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).
Lol.
Capitalist leech says he’ll willingly lose capital.
Liiiiiiiiiiar.
The dollar is holy to these freaks. They won’t jeopardize a single one.
I mean, sure, that’s very funny, but please don’t help feed the right-wing lie falsely equating democratic socialism with communism.
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
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!
No matter the outcome, boycott this fucker.
which millionaire?
All?
oh no but think of the shareholders?
Close it and let the city run it.
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.
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.
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
Good. And while you’re at it close all your other stores, fucking parasite.
It sounds like a great plan, this way there will be plenty of nice store locations available for these state own groceries store.
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
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.
Do it. Someone will fill the gap in the market.
Aldi and Trader Joes will gladly take over all their locations. Those Germans don’t care about Red and Blue.
