When a deep red town’s only grocery closed, city hall opened its own store. Socialism?

[HereWeGoAgain]

The town opening its own store after the last store closed is not socialism. Can another store open? If competition is prohibited it's socialism.

Well it is socialism. The town is interfering in the market. Its the right thing to do, its socialism in action.

It isn't socialism, I know you need it to be but it is not. They are not keeping competition out, they are simply filling a void that exists. If another store opens, then the city store would shut down. Nice try though.

The state has stepped in because capitalism has failed these people. Happens everywhere. Its socialism,its good.

Let's not get it twisted...the people helped themselves..in the form of the City Govt.--This worked precisely because it reflected the people's will. Socialism, on that scale, works.

Socialism in the larger sense--in its political form...often does NOT reflect the people's will--rather it reflects an idealistic model; enforced by regulations that punish the people..rather than reflecting their will.

Capitalism did not 'fail' those people..it gave them lemons...so they made some lemonade.

Well those people could have set up a co-operative to do this but didnt do so. They turned to the state for help, presumably because the state had the money to do this. We have these deals all over Wales and they are always set up and run by the people rather than the government. Either way is fine but they are both variants of socialism.

I dont agree that both are socialism but co-ops do work.
In fact they're everywhere in rural Texas.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not socialism. Nobody is given anything. People are paid for their work. A profit is made although as little as possible and what profit is made is reinvested in the town.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The Federal Reserve gives the markets billions and that is not "socialism". Trump gives corporate farmers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars but thats not "socialism".

Please, make up your mind. This is as close to what socialism as one would ever find. Socialism is the government owning the production. That is what is happening here. Socialism is NOT everyone getting something free. That is crony capitalism.

LOL

This just goes to show that rightards don't even know what Socialism really is.

Am I not free to go ten miles down the road to buy my groceries?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well it is socialism. The town is interfering in the market. Its the right thing to do, its socialism in action.

It isn't socialism, I know you need it to be but it is not. They are not keeping competition out, they are simply filling a void that exists. If another store opens, then the city store would shut down. Nice try though.

The state has stepped in because capitalism has failed these people. Happens everywhere. Its socialism,its good.

Government is not controlling the production of goods and services, it is a distribution point. Also, the citizens of the community still have private property. Sorry but this does not fit the description, unless you want to flat out lie and distort what socialism actually means.

Socialism is a bad idea, it stops innovation, gives government all the power and ruins the creative entrepreneurial spirit. You wouldn't understand concepts of personal responsibility, innovation and creativity.

You have a bizarre understanding of socialism. It isn't communism. I'm a socialist and own my own place and I also own shares in several companies. During the cold war, you could still buy pineapples in Moscow. Were those stores commie or capitalist ?
The state owns the shop which they have to because capitalism has failed this community. The state provides my healthcare because the capitalist system failed to do so. Likewise, education, policing, housing, sanitation, water. Socialism is a reaction to the failures of capitalism.It provides a safety net for people that capitalism leaves behind or has no use for.

Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Public works is not socialism, public works is in every form of government and has been since the beginning. Try a different angle because so far you are failing. In a totally socialist society, production would be under the state.

So a store that shut down because the did not get the revenue is what capitalism is, it isn't a failure, it is a success. A local store could not succeed because the local people did not support it. Capitalism doesn't mean every business is successful, it means that you have an opportunity to risk and fail or succeed. As far as you owning stocks? If you were living in a real socialistic government, there would be none because government would own the business and production.

So under your shaky definitions the NHS is not a socialist entity, just public works. I think you want to tag all bad things as socialism and anything good cant be socialism.
Deep down you still live under the reds under the bed scares of the 50s,your thinking hasnt evolved since Macarthy.

I should also point out that capitalism failed these folks because it did not provide them with what they needed. The state stepped in and used public money to make the difference. It usually does so. You might not like that but there you go.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well it is socialism. The town is interfering in the market. Its the right thing to do, its socialism in action.

