, unless he was, and this is how it manifests! As per best practices, quarantine is in order.

                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:29PM (4 children)

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:29PM (#593826) Homepage Journal

                        I think you need to look up the meaning of "triggered". I know it's hard to keep up with all these newfangled words but you need to do so if you're going to use them.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:01PM (3 children)

                          by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:01PM (#593864) Journal

                          One consistent feature of being "triggered" is that the subject does not realize they have been triggered, and assumes that their behavior is not caused by the triggering event. They may even try to change the definition of "triggered" in order to deny that it is happening to them. We are all here for you, Buzzard. How's the fishing? What's your favorite bass plug?

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:33PM (2 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:33PM (#594049)

                            One consistent feature of being "triggered" is that the subject does not realize they have been triggered, and assumes that their behavior is not caused by the triggering event. They may even try to change the definition of "triggered" in order to deny that it is happening to them.

                            Smells like a kafkatrap [ibiblio.org].

                            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 08 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)

                              by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @10:28PM (#594278) Journal

                              No, what you smell is ESR. Kafka in "The Trial" was much smarter than ESR.

                              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:39AM

                                by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:39AM (#594469) Journal

                                OK, I am down by three. Stupid alt-right mudder folackers. Time for retribution, y'all. Now, if you are not among the regular down-modders of aristarchus, this is the point in proceedings where you should fess up to that. Otherwise, I will have to mod you into khallow territory. And it is not must me, it is all the sane, progressive, rational, realistic, non-racist, non-misogynist, not-artichoke hating soylentils that mod you who mod me down, down.

                                Now, the TMB may bitch and moan, as is his wont, but not necessarily in that order, since he allegedly served in a US military, that I down mod more than up. But put quite simply, it is because there is just so much here on SoylentNews that needs to be modded down, and way down, since we accept all and sundry, like MikeeUSA, well known pedophile, or jmorris, well known, well, maybe not well known, but he is definitely not someone you would encounter outside an insane asylum or a Vienna Circle think tank (pro tip: same thing). And khallow, the Soylentil in a class unto himself. He needs to be modded down every so often, just in a futile attempt to jump start rational thinking in his brain. So far, no success.

                                But to reiterate the point (that means, "repeat", for you alt-right, and conservatives), I will be downmodding with a vengeance tonight, and praise be to the Holy Mighty Buzzard for granting us an abundance of mod points. TMB, in your name, let it be accomplished!

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:30PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:30PM (#593827) Journal

                        He keeps his own dictionary in his head, and edits it on the fly as he sees fit.

                        Actually, I keep it here [oxforddictionaries.com].

                      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @10:07PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @10:07PM (#593839)

                        Arguing? Doesn't arguing require a conclusion that needs to be demonstrated or refuting, a point to be made, hopefully a meaningful point?

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:31AM (27 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:31AM (#593386)

    not even the most die-hard socialist wants their own ownership rights made subject of debate, only everyone else's.

    Wipe out that speck of froth from the corner of your mouth, is unbecoming.
    I see noone speaking about socialism anywhere.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:41AM

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:41AM (#593391) Journal

      I see noone speaking about socialism anywhere.

      Use that spittle to clean your glasses.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:54AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:54AM (#593397) Homepage Journal

      Take this as a lesson: if I'm not calling them "fucking pieces of socialist shit", I'm not even mildly annoyed. I'm just not one to hold my tongue or hide my feelings. Today you're reading a tone that doesn't exist.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:46AM (24 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:46AM (#593426)

      The Mighty Buzzard constantly shows his ignorance, calling things "socialism" when they aren't that.

      As an example, land reform in Cuba after centuries of European and USAian Imperialism would properly be called Anti-Imperialism or Bolivarianism.

      I see noone speaking about socialism anywhere

      Well, I'm late to the (meta)thread, but I did get in a mention of worker-owned cooperatives.

      Yes, that would be an -alternative- to the Capitalist model practiced at Gothamist.
      It has nothing to do with what has been going on there up to now.
      By using the word, The Mighty Buzzard has once again shown what a nitwit he is.

      ...and it would be good if folks would quit mentioning that Herman's Hermits guy [wikipedia.org] in discussions where he has no significance.
      ("No one" is 2 words. Always has been)

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:31AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:31AM (#593443) Journal

        The Mighty Buzzard constantly shows his ignorance, calling things "socialism" when they aren't that.

        Not his fault, he can't help it. WHY WAS THERE NO TRIGGER WARNING ON THIS ARTICLE? This is what happens when you do not provide a proper warning and safe place for libertarians who might be wearing hearing protection, and not see their neighbor coming to tackle them over property rights. Now we will just have to wait for 24 hours for The Mightly Buzzard to calm down. No one should type the words, "union", "socialism", "Obamacare", "Social Justice", or "Motherhood" during this period. Thank you for the assistance in making America safe for libertarians again.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:36AM (22 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:36AM (#593527) Journal

        As an example, land reform in Cuba after centuries of European and USAian Imperialism would properly be called Anti-Imperialism or Bolivarianism.

        So that's what kids call theft and slavery these days! Why are you defending state capitalism?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @10:16AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @10:16AM (#593586)

          No, they call it McDonald's, Papa John's, and Walmart.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:03PM (5 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:03PM (#593660) Journal

          Do you not call what Wall Street and Washington practice against the American people now "theft and slavery?" It seems the same thing to me.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:03PM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:03PM (#593690) Journal

            Do you not call what Wall Street and Washington practice against the American people now "theft and slavery?"

