Lol.
Capitalist leech says he’ll willingly lose capital.
Liiiiiiiiiiar.
The dollar is holy to these freaks. They won’t jeopardize a single one.
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
I think that the problem is you’re looking at this from a reasonable perspective.
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.
That’ll cause competition with the private owned stores and force them to push down prices / raise wages until their profit margins are gone, putting them out of business.
The only entity that will buy the defunct stores will be the state , or maybe some actual non-profits , and now the state owns all the grocery stores and communism will be achieved. Then we get bread lines, is that what you want? /s.
I am fond of bread
Even if people believe that (and I know they do 🙄) that then gives you a niche for a private business to fill. City store always busy? This private store is more expensive but you don’t have to wait in line as long. People will pay that difference to save time, especially in NYC.
Yes!
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.)
The reasoning is actually that a food desert means greater revenues from a larger market circle for the desert wanderers to travel so they can eat. Company gets most of the profit without offering convenient service from the captives.
There is zero reason to run grocery stores at a loss. Competition that doesn’t extort as strongly as other cartel members does screw over the cartel.
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
“Won’t somebody think off the job creators?” they’ll unironically tell you after laying off thousands of people.
Closeted fearful European supremacists, lol. So what if everyone who looks like you and is in power is a liar, a thief and often a sex-pest? Just disassociate from them and pick someone because of their character! :D
Seize his stores then. The city can run them for the people.
My 5D chess move would be:
- Go: ok bet, you wanna shut it down? Your stores are now in immediate administration under some eminent domain law
- In order to mitigate political backlash, make it known that they’re able to sell their business to someone else, or the city, provided that the subsequent owner is bound to either run it, or sell it to the city
Watch them get mad because you haven’t technically seized it, they can still sell the business (maintaining the sacrosanct rights to private property capitalists love so much), you’ve just prevented them from closing it down, and everyone gets to keep their jobs :)
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.
It is because they are going to use the billionaires tax dollars to open a grocery store that he would have to compete against.
Oh wait, he probably doesn’t pay taxes.
Won’t that just drive business to the city-owned stores? Sounds like he’s trying to help!
Nice of the billionaire to vacate perfect real estate for city owned grocery stores
Indoor farmer’s markets? I thought NYC was peak hipster already
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.
Gristedes is an expensive yuppie supermarket chain like Whole Foods, in some rich areas. I don’t think they have to worry about some city-run stores in underserved neighborhoods. It’s just pouting.
Bullshit, billionaires are too greedy and morally bankrupt to leave exploited money on the table.
They won’t close the highest producing stores and effectively kill a revenue stream out of conviction in something that isn’t money, because if they had any beliefs or values above “gimme gimme gimme moar moar moar” they wouldn’t be billionaires.
It’s not a matter of not needing it, no shit, they have a socially encouraged mental illness.
It would be better for the new socialist stores if they did vacate the market, but they won’t. They’ll even pull a Walmart and try to do some loss leaders to convince idiots that der free merket menes lower prices for as long as they can stomach it until they find a vector to make the state stores illegal and Jack those prices back up forever.
Oh no /s
Its always the same excuses with these mfers. Do it, we dont care. Take your family and go to africa or russia. Most of the assets however belong, rightfully so, to the society that created them.
Yes! Seriously if they don’t like it, just go somewhere else. Go live in your bunker, I don’t care just don’t come back complaining about it and don’t pretend like you can still own all the resources and land from down there.
There ability to skim money from those that actually do labor doesn’t seem like to matter to the farmers who need to grow food to sell it, and the people buying it will continue to do so. I don’t get how these skimmers/leeches think they are the beginning and end of all social contracts.
No matter the outcome, boycott this fucker.
which millionaire?
All?
Good. And while you’re at it close all your other stores, fucking parasite.
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.
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).
I mean, sure, that’s very funny, but please don’t help feed the right-wing lie falsely equating democratic socialism with communism.
To be clear, all socialism, communism included, is democratic. “Democratic Socialism” just refers to reformist socialism, in most cases, or is used to make social democracy seem more appealing. Mamdani has expressed support for more radical groups online, though, so it’s clear that he isn’t just your typical social democrat at minimum.
Oh man kerala reference
socialism and communism can be any form of government you want because they are economic styles
Not really. You can’t compartmentalize government from the economy, both are so thoroughly inter-twined that they cannot be truly distinct. There’s wiggle room, to be sure, but the state is fundamentally attached to the question of the class structure of a society. Systems aren’t recipes picked out in a book, but physical things that evolve and change over time, radically shifting societal structures not due to decisions made by individuals, but economic compulsion.
That’s why the study of economics was often called “Political Economy.”
which form of government isn’t compatible with which form of economy? I guess a communist anarchy would be pretty hard, but not impossible. totalitarian free-market capitalism, not as hard. I’m not saying some don’t work better together.
You’re again looking at government systems as personal choices, and not as intrinsically tied to the economy. Just because you can imagine a form of society doesn’t mean it’s actually feasible in the real world, this is called utopianism, ie crafting a utopia in your head like someone picking out their outfit for the day, rather than through economic analysis.
Further, most anarchists would consider themselves communists, though the focus on horizontalism makes it a very different form of communism from Marxist communism, which is fully centralized. Moreover, “totalitarian” isn’t a form of government, really, just a descriptor for levels of freedom of an individual in a subjective, negative manner.
The best promo for ML: Giving erudite answers, the real commies know their stuff.
Thanks, comrade! I appreciate the complement!
Why? Maybe if people understand that what they are scared with to be “communism” is affordable housing, public transport and education and not being harassed by police, they will break out of the propaganda alltogether.
I think it’s a bit confusing, but in my view almost all socialists (including democratic socialists) are communists since the end goal they are trying to achieve is communism. Socialism (which can be described as welfare state, majority-publicly owned capital, and planned or market-socialist economy) is almost always seen as a stepping stone towards communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society), even though it is would also be an improvement on its own.
(to confuse matters even further, Lenin’s party was initially called Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, even though today’s understanding of social-democracy would only apply to the Menshevik wing).
Yea, in the bolshevik’s case back then Social Democracy was also used as a term for communism in some areas. Not so much anymore, but that makes reading older texts a bit confusing if you aren’t aware of that.
Was tempted to troll lemmygrad with this classic meme: https://lefty.pictures/post/view/15726
Good meme, but it wouldn’t work on grad, we did read enough theory to know the history behind that name.
Right, getting one past Lemmygrad is about as easy as getting past Stalingrad.
Pretty sure they’d get the irony, lol. A tier shitpost