It isn't socialism, I know you need it to be but it is not. They are not keeping competition out, they are simply filling a void that exists. If another store opens, then the city store would shut down. Nice try though.

The state has stepped in because capitalism has failed these people. Happens everywhere. Its socialism,its good.

Let's not get it twisted...the people helped themselves..in the form of the City Govt.--This worked precisely because it reflected the people's will. Socialism, on that scale, works.

Socialism in the larger sense--in its political form...often does NOT reflect the people's will--rather it reflects an idealistic model; enforced by regulations that punish the people..rather than reflecting their will.

Capitalism did not 'fail' those people..it gave them lemons...so they made some lemonade.

Well those people could have set up a co-operative to do this but didnt do so. They turned to the state for help, presumably because the state had the money to do this. We have these deals all over Wales and they are always set up and run by the people rather than the government. Either way is fine but they are both variants of socialism.

I dont agree that both are socialism but co-ops do work.
In fact they're everywhere in rural Texas.

The Co-op movement and the socialist movement go hand in hand and are based on the same principles.
Co-op values

Im a member of this Co-op. Its democratic, based on fairness and accountable to the membership. All core socialist values.

 

[MAGAman]

When a deep red town’s only grocery closed, city hall opened its own store. Socialism?

Not unless the city closed down the grocery store itself.

Socialism is when you replace free markets with government.

,,,and yet, in microcosm..is this not exactly what happened...a 'free market' was replaced by Govt. ownership. Could an outside store compete with the Govt store?

No, it isn't what happened. Not even in a micrcosim.

What apparently happened is that a local government closest to the people filled a void with a neccessary service.

In Socialist Utopia Washington DC destroys private businesses and puts in a crappy substitute that increases costs and decreases quality.

 

[longknife]

Not socialism. Nobody is given anything. People are paid for their work. A profit is made although as little as possible and what profit is made is reinvested in the town.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The Federal Reserve gives the markets billions and that is not "socialism". Trump gives corporate farmers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars but thats not "socialism".

Please, make up your mind. This is as close to what socialism as one would ever find. Socialism is the government owning the production. That is what is happening here. Socialism is NOT everyone getting something free. That is crony capitalism.

The government, in this case, does not own the production! The local farmers do. And, they sell their goods to the market which, in turn, sells it to the public for enough to cover expenses, with a small profit.

 

[candycorn]

Government run supermarket? Yep it’s socialist.

But it sounds pretty cool from the description in the OP.

 

[Faun]

Not socialism. Nobody is given anything. People are paid for their work. A profit is made although as little as possible and what profit is made is reinvested in the town.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The Federal Reserve gives the markets billions and that is not "socialism". Trump gives corporate farmers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars but thats not "socialism".

Please, make up your mind. This is as close to what socialism as one would ever find. Socialism is the government owning the production. That is what is happening here. Socialism is NOT everyone getting something free. That is crony capitalism.

LOL

This just goes to show that rightards don't even know what Socialism really is.

Am I not free to go ten miles down the road to buy my groceries?

Sure, to another town. Baldwin, however, is Socialist.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not socialism. Nobody is given anything. People are paid for their work. A profit is made although as little as possible and what profit is made is reinvested in the town.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The Federal Reserve gives the markets billions and that is not "socialism". Trump gives corporate farmers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars but thats not "socialism".

Please, make up your mind. This is as close to what socialism as one would ever find. Socialism is the government owning the production. That is what is happening here. Socialism is NOT everyone getting something free. That is crony capitalism.

LOL

This just goes to show that rightards don't even know what Socialism really is.

Am I not free to go ten miles down the road to buy my groceries?

Sure, to another town. Baldwin, however, is Socialist.

No it's not.

 

[Papageorgio]

It isn't socialism, I know you need it to be but it is not. They are not keeping competition out, they are simply filling a void that exists. If another store opens, then the city store would shut down. Nice try though.