            While there is some theft involved, I don't consider it slavery. The "American people" are way too free to be considered enslaved.

            It seems the same thing to me.

            The obvious rebuttal is the huge difference in freedom. You are far more free to do things in the US than in Cuba. For example, tens of millions of people openly criticize Trump. You won't see a similar fraction openly criticize Castro in Cuba. US government is far more open than its Cuban counterpart as well even with the US security apparatus.

            Americans can job hop, move, and so on without significant government interference. That includes leaving the US. Cuban apologists routinely ignore the considerable risk that tens of thousands [wikipedia.org] of people have undergone to escape Cuba. Meanwhile all it takes to escape the US is a foreign country willing to take you in and the price of air fare.

            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:50PM (3 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:50PM (#593711) Journal

              Meanwhile all it takes to escape the US is a foreign country willing to take you in and the price of air fare.

              And an "exit visa" (passport), which for for some reason is seen as a privilege, too easily denied and revoked.

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:08PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:08PM (#593722) Journal
                A passport is not an exit visa (an explicit authorization needed ahead of leaving a country), For example, you can set it up years in advance of any move.
                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:19AM (1 child)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:19AM (#593924) Journal

                  Without a passport you're stuck inside.

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:18PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:18PM (#594083) Journal
                    It's not the same. They have to have a reason in the US to revoke/deny the passport. In other words, the default is to allow people to exit the US without question. Meanwhile the default for countries with exit visas is to deny exit. You have to get explicit permission to leave the country.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:48PM (14 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:48PM (#593884)

          That's what happened when Europeans invaded and occupied the Western Hemisphere.
          Add genocide for good measure.

          ...and in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine said that European Imperialism in the Western Hemisphere was over and from that point on, there would only be USAian Imperialism.

          Your characterization as "these days" is disingenuous.
          At best it is ignorant.

          Taking back at gunpoint what was taken at gunpoint is what is commonly called "getting your comeuppance".

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:57PM (13 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:57PM (#594098) Journal
            Once again, we see you talk a great game and then defend some of the worst countries in the world. The thing about countries like Cuba is that by your very own definition of Socialism, they are the worst offenders on the planet (due to the complete absence of democracy in the workplace) - "land reform" included. So why are you defending them with this anti-Colonialism pap?

            As to the Monroe Doctrine, that's actually an early piece of anti-Colonialism. The power of the US to interfere in American countries in the 19th century was far less than the power of European countries with both greater military power and population to do the same. But it's key to note that the US also had a policy of non-interference at the time! Let's look at the actual speech where the Doctrine was first expressed:

            It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

            Think about that. To label the opposition to European colonialism and support for local independence as colonialism in its own right is folly. What happened instead is that the US's policies changed in the future.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @12:58AM (12 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @12:58AM (#594326)

              When I mention "the worst", it's singular.
              USA.gov is the greatest aggressor on the planet and the greatest source of misery.
              (When Kennedy said "that imprisoned isle", he didn't mention that USA.gov was the cryptkeeper.)

              Cuba [...] the complete absence of democracy in the workplace

              What you say is largely true WRT Cuba not being a land of worker-owned cooperatives.
              (They're working on that; see the blockquote below.)
              ...and *I* don't refer to Cuba as "Socialist".
              ...which was the whole fucking point, nitwit.

              ...and, just as when USSR tried to form a Socialist utopia in 1917 after the October Revolution--and USA, Britain, France, Japan, and other Capitalist countries invaded it and caused it to use up massive resources on defense [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [1] [criticalenquiry.org], it's really difficult for Cuba to get things going with constant harassment from USA.
              USA's Ongoing Blockade Of Cuba, 2017 (USA Fined Honda For Doing Business With The Cuban Embassy In Canada) [counterpunch.org]
              So, USA.gov is not just harassing Cuba, it's harassing anyone who does business with Cuba.
              It's difficult to find a difference between the way The Mafia and USA.gov conduct business.

              Examples Of How The USA's Ongoing Blockade Of Cuba Operates, 2015 [counterpunch.org]

              A related page:
              USA's Only Interest In Cuba Is In Using Privatization To Destroy Cuba's Self-Determination [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org]
               
               
              [1] Another page on this:
              A Major Cause Of The "Failure" Of Socialism In The USSR Was The Military Threats From Capitalist Countries by Michael Hudson [counterpunch.org]

              Eric Mann has an excellent (1000 word!) essay on this. [counterpunch.org] VERY informative.

              .
              What Cuba currently has is -SMALL- (Capitalist) businesses with owners and non-owner employees.
              So, yeah. Anybody who calls Cuba "Socialist" is wrong.[2]
              OTOH, you won't see chain stores or megacorporations there.
              They have strict limits on how big a company can get.
              The Oligarchs were disempowered in Cuba decades ago.

              [2] ...and WRT "Socialism", you, just like Buzzard, demonstrated your point--the one at the top of your head.
              Do try to follow the narrative next time.

              .
              The major accomplishment of Cuba's Bolivarian Revolution was to eradicate the plantation system and The Oligarchy. [google.com] article [alternet.org]

              Beginning in 1993 the government reduced the size of state farms and in the ensuing years three types of cooperatives were created or expanded. All of them were based on usufructs: the government leased the land free to farmers for ninety-nine years.

              So, things have improved relative to the starting point.

