oh no but think of the shareholders?
If a billionaire grocer has decided it’s not worth the effort to build a grocery store for a community, why would they be upset that the state fills in the gaps left by them? Be reasonable.
Didn’t starbucks do something like this where they just shut a store down the moment it got unionized?
Probably, it’s super common as a union busting tactic. Because once labor is organized you can’t really put that cat back in the bag.
More reason to boycott starbucks
Yep, slap it on the list right next to their zionism.
And the garbage coffee???
Fair, lol. Way too darkly roasted for my liking. Plus, there’s the brutal exploitation of the global south to source these beans at the price they are sourced at, too.
Seize his stores then. The city can run them for the people.
Gettin pretty real sick of the class war waged by billionaires against the rest of us. Every one of those wackos on cable news reactionary outlets who went REEEEEEEEEEEEE over the results need to be hunted down like the rabid feral pigs they are.
Call his fucking bluff. The only way anything would close is if it isn’t profitable (enough). And if they can’t turn a profit, well then they need to be better at business! (/s).
Socialism != Communism
Socialism advocates for collective or government ownership of key industries to reduce inequality, while communism seeks a classless, stateless society with communal ownership of all property.
Kinda? Socialism is a transitional status towards communism. Socialism is largely categorized as a system where public property is the principle aspect, ie large firms and key industries, rather than private. Communism is when socialism has developed to the point where all production has become centralized, and collectively owned, thereby eliminating class and the modern conception of a state.
They are disinct in that they have functional differences, but are the same in that they are largely the same concept but at different historical stages.
I think this is way too narrow. Following Marx? For sure, you’re right… but if you look at “Liberalism” - which can span anything from “taxes and government are literal hell” to “we support LGBT rights” - and “Conservatism” - which can span anything from Angela Merkel to Trump to follow-my-millenia-old-book-by-the-letter-or-I-will-murder-you - the word “Socialism” in the modern age can definitely contain nuances as well. For instance the main centre-left party in Denmark is called the “Social Democrats” then right to the left of it you have the “Socialist People’s Party” - which is far less revolutionary than it sounds - and then you have a few other parties, including one identifying as “Communist” but which doesn’t even really fight for any kind of revolution or the total elimination of class but recognises the requirement for collaboration and compromising when in power.
People have indeed doctored the meanings of terms over the centuries, but what I laid out is a far more useful understanding. Liberalism, as an example, is the umbrella ideology around capitalism. It isn’t “LGBTQ rights,” the social factor doesn’t really play as much into liberalism as the economic factor. Conservativism falls under liberalism.
I don’t really think I described anything in a “narrow” sense, it’s more broad than some may choose to define these as.
Kinda? Socialism was initially described as a transitionary stage of Communism in the same way as totalitarian violent revolution was described as a transitionary stage of Communism. This view also contained the belief that Capitalism is simply a transitionary stage of Fascism. A mixed market economy then with Socialism and Capitalism then describes an economy that is in a superposition of transitioning to both Communism and Fascism. In reality the transitionary times if you call them that are just as validly real times that people live in and regimes change and come and go and we must strive to fight for justice, equity and self determination while preventing too much power from falling into the hands of too few now and try to find the best system for now rather than acting as though everything is an inevitable slope to one extreme destination and that nothing else matters.
Nah, this is further off-base. Public ownership is not itself “socialism” just as private ownership is not itself “capitalism,” what matters is which forms the principle aspect. When communists over the years were analyzing capitalism, they were fully aware of capitalist systems with strong state control, like Bismark’s Germany. All systems have had elements of the previous mode of production and the seeds of the next, that doesn’t mean they are superpositions as such an analysis erases the actual dynamics of ownership at play and the fundamentally transitional nature of all modes of production.
Today, we can see capitalist systems like the US, Finland, Brazil, etc and socialist systems like Cuba, the PRC, etc and we find elements of private and public property in each, only in the capitalist nations private property has the steering wheel and in the socialist nations its the public sector that’s in control. As economies develop, they centralize and grow, and this further compels them into higher stages of development. Capitalism becomes more strained as disparity rises, fostering revolution, and socialism becomes more developed and sees higher rates of government control and improving development.
