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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the modern common definitions of things then. If socialism means only be definition a transitionary stage to communism then there is no meaning in people saying they are a socialist vs a communist, but clearly many people identify as socialist but not communist.
All communists are at first socialists, after all. Marx only used the word "communist" in order to take on a more radical term, it was Lenin that used socialism as a descriptor for what Marx called the "lower stage of communism" just to help make things easier to understand. There really aren't any significant numbers of people that want to "freeze development" at socialism, among the two largest umbrellas for socialists are Marxists and Anarchists, and neither sees socialism as the final stage.
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
Yes!
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.
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:
(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.
"Won't somebody think off the job creators?" they'll unironically tell you after laying off thousands of people.
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 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
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
Good. And while you're at it close all your other stores, fucking parasite.
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
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.
Seize his stores then. The city can run them for the people.
My 5D chess move would be:
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.
No matter the outcome, boycott this fucker.
which millionaire?
All?
Lol.
Capitalist leech says he'll willingly lose capital.
Liiiiiiiiiiar.
The dollar is holy to these freaks. They won't jeopardize a single one.
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.
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).
It sounds like a great plan, this way there will be plenty of nice store locations available for these state own groceries store.
Close it and let the city run it.
I like that lil commie ghost, where can I get stickers?
You could make them and capitalism the hell out of it.
He is The Spectre of Communism!!! BOO!!
Ha! I like this one too looks like communism yawning, getting ready to get the day started.
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.
Welcome cheap and wholesome cooperative
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great, now do Amazon.
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.
Political parties can rarely afford to proclaim themselves to be revolutionary, or they'll quickly get banned.
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.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the modern common definitions of things then. If socialism means only be definition a transitionary stage to communism then there is no meaning in people saying they are a socialist vs a communist, but clearly many people identify as socialist but not communist.
That sounds like you being mindlessly stubborn.
Those people are usually welfare capitalists.
All communists are at first socialists, after all. Marx only used the word "communist" in order to take on a more radical term, it was Lenin that used socialism as a descriptor for what Marx called the "lower stage of communism" just to help make things easier to understand. There really aren't any significant numbers of people that want to "freeze development" at socialism, among the two largest umbrellas for socialists are Marxists and Anarchists, and neither sees socialism as the final stage.
Instead of closing them, accept NYC offer of 5cents on the dollar to take over their lease. Everyone gets what they want.
oh no but think of the shareholders?
Think the billionaire is safe, even more so considering the proposed pro-business policies by the candidate