              The blockade by Capitalists has strengthened Cuba's self-sufficiency.
              Cubans Are Growing Their Own Food [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [earthisland.org]

              .
              the Monroe Doctrine

              I'm sure that the people of Latin America were thrilled that one set of Imperialist powers was replaced with another.
              You failed to mention all of the the regime change nonsense that USA.gov has engaged in in the centuries since the "improvement".
              This is where I typically mention Reagan and his murderous pals, The Contras.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:30PM (11 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:30PM (#594631) Journal

                USA.gov is the greatest aggressor on the planet and the greatest source of misery.

                I think this illustrates your delusional views quite nicely. You could have, with a slightly amount of backtracking or mealy mouthing have a statement that wasn't bullshit. For the first claim, sure, I grant that the US probably started or was involved in the most wars numerically, than any other country. So what? There's a lot of shitty countries out there. Cuba is not the only one. Someone needs to resist them. War often is the only way, such as in the Korean, Soviet-Afghanistan, and Vietnam wars.

                As to the "greatest source of misery", we have as counterexamples, the USSR and Nazi Germany, both far worse and both successfully contained in large part due to USA.gov aggression. In particular, the entire European continent from Lisbon through to Moscow, is much freer today due to US efforts over the past 70 years. That's three quarters of a billion people.

                We have significant parts of the Far East, particularly, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan that are free today because the US took the effort and aggression to contain threats like the Japanese Empire and Communism. And if you're doing math, we're now up to a billion people who owe their current freedom to the US.

                And those countries in turn have been the seed of a global economic and trade revolution that has seen most of the world's population grow wealthier over the past 30 years.

                And I find it interesting that you link to all sorts of propaganda defending of all countries, the USSR, nearly the opposite of what you claimed you support. I believe this stuff really illustrates the clueless of your viewpoint and your readiness to abandon your democratic principles which allegedly drive your flavor of Socialism. Let's look at that a little starting with the first article transferring blame for Communism/Socialism failure to military intervention by others: First, there's the usual delusional pap about the inevitable success of Marxism.

                Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges.

                The Western economies having the most trouble with that very thing are the most socialist, like the PIGS for example, or high spending welfare states in the US like Illinois or California. But maybe those countries will do better, if the suicide attempt is more successful next time? One can be optimistic about that in the unique way that only die-hard Marxists can be.

                Meanwhile countries that don't have these sorts of problems have long ago recovered such as UK, Germany, France, Scandinavian states, most of Eastern Europe, and so on. Similarly, for US states like Texas, Georgia, or Utah, which have some sort of controls over their spending and aren't trying to chase away businesses. So it's still business as usual in most of the capitalist world with only the parts with the most broken forms of capitalism having the trouble.

                Marx had said nothing about the military dimension of the transition from progressive industrial capitalism to socialism. But Russia’s Revolution – like that of China three decades later – showed that the attempt to create a socialist economy had a military dimension that absorbed the lion’s share of the economic surplus. Military aggression by a half dozen leading capitalist nations seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government obliged Russia to adopt War Communism. For over half a century the Soviet Union devoted most of capital to military investment, not provide sufficient housing or consumer goods for its population beyond spreading literacy, education and public health.

                Let us keep in mind that the author has just rationalized the state of the USSR to 1921 when they decisively won the Russian Civil War. The author still has 68 more years of history to rationalize. Blaming outsiders for permanent internal failures is a typical Communist move.

                The dirty truth here is that a totalitarian society needs a huge military and a huge secret police to keep the slaves in line. That's why the USSR has always had a large military and secret police even during the many decades when there was no military threat to justify it. And the oppression of the USSR system eventually had spread to all of Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War (which demonstrates why your ridiculous claims about "greatest aggressor and greatest source of misery" are missing even the slightest consideration of the USSR).

                The United States enacted an income tax in 1913, falling mainly on rentier income, not on the working population. Capital gains (the main source of rising wealth today) were taxed at the same rate as other income. But the vested interests campaigned to reverse this spirit, slashing capital gains taxes and making tax policy much more regressive. The result is that today, most wealth is not gained by capital investment for profits. Instead, asset-price gains have been financed by a debt-leveraged inflation of real estate, stock and bond prices.

                Many middle-class families owe most of their net worth to rising prices for their homes. But by far the lion’s share of the real estate and stock market gains have accrued to just One Percent of the population. And while bank credit has enabled buyers to bid up housing prices, the price has been to siphon off more and more of labor’s income to pay mortgage loans or rents. As a result, finance today is what is has been throughout history: the main force polarizing economies between debtors and creditors.

                Notice here, we're not speaking of wealth or income inequality. We're speaking of gain inequality. So it's unfair that middle class families don't get more "debt-leveraged price inflation"? Maybe we can find better things to care about. This is typical of the retarded economic arguments put forth by Marxists about modern wealth inequality. In one breath, they dismiss the wealth accumulated by the wealthy as near worthless (with some cause, I might add), and then in the next breath, complain that it's unfair that the lower classes don't have more of it!

                The "1000 word essay" has similar bullshit:

                The Bolshevik Party and Soviet State built its own military and police, defended themselves against external and internal capitalist attack, and survived in a hostile world for 72 years—a true miracle against all odds. From the perspective of the world’s exploited and oppressed people this was a profound achievement in human history and offered them an optimistic vision of their own future.

                A future that involves perpetual conflict and the brutal oppressiveness of a police state. A true miracle! Just think of how many "exploited and oppressed people" could have been saved, if the Bolsheviks had survived in a hostile world for 2 years instead of 72!