The state has stepped in because capitalism has failed these people. Happens everywhere. Its socialism,its good.

Government is not controlling the production of goods and services, it is a distribution point. Also, the citizens of the community still have private property. Sorry but this does not fit the description, unless you want to flat out lie and distort what socialism actually means.

Socialism is a bad idea, it stops innovation, gives government all the power and ruins the creative entrepreneurial spirit. You wouldn't understand concepts of personal responsibility, innovation and creativity.

You have a bizarre understanding of socialism. It isn't communism. I'm a socialist and own my own place and I also own shares in several companies. During the cold war, you could still buy pineapples in Moscow. Were those stores commie or capitalist ?
The state owns the shop which they have to because capitalism has failed this community. The state provides my healthcare because the capitalist system failed to do so. Likewise, education, policing, housing, sanitation, water. Socialism is a reaction to the failures of capitalism.It provides a safety net for people that capitalism leaves behind or has no use for.

Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Public works is not socialism, public works is in every form of government and has been since the beginning. Try a different angle because so far you are failing. In a totally socialist society, production would be under the state.

So a store that shut down because the did not get the revenue is what capitalism is, it isn't a failure, it is a success. A local store could not succeed because the local people did not support it. Capitalism doesn't mean every business is successful, it means that you have an opportunity to risk and fail or succeed. As far as you owning stocks? If you were living in a real socialistic government, there would be none because government would own the business and production.

So under your shaky definitions the NHS is not a socialist entity, just public works. I think you want to tag all bad things as socialism and anything good cant be socialism.
Deep down you still live under the reds under the bed scares of the 50s,your thinking hasnt evolved since Macarthy.

I should also point out that capitalism failed these folks because it did not provide them with what they needed. The state stepped in and used public money to make the difference. It usually does so. You might not like that but there you go.

Healthcare that if it is completely run by the government would be a form of socialism. I wasn’t around for McCarthy, so that proves once again you aren’t very bright

Capitalism did not fail, there are dozens of stores about 10 miles away. I grew up living 20 miles from my nearest grocery store. I bet there are areas in rural Wales where stores are a distance away. I was in Canada and in the Yukon Territory, you can go a hundred miles without gas or food. I have driven from Lakeview, OR and went to Winnemucca, NV, not a store the entire distance. 200 miles, no store, no gas. How many stores would you put up out there? What about Canada? Greenland? Russia? Capitalism fail in all those countries?

Socialism stifles innovation, it reduces production. Entrepreneurs would be nonexistent.

Go ahead and answer with your insults, that is all you have. No facts, no logic, just insults.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Interesting--a city-owned supermarket...designed to break even..for the good of its residents--but City run private enterprise..is NOT capitalism--It just struck me..that the 'socialism' word gets tossed around a lot..mostly by those who have little or no idea of what is actually means---this..is what it means, at the grass-roots:

When a deep red town’s only grocery closed, city hall opened its own store. Just don’t call it ‘socialism.’

"When Sean Lynch ran for mayor, he never anticipated that the job would involve hiring a butcher and tracking the sale of collard greens. Baldwin, Fla., is surrounded by farm country, and in late October, local green beans, tomatoes, peanuts, cabbage and milk filled the shelves of the Baldwin Market, which the town owns.

Notably, these experiments in communal ownership are taking place in deep-red parts of the country where the word “socialism” is anathema. “You expect to hear about this in a place like the People’s Republic of Massachusetts,” jokes Brian Lang, the director of the National Campaign for Healthy Food Access at The Food Trust.

But in many rural, conservative communities struggling to hang on to their remaining residents, ideological arguments about the role of government tend to be cast aside as grocery stores shutter due to population decline and competition from superstores.

“Fundamentally, what you have is people that have lived in these rural communities all their lives, and they want these rural communities to survive,” Procter said. “And they realize that without access to food, they’re not going to survive.”