Revolution is still fundamentally the main means by which one mode of production transitions to the next. Nowhere did I say “nothing other than communism matters,” in order to get to communism we must build it through socialism, as other countries are already doing. Socialism is the means by which we can build that more equitable future now, not maintaining a dying capitalist system.
Edit: figured I’d address some points:
-
Revolution is the method of wresting control from one class to another, not a transitionary “stage” like socialism is.
-
Capitalism is not a “transitonal stage” to fascism. Fascism is capitalism in decay, when the bourgeoisie needs to use violent measures to perpetuate itself, broadly. It isn’t distinct from capitalism, it functions with private property as the basis.
-
All modes of production change, purity doesn’t exist, but at the same time it does not mean there are not dominant factors and driving factors that compel these changes.
I wildly disagree with the premise that the principle difference between european style socialism and the socialism practiced in china or NK or the USSR is whether the state or private ownership has the steering wheel. The difference is how dispersed and shared the power structure is between groups with differing ideas. Concentration of power inevitably leads to corruption and further concentration of power and unfettered private ownership is an incredibly efficient way for power to concentrate. Capitalism is a very powerful tool to create an oligarchy and if private ownership is allowed it will at least WANT to create an oligarchy given enough time. However, a one party system also WANTS to create an oligarchy, even if the one party ostensibly represents the people. The modern socialist movement contains many, many people who have little to no interest or belief in seeing pure communism happen.
Europe doesn’t have socialism, they have capitalism. Their economies are driven entirely by the direction of private capital, the latge firms and key industries are firmly in private hands. Ideas have nothing to do with it, economic power has everything to do with it.
Concentration of power does not necessarily lead to corruption, either. Centralization is an economic necessity as economies develop, so its better for these aspects to be publicly owned and planned so as to be more equitable.
The “modern socialist movement,” globally, is thoroughly dominated by communists. You have a very western, Social Democratic viewpoint. Ie, you see European welfare capitalism as the “modern socialist movement” when that’s a minority, and not even socialist.
Further, the European social democracies depend on heavy exploitation of the global south, a form of expropriation called Imperialism. Without imperialism, these economies collapse, which is why over time as countries in the global south nationalize their industry and throw off foreign ownership, safety nets and welfare systems are cut back in Europe and the US.
-
No matter the outcome, boycott this fucker.
which millionaire?
Close it and let the city run it.
Fuck him. They raise prices if people vote for a Democrat. They raise prices if people vote for a Republican.
All the while depending on a system based on obfuscation of the fact that a large portion of the time a worker labors for is unpaid.
So if it’s city owned it’s bad because any profits would go back to the city. But if it private owned it’s good because the profits go to a few rich people? I must be missing something
In fact you could do one better - it doesn’t need to make a profit, just break even, so you could either have lower prices, helping the community save money, or higher wages, helping the community spend money. But since it helps most people instead of a few people, it’s bad according to capitalism.
I think that the problem is you’re looking at this from a reasonable perspective.
Yes but if it‘s city owned, the profits won‘t go towards exploitation of (mostly) non-white laborers and dismantling the social system. Just think of how many humanitarian aid programs could be defunded and how much the environment could be stripped of its resources if we let the private sector maximize their profits!
/s
If you’re inclined to be charitable, I believe the capitalist-brained reasoning goes something like:
These grocery stores will inevitably run at a loss and/or need to be subsidised - costing the taxpayers money - because the state couldn’t possibly run them as efficiently as a private enterprise competing in the free market.
(Not saying I agree.)
Being government-run, the store will obviously have:
- a poor selection of products leaving you with no choice
- ugly packaging meaning only the poors will go there
- long waiting lists for entry
- yearly, quarterly and monthly subscriptions, all required and renewed seperately, taking hours in a queue and three trips to the social services hq each to renew
- quotas on all items, groups of items and time limited - whenever one is passed the rest don’t matter
- no added value like delivery or good customer service
- no market research or innovation
- no incentive to do better or improve service
- an active loss of money due to bueraucratic ineficiencies
(Likewise, also spined it (almost) as much as possible.)
“Won’t somebody think off the job creators?” they’ll unironically tell you after laying off thousands of people.
Welcome cheap and wholesome cooperative
It sounds like a great plan, this way there will be plenty of nice store locations available for these state own groceries store.
Good. And while you’re at it close all your other stores, fucking parasite.