                And "internal capitalist attack"? Not even remotely a factor after 1921 (really not before it either, since capitalism never was much of a factor in Russia prior to 1991). Why mention it? Perhaps, the USSR needs its Emmanuel Goldstein [wikipedia.org] to scare the populace.

                The day before the successful October revolution the entire world was ruled by the U.S. and European colonial and imperialist powers. But the day after the Russian Revolution the communists created a new political momentum and material balance of forces that captured the imagination of workers and anti-colonial movements all over the world. This was reflected in the Indian independence victory of 1947, the Chinese revolution of 1949, the Cuban revolution of 1959, African independence movements in Ghana, the Congo, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, and Tanzania, the Vietnamese revolution from 1945 until its victory in 1975, and the South African independence movement against apartheid culminating in the victory of 1994.

                In other words, we now have in addition to US/European colonialism, Communist colonialism. It's like your complaints about the Monroe Doctrine except that it's the real deal. There's a whole lot of suffering and dying hiding in that brag above.

                The day after the revolution what in the world was the new Russian revolution supposed to do? The Bolsheviks, as a new ruling party, inherited a nation ravaged by imperialist invasion and civil war. How could they produce an economy and feed its people in the midst of a world war and a civil war? The story of the Soviet Union’s successful experiments and many errors in a rich social practice is truly remarkable. Steven F. Cohen’s Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution describes the great debates about how to merge a new socialist, more like a state capitalist at first, economy with limited but critical market mechanisms on the way to a socialist economic system. But the miracle of the Soviet experiment is that it achieved some level of self-sufficiency by somehow getting the workers to work and produce goods and the peasants to farm and produce food and somehow set up distribution systems to get the products to the people while also finding ways to get new capital to rebuild a very backward and war-devastated country. The Soviets embraced the concept of “autarky” —that is a nation that is economically self-sufficient and independent. They used aggressive state power to keep out imperialist investors (while yes, also encouraging some) from infiltrating and taking over their economy. The Soviets used state power at times brutally for what is called “primitive accumulation of capital” which the capitalist nation states accomplished through violence, war, enslavement, and colonialism and the massacre of entire populations over 600 or more years that continues today. The Soviets built a new economy by forcing the peasants to produce more than they wanted and paying the workers less than they wanted, and somehow producing a surplus of agricultural products that they could export to purchase machinery to expand their economy. The record of many Soviet experiments in building an independent socialist economy in the midst of a world imperialist dictatorship, the exciting achievements of the New Economic Policy under Lenin, and the chilling abuses of forced collectivization is a story worth studying. But clearly, for Third World nations later facing the same problems after nominal independence from their imperialist masters, the fundamental challenge and achievements of the Soviet economy were inspiring. The entire concept of how oppressed people, formerly oppressed nations still surrounded by a world imperialist economic and political system, could use the state to seize its own resources, collective a lot of production and distribution, and raise the standard of living of an entire people in ways that capitalism did not and could not to this day led many Third World leaders to great gratitude to the Soviet model.

                Apparently, the Bolsheviks thought the answer was "murder people", since they did a lot of that during and after the above revolution.

                And notice how the author even indirectly acknowledges this by paying lip service to "chilling abuses of forced collectivization", but quickly mopping that up with a sappy "led many Third World leaders to great gratitude to the Soviet model". How about the resulting third world slaves? Where's their gratitude?

                Seriously, talk to people who've actually lived under these systems. There's a reason refugees from former Communist countries tend to be some of the strongest supporters of democracy and capitalism. Even when they aren't, they still allow that Communism is worse. Experience trumps ignorant ideology.

                It's amazing that decades later after the fall of Communism, we still have defenders for one of the worst political systems ever devised, still parroting vapid propaganda from dead police states. There is absolutely no connection to reality. No consideration of what works. No consideration of the grievous evils committed by Communism aside from the occasional admission that mistakes were made. Rather impressive for a mental illness.

                Let's face it, it is insane for you to support these systems.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:39PM (5 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:39PM (#594889)

                  War often is the only way, such as in the Korean, Soviet-Afghanistan, and Vietnam wars.

                  Seriously? Are you really going to pretend that those wars - particularly the Vietnam war - were somehow the only way? War is justifiable only in self-defense. Preemptive warfare is never justified. Vietnam is widely recognized as a complete and utter disaster in an ethical sense, but apparently you haven't gotten the memo. Apparently you can justify anything in the name of fighting communism.

                  How many actual libertarians are on this site?

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 10 2017, @12:59AM (4 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 10 2017, @12:59AM (#594952) Journal

                    Seriously? Are you really going to pretend that those wars - particularly the Vietnam war - were somehow the only way? War is justifiable only in self-defense. Preemptive warfare is never justified.

                    Well, you just gave a reason, self-defense. Allowing an ideology so hostile to freedom and human rights to take over Vietnam would be threatening to the future of the US and US allies in the region.

                    Self-defense also justifies preemptive war as well, such as the example of the Six Days War in 1967 by Israel against an impending war by its foes. One doesn't have to wait till a foe strikes in order to defend oneself, particularly in war.

                    Vietnam is widely recognized as a complete and utter disaster in an ethical sense, but apparently you haven't gotten the memo. Apparently you can justify anything in the name of fighting communism.