By definition, a collectively owned, government-run enterprise like the Baldwin Market is inherently socialist. But Lynch, who has a nonpartisan position but governs a town where 68 percent of residents voted for Donald Trump in 2016, doesn’t see it that way. From his point of view, the town is just doing what it’s supposed to do: Providing services to residents who already pay enough in taxes.

. At the Baldwin Market, which opened its doors on Sept. 20, all of the employees are on the municipal payroll, from the butcher to the cashiers. Workers from the town’s maintenance department take breaks from cutting grass to help unload deliveries, and residents flag down the mayor when they want to request a specific type of milk.

“We're not trying to make a profit,” Lynch told The Washington Post in a recent interview. “We're trying to cover our expenses, and keep the store running. Any money that's made after that will go into the town in some way.”"

Paragraph 3 pretty much damages your argument.

Maroon!

Or as you Americans say...

MORON!

 

[pknopp]

The state has stepped in because capitalism has failed these people. Happens everywhere. Its socialism,its good.

Government is not controlling the production of goods and services, it is a distribution point. Also, the citizens of the community still have private property. Sorry but this does not fit the description, unless you want to flat out lie and distort what socialism actually means.

Socialism is a bad idea, it stops innovation, gives government all the power and ruins the creative entrepreneurial spirit. You wouldn't understand concepts of personal responsibility, innovation and creativity.

You have a bizarre understanding of socialism. It isn't communism. I'm a socialist and own my own place and I also own shares in several companies. During the cold war, you could still buy pineapples in Moscow. Were those stores commie or capitalist ?
The state owns the shop which they have to because capitalism has failed this community. The state provides my healthcare because the capitalist system failed to do so. Likewise, education, policing, housing, sanitation, water. Socialism is a reaction to the failures of capitalism.It provides a safety net for people that capitalism leaves behind or has no use for.

Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Public works is not socialism, public works is in every form of government and has been since the beginning. Try a different angle because so far you are failing. In a totally socialist society, production would be under the state.

So a store that shut down because the did not get the revenue is what capitalism is, it isn't a failure, it is a success. A local store could not succeed because the local people did not support it. Capitalism doesn't mean every business is successful, it means that you have an opportunity to risk and fail or succeed. As far as you owning stocks? If you were living in a real socialistic government, there would be none because government would own the business and production.

So under your shaky definitions the NHS is not a socialist entity, just public works. I think you want to tag all bad things as socialism and anything good cant be socialism.
Deep down you still live under the reds under the bed scares of the 50s,your thinking hasnt evolved since Macarthy.

I should also point out that capitalism failed these folks because it did not provide them with what they needed. The state stepped in and used public money to make the difference. It usually does so. You might not like that but there you go.

Healthcare that if it is completely run by the government would be a form of socialism. I wasn’t around for McCarthy, so that proves once again you aren’t very bright

Capitalism did not fail, there are dozens of stores about 10 miles away. I grew up living 20 miles from my nearest grocery store. I bet there are areas in rural Wales where stores are a distance away. I was in Canada and in the Yukon Territory, you can go a hundred miles without gas or food. I have driven from Lakeview, OR and went to Winnemucca, NV, not a store the entire distance. 200 miles, no store, no gas. How many stores would you put up out there? What about Canada? Greenland? Russia? Capitalism fail in all those countries?

Socialism stifles innovation, it reduces production. Entrepreneurs would be nonexistent.

Go ahead and answer with your insults, that is all you have. No facts, no logic, just insults.

NO ONE is calling for the Socialism you are arguing against and on top of that there is NO ONE arguing that people should not be able to make a living off the things they create.

Yours is a fallacious argument.

 

[Meathead]

NO ONE is calling for the Socialism you are arguing against and on top of that there is NO ONE arguing that people should not be able to make a living off the things they create.

Yours is a fallacious argument.

But Pocahontas said, "You didn't build that."