                    So what? You have shown a preference for complete and utter ethical disasters by supporting 20th Century Communism. The Vietnam War was shameful for the US, but not because of anything you've brought up so far.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @02:00PM (3 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @02:00PM (#595117)

                      Well, you just gave a reason, self-defense. Allowing an ideology so hostile to freedom and human rights to take over Vietnam would be threatening to the future of the US and US allies in the region.

                      It's not our business whether that country gets conquered or not. That is not self-defense. That is preemptive warfare masquerading as self-defense. 'They could attack us at some unspecified point in the future if we let Bad Ideas take over, so we need to attack them now!' is not an example of self-defense, not then, not now, and not ever. Stop stealing my money to fight your worthless wars.

                      One doesn't have to wait till a foe strikes in order to defend oneself, particularly in war.

                      If you see someone's fist about to collide with your face and you decide to take action to stop it, then that is self-defense. However, this only applies to cases where you have evidence that your opposition is going to attack, and not in situations where they merely could attack in the future but you don't know how.

                      So what? You have shown a preference for complete and utter ethical disasters by supporting 20th Century Communism.

                      No, I haven't. I'm a libertarian, not the other guy you were talking to. You're the one defending the disastrous war known as Vietnam. I am not the warmonger here.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 10 2017, @07:48PM (2 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 10 2017, @07:48PM (#595299) Journal
                        If you want libertarianism to work at a level beyond that of a single person you have to accept a much broader threshold for self-defense. Defeat in detail [wikipedia.org] is a real problem when you only defend yourself when force is brought to bear directly on you.

                        If you see someone's fist about to collide with your face and you decide to take action to stop it, then that is self-defense. However, this only applies to cases where you have evidence that your opposition is going to attack, and not in situations where they merely could attack in the future but you don't know how.

                        Libertarianism already addresses this. If you have someone with a habit of hitting people without cause, you don't wait until the aggressor finally gets around to you. You organize a posse and response with force to that person.

                        The problem with Vietnam was not that the US had no business in Vietnam. At the time, they had business anywhere that Communism was rearing its ugly head and oppressing people because Communism was a cancerous ideology spreading throughout the world, a genuine threat to the US. Instead, the problem was that the strategy pursued would never win. The various governments of South Vietnam throughout the period of US support (from roughly 1954 through to 1975) were thoroughly corrupt and simply couldn't defend themselves without massive US support. Those governments also routinely ran counter to the interests of defending against Communism (for example, oppressing the citizens of South Vietnam, stealing US funds intended for other purposes, and developing a heroin supply chain that was selling heroin to US soldiers and the US mainland).

                        All that could be done was to delay the inevitable. That had modest strategic value, but nowhere near worth the cost of the war and the people who died in it.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @05:37PM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @05:37PM (#595942)

                          If you want libertarianism to work at a level beyond that of a single person you have to accept a much broader threshold for self-defense.

                          No, because what you describe is not self-defense, but preemptive warfare where you do an offensive war before the other side has attacked you or tried to attack you; that is, to anyone with principles, unjustifiable. I would rather face annihilation than violate these basic principles, which generously assumes a very improbable scenario. It's just like how I would rather face annihilation than allow the government to conduct mass surveillance on the populace (generously assuming, of course, that mass surveillance actually prevents that, which it doesn't).

                          Libertarianism already addresses this. If you have someone with a habit of hitting people without cause, you don't wait until the aggressor finally gets around to you. You organize a posse and response with force to that person.

                          No, 'They might attack us at some unspecified point in the future, so we need to attack them now.' is not an acceptable justification for war. This isn't a case where you're certain they will attack you. Taking such a position makes someone less libertarian than they would be if they didn't.

                          And at least organizing a posse is voluntary, unlike stealing people's money to fight an offensive war.

                          The problem with Vietnam was not that the US had no business in Vietnam. At the time, they had business anywhere that Communism was rearing its ugly head and oppressing people because Communism was a cancerous ideology spreading throughout the world, a genuine threat to the US.

                          No, they didn't have business attacking countries over their ideology, and they certainly don't have business stealing people's money to do so. At least have the decency to go hire mercenaries with your own money if you want to fight offensive wars. Good luck with that.

                          Those governments also routinely ran counter to the interests of defending against Communism (for example, oppressing the citizens of South Vietnam, stealing US funds intended for other purposes, and developing a heroin supply chain that was selling heroin to US soldiers and the US mainland).

                          Stop doing business with such unstable countries. Also, heroin should not be illegal, and even if soldiers are forbidden from using it, it is their fault for doing so.

                          It seems you've thoroughly bought in the notion that we must sacrifice our liberties and principles in the name of security. What a shame.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 12 2017, @06:11PM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 12 2017, @06:11PM (#595952) Journal

                            No, because what you describe is not self-defense, but preemptive warfare where you do an offensive war before the other side has attacked you or tried to attack you; that is, to anyone with principles, unjustifiable.

                            That's a good start with the No True Scotsman fallacy. Sorry, I don't agree. Let us keep in mind that the other side did try to attack. They just did so in an indirect manner.

                            I would rather face annihilation than violate these basic principles, which generously assumes a very improbable scenario.

                            A very improbably scenario that actually happened several times during the Cold War.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @11:00PM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @11:00PM (#594903)

                  delusional

                  You are the one who is delusional.
                  Your willingness to swallow Cold War bullshit has no limits.
                  That's not just ignorance; it's willful ignorance.

                  the US probably started or was involved in the most wars numerically

                  ...and it dropped bombs on children by the tens of thousands, then repeated that.
                  USA.gov is just plain evil.
                  It will do anything to extend its Capitalist Oligarchical Hegemony.

                  ...and there's no "probably" about it.

                  Vietnam

                  Your knowledge of History is exceptionally weak.
                  The people of Vietnam -wanted- a change from exploitive Capitalism.
                  What they did NOT want was to be a puppet of USA.gov (nor France before that--which USA.gov bolstered until that collapsed in failure).
                  The people of Vietnam wanted the elections that they were promised.
                  USA.gov thwarted that repeatedly.

                  ...and, in recent days, I've mentioned how USA.gov bombed the living shit out of Vietnam in order to crush its nascent Anti-Capitalist effort.
                  In the process, USA.gov murdered 5 million people, mostly peasant farmers and fishermen.
                  USA.gov didn't win that scrap, but it made sure that it demonstrated what happens when you reject USA.gov hegemony.

                  Here's a description of USAian propaganda corrected.
                  Who Filled the Graves Of Hue? [counterpunch.org]
                  Hue was liberated by the National Liberation Front with a minimum of bloodshed and a minimum of damage.
                  USA retaliated, murdering anything that moved, and mostly destroying the city.
                  USAian propaganda tries to tell a completely different story.

                  Your flag-waving bullshit is just that.

                  shitty countries [..] Cuba

                  USA has a doctors' cartel that limits how many physicians there are here, screwing up access to medical care and driving up costs.
                  Capitalism sucks.
                  Cuba, OTOH, educates doctors in large numbers and provides them to the rest of the world.
                  Cuba offered medical help after Hurricane Katrina and Dubya turned that down.
                  Cuba is an example of how to get things done even while a superpower is doing everything it can to crush you.
                  (Let's remember here that USA tried 600 times to murder Cuba's leader.)
                  Again, your propagandized version of History is seriously fucked up.

                  USSR [...] contained

                  Again, you have the story backwards.
                  I already provided a link that documents how USA and other Capitalist countries immediately tried to crush the newborn Soviet nation and its alternative to Capitalism.

                  freer today due to US efforts

                  More propaganda.
                  They're only free as long as they do what USA demands.

                  Philippines

                  The atrocities committed against that country while it was occupied by USA are well documented.
                  Another case of your willful ignorance.
                  ...not to mention the corrupt, easily-manipulated, non-representative governments that USA.gov left behind in places that it "freed".

                  threats like [...] Communism

                  Communism is only a threat to USA-style Capitalist Oligarchy.
                  People by the tens of thousands went to USSR to study how to empower The Workers.
                  It was constant aggression by USA.gov which limited success of Anti-Capitalists.
                  Eric Mann covered this in significant detail.

                  most of the world's population grow wealthier

                  You just can't help spouting propaganda.
                  It's The Oligarchs that have been getting richer while most folks have been doing WORSE for the last several decades.
                  (I suggest that you find a description of the "dormitories" and working conditions in Capitalist China's workplaces.)
                  Even USA's population is doing worse.
                  "The Precariat" describes 60 percent of USAians today.
                  You should come out of your gated community and see the real world as it is.

                  the opposite of what you claimed you support

                  Again, USA.gov's military and economic aggression has made Anti-Capitalist entities engage in things that they would rather not.
                  Again, look around USA and see what USA.gov's spending over half of the discretionary budget on aggression (not "defense") looks like for Joe Average.
                  We could have awesome cities with awesome roads, sidewalks, public transit, water systems, schools, libraries, recreational facilities, etc.; instead, all of that is in decay.
                  Capitalism is in steep decline as a system.
                  Militarism has a very poor fiscal multiplier effect.

                  ...and even though most folks don't know what Socialism is, most say they like it better than Capitalism.
                  ...and that trend is increasing.
                  Most folks realize that Capitalism is a failure.
                  ...unless the goal is to make rich people richer and make everyone else poorer.

                  are the most socialist

                  Liberal Democracy is NOT "Socialist".
                  It doesn't empower The Workers.
                  Again, The Oligarchs keep getting richer, beyond all ability to spend what they possess; Joe Average continues to do WORSE.
                  It's only due to strong labor unions that The Workers in those places aren't overwhelmed by The Rich.
                  ...and if The Workers were also The Owners, labor unions wouldn't be necessary.

                  high spending welfare states in the US like Illinois or California

                  You are so full of shit.
                  Back when Mitt made his "47 percent" comment, it was pointed out that The Red States are the ones that soak up the welfare and The Blue States are the ones providing the money for that.
                  Your sources of "information" are complete shit.

                  countries that don't have these sorts of problems

                  ...have proper unions (and don't make every effort to kill those) and have proper tax structures.
                  They also spend those taxes on The People, not on military aggression.

                  Texas, Georgia

                  The jobs that those places are "adding"*, are low-paying part-time jobs.
                  * This is after exporting the good-paying jobs.
                  They are NOT a model of success.