 

[sparky]

Not socialism. Nobody is given anything. People are paid for their work. A profit is made although as little as possible and what profit is made is reinvested in the town.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The Federal Reserve gives the markets billions and that is not "socialism". Trump gives corporate farmers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars but thats not "socialism".

Please, make up your mind. This is as close to what socialism as one would ever find. Socialism is the government owning the production. That is what is happening here. Socialism is NOT everyone getting something free. That is crony capitalism.

So many get this^^^^ mixed up, because they parrot their party members

Some clarification is in order

If the state owns and runs business, that's communism , not socialism

~S~

 

[longknife]

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference between socialism and communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.

summarized the communist philosophy in this way: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” By contrast, socialism is based on the idea that people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy.

Unlike in communism, a socialist economic system rewards individual effort and innovation. Social democracy, the most common form of modern socialism, focuses on achieving social reforms and redistribution of wealth through democratic processes, and can co-exist alongside a free-market capitalist economy.

From https://www.history.com/news/socialism-communism-differences

 

[pknopp]

NO ONE is calling for the Socialism you are arguing against and on top of that there is NO ONE arguing that people should not be able to make a living off the things they create.

Yours is a fallacious argument.

But Pocahontas said, "You didn't build that."

I don't much care what she said.

 

[sparky]

A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Long one...., i'm gong out on a limb and ask , what if corporations control the state cloaked in the guise of democratic process generate and control wealth'

???

~S~

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Long one...., i'm gong out on a limb and ask , what if corporations control the state cloaked in the guise of democratic process generate and control wealth'

???

~S~

That's known as business as usual!

 

[beautress]

Interesting--a city-owned supermarket...designed to break even..for the good of its residents--but City run private enterprise..is NOT capitalism--It just struck me..that the 'socialism' word gets tossed around a lot..mostly by those who have little or no idea of what is actually means---this..is what it means, at the grass-roots:

When a deep red town’s only grocery closed, city hall opened its own store. Just don’t call it ‘socialism.’

"When Sean Lynch ran for mayor, he never anticipated that the job would involve hiring a butcher and tracking the sale of collard greens. Baldwin, Fla., is surrounded by farm country, and in late October, local green beans, tomatoes, peanuts, cabbage and milk filled the shelves of the Baldwin Market, which the town owns.

Notably, these experiments in communal ownership are taking place in deep-red parts of the country where the word “socialism” is anathema. “You expect to hear about this in a place like the People’s Republic of Massachusetts,” jokes Brian Lang, the director of the National Campaign for Healthy Food Access at The Food Trust.

But in many rural, conservative communities struggling to hang on to their remaining residents, ideological arguments about the role of government tend to be cast aside as grocery stores shutter due to population decline and competition from superstores.

“Fundamentally, what you have is people that have lived in these rural communities all their lives, and they want these rural communities to survive,” Procter said. “And they realize that without access to food, they’re not going to survive.”

By definition, a collectively owned, government-run enterprise like the Baldwin Market is inherently socialist. But Lynch, who has a nonpartisan position but governs a town where 68 percent of residents voted for Donald Trump in 2016, doesn’t see it that way. From his point of view, the town is just doing what it’s supposed to do: Providing services to residents who already pay enough in taxes.

. At the Baldwin Market, which opened its doors on Sept. 20, all of the employees are on the municipal payroll, from the butcher to the cashiers. Workers from the town’s maintenance department take breaks from cutting grass to help unload deliveries, and residents flag down the mayor when they want to request a specific type of milk.

“We're not trying to make a profit,” Lynch told The Washington Post in a recent interview. “We're trying to cover our expenses, and keep the store running. Any money that's made after that will go into the town in some way.”"

Who pays the city taxes to fund grocers? <snicker>

 

[sparky]

A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Long one...., i'm gong out on a limb and ask , what if corporations control the state cloaked in the guise of democratic process generate and control wealth'

???

~S~

That's known as business as usual!

you don't read worrisome parallels it that Evil one?

Corporate influence profiting from our foreign and domestic policies ....etc etc

~S~