                  ...and I noticed that you omitted Kansas and its experiment with Reganomics, which has crippled their economy.

                  the attempt to create a socialist economy had a military dimension

                  ...because of USA.gov aggression.
                  There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

                  a totalitarian society needs a huge military

                  So, why does "democratic" USA need a huge military?
                  USA.gov's military is the largest on the planet.
                  Again, 54 percent of spending, with a proposal under Trump to increase that.
                  There's absolutely no justification for any of that.

                  gain inequality

                  ...and we're back to The Labor Theory of Value, which is obvious to workers around the globe but which you reject.
                  You also have previously indicated that you think that the FIRE sector is a legit part of the economy--even though that is wealth EXTRACTION and not value creation.
                  Yours is a extremely twisted way to view things, but that's what I have come to expect from you.

                  a police state

                  I suggest that you open your eyes and look around the USA:
                  Warrantless NSA spying on USAians in violation of the Constitution, CIA spying on USAians in violation of its charter; a FISA court that has rejected 3 requests for warrant in its entire existence; cops who shoot unarmed people in the back and aren't tried--much less convicted and imprisoned.
                  (The ultimate expression of Capitalism is Fascism.)
                  If you are trying to hold up USA as a shining example of a counter-example to a police state, you are not making your case.

                  forced collectivization

                  I've complained about that myself.
                  USA.gov was (and is) all about trade barriers (to include its allies; see the example re: Canada).
                  The Anti-Capitalist places have needed to do things that otherwise would not have.
                  Did they meet my idealized condition? No.
                  Was it what they needed to do to survive against countries that committed huge resources to counter these Anti-Capitalist efforts?
                  That's the logic. It allowed the Soviets to survive against the USAian onslaught for 72 years.

                  Roy Tuckman (Roy of Hollywood) is, once again, airing the audiobook of "Understanding Special Operations and Their Impact on the Vietnam War Era" by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, USAF Ret. [google.com]
                  Part 1 [kpfk.org]   Part 2 [kpfk.org] (~35 percent of that file)
                  The second installment will be available next Monday night/Tuesday morning and will be in the archive into the new year.
                  The third will air and go into the audio archive the week after that.
                  A tweak to the date in the URLs should get those as they are available.

                  It's a real eye-opener as to just how much in the way of resources that USA.gov puts into militarism and anything that is opposed to Capitalist Oligarchical Hegemony.
                  (The 2nd installment shows how it's completely out of control, with CIA murdering a USAian president in Dallas.)

                  There's a reason refugees from former Communist countries tend to be some of the strongest supporters of democracy

                  Socialism, properly done, is Democracy extended to the workplace.
                  Yugoslavia had a worker-owned thing that was successful for several decades.
                  Oddly, that worked despite their government being Authoritarian (Josef Tito).

                  and capitalism

                  You (and the usual small band of Reactionaries) seem to be the only ones who celebrate Authoritarianism in the workplace.
                  The vast majority of workers in Capitalist operations would like a voice in how things are run.
                  They would also like for people who produce nothing to get none of the profits.
                  (Again, The Labor Theory of Value; most folks intuitively recognize it as a natural law.)

                  it is insane for you to support these systems

                  You're nuts to support a system that exploits workers; treats them as disposable parts; exports their jobs in search of ever-cheaper labor; and poisons the air, water, soil, and people of their towns.

                  You also failed to mention the ever-expanding Precariat and how Capitalism, having run its course as did slave economies and Feudalism, is imploding, with 22 percent of the USAian workforce idled.
                  A system based on greed, externalized costs, and infinite growth from finite resources is clearly not a sustainable model.

                  -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 10 2017, @06:03AM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 10 2017, @06:03AM (#595045) Journal

                    It allowed the Soviets to survive against the USAian onslaught for 72 years.

                    The Soviets could have survived the "USAian onslaught" for millennia. The failure was internal.

                    forced collectivization

                    I've complained about that myself.

                    Heh, a huge litany of complaints about the US and yet when the USSR does the same or worse as it frequently did, it's "I've complained about that myself". For example, heaping every single death from the Vietnam War on the US, including those inflicted by the North Vietnamese (which were almost equal to the other side). In a more rational observation, the USSR would share responsibility [wikipedia.org] the share they helped cause rather than it all getting blamed on the other side! Or complaining about the NSA while completely failing to mention the KGB which was far worse in every way? The cognitive dissonance is interesting.

                    Communism is only a threat to USA-style Capitalist Oligarchy.
                    People by the tens of thousands went to USSR to study how to empower The Workers.
                    It was constant aggression by USA.gov which limited success of Anti-Capitalists.

                    In comparison, the US presently has right now a million [time.com] international students enrolled in its colleges and universities. And they aren't learning propaganda bullshit, but real world educations. And of course, the "constant aggression" by USA.gov is a ridiculous fairy tale to hide the darkness within the USSR. Slaves need guards. It's that simple.

                    But what's particularly interesting about this bit of education propaganda is just how trivial it is. The US has all these terrible things it's supposedly done (and some of which I grant it has done). So you'd think (right?) that we should at some point speak of the good things that the USSR has done? Oh yea, in addition to being a leading cause of death and slavery during the 20th Century, they've taught a few tens of thousands per year some Soviet propaganda. I suppose that appears somewhat useful.

                    Here's my take. Stop being a programmed bitch for a dead religion and learn some real history. Nothing in this world is perfect, but the Communist shit is a lot further away from perfect than the democratic capitalism shit. It has a hell of a lot more skeletons in the closet and it finally flamed out three decades ago. I have to wonder, given your completely inability to understand the USSR and what it's done, just how fast you would completely betray your principles with some smooth talker who happens to know all the right Marxist code words. It sounds like it wouldn't take much.

                    Democratic capitalist societies (even the US with all its glaring flaws!) give you amazing opportunities to experiment, particularly with the flavor of Socialism you have routinely claimed you care about. The Communist countries of the 20th century, including Cuba, don't. Sure, the latter might allow your experiment as long as it didn't become too threatening to the powers-that-be or someone decide that you needed to be made an example of, but you would never had the sort of freedom to shape your workplace that you have in the developed world. No matter what lists of grievances you list, real and bogus, at the end of the day, it's still a choice between a society that gives you a huge number of choices and one that doesn't. State Capitalism is a dead end and it is sad that you can't see that.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @10:37AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @10:37AM (#595084)

                      death[s] [...] inflicted by the North Vietnamese (which were almost equal to the other side)

                      It's impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who just makes up stupid shit.

                      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 10 2017, @01:21PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 10 2017, @01:21PM (#595106) Journal

                        It's impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who just makes up stupid shit.

                        Look at the linked article [wikipedia.org], you idiot. North Vietnam was a USSR ally just like South Vietnam was a US ally. There isn't one set of logic for the US and a different set of logic for the USSR.

                        I've never seen such a ridiculous case of projection as here: accusing me of listening to naked "Cold War" propaganda and then dumping the most ridiculous and one-sided propaganda you can find supporting the USSR (they had to ruthlessly repress their population because of nebulous and unspecified US "aggression") and then pulling numbers out of your ass while accusing me of making up shit when I quote actual sourced articles with serious numbers?

                        The world is a different place now. You can get actual KGB records and see the brutal things that Russian intelligence does to people who merely don't think [stanford.edu] the right things rather than merely lap up some useful idiot's apologia. You can actually see what happened in places like the Koreas or Vietnam, during those wars. Most important, it is trivial to see the difference between now and a few decades ago throughout the world. You are free to deny that the world has gotten amazingly better or that the US had a role in that, but it's not mentally healthy to do so.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 10 2017, @07:24PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 10 2017, @07:24PM (#595288) Journal
                        Let me summarize what makes your arguments so offensive. It's the ridiculous double standard.

                        You and one of your links excuse the USSR's (and Cuba's) military build up and aggression because it's alleged to be in response to capitalist aggression. That excuse works both ways. The Vietnam War, for example, was excused by the US on the basis that it was a response to Communist aggression, which was a thing. You completely ignore the USSR's vast security apparatus while complaining that the US has one too (though far less invasive). You complain (via cherry picked examples) that the US has destructive interests throughout the world, while ignoring that the USSR had for 72 years nakedly pursued its interests, often even more destructive (such as the Holodomor [wikipedia.org] or the subjugation of Eastern Europe after the Second World War and the Iron Curtain), without regard for the people that were harmed.

                        The links you provided are of similar nature. Well, delivering biased or misleading information is the very definition [oxforddictionaries.com] of propaganda.

                        Moving on, we can think here rather than merely blame others. Even if we choose, for example, to accept the excuse that the USSR and USA's military behaviors are in large part response to the aggression of the other side, we still have the problem that said aggression hasn't always been there. For example, on the USSR side after they developed their own nuclear weapons in 1948 or on the US side after 1991. It's offensive to complain about US military-industrial spending in the present (much which isn't really developing a military, but going into corruption) and completely ignore that the USSR had a way overbuilt military for many decades.

                        A particularly silly example of this is your argument that the Monroe Doctrine is colonialist policy when from reading it we find out that it is not, but the announcement that the US would continue to support the independence of all countries that it currently did against domination by European powers. Sorry, but that makes it an early example of anti-colonialist policy by one of the few countries at the time in the Western Hemisphere with any significant military power. It's interesting how the meaning of the words said don't matter (but that's not new [soylentnews.org] for you).
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:03AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:03AM (#593403)

    Yup. My suggested dept. line was
    from the capitalist-ownership-model dept.

    Want your opinion to count? Become the owner.
    Can't do that on your own? Form a worker-owned cooperative.

    My Original Submission #2 [soylentnews.org] also contained some razor wire from the Deadspin writer.
    The S/N editor blunted that in the summary.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:29AM (1 child)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:29AM (#593419) Homepage Journal

      Want your opinion to count? Become the owner.
      Can't do that on your own? Form a worker-owned cooperative.

      Or anything in between, yes. Capitalism allows for any number of owners in any power distribution you can come up with. And it's entirely voluntary. Ain't it grand?

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:35PM (#593875)

        You seem to be saying that Socialism/worker-owned co-ops are not.

        In a worker-owned cooperative, every worker has a vote and ever vote is equal to any other vote.
        If you're not a worker in the operation, you don't get a vote.
        (There is no Idle Rich Ownership Class.)
        Socialism/a co-op is Democracy extended to the workplace.[1]

        In a Capitalist workplace there are lots of folks (the producers) with no say in what happens.
        It couldn't be farther from Democracy.

        [1] ...and the places that have called themselves "socialist" or "communist" have all been top-down Authoritarian things; the antithesis of what they are claiming to be.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by sjames on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:16AM (2 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:16AM (#593411) Journal

    His half of the copyright bargain is that the works so protected are available and eventually enter the public domain. There's nothing at all radical about that view, it's existed since the country was founded.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:30AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:30AM (#593422) Homepage Journal

      I think you're going to have to kill The Mouse before that ever happens.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:36AM (#593424)

      > the works so protected are available and eventually enter the public domain

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:22AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:22AM (#593546)

    Have you ever actually met a "socialist"? You bitch about them and their views all the fucking time, but you don't seem to actually KNKW anything. How are you so angry about these things?