Can we talk about why stores close in low-income places? It's theft and assaults on staff. It's not because of race, it's because the few people in abject poverty are under extreme stress just to survive which makes them behave in unpredictable ways. The idea that a new grocery store run by a government agency wouldn't suffer the extreme levels of shoplifting is something you can only imagine with your head in the sand.
I have yet to see a compelling case for city-owned groceries stores in Minneapolis. Advocates usually point to some combination of access and affordability but I think this piece shows that access really isn't an issue and it's beyond naive to believe a city-owned grocery store leads to sustainable affordability (ie, a city can undercut private grocers but the store will run at a loss and require subsidies to stay afloat).
Food shelves exist, and clearly the market hasn’t collapsed. It’s always hard to tell if the people who write these articles are out of touch, disingenuous, or just didn’t think through their arguments
The problem has always been that subsidies don't make something affordable. They just shift who pays for it and always on the back of people already doing more for society as a whole.
Using the term "apartheid" is offensive to the memory of those who suffered under apartheid.
That said, poor communities in the U.S lose a lot of money, and a lot of their health, because the food available to them is cheaply made, expensively sold, bad for health.
Because we are sharing a country, what's bad for the poor is bad for everyone. I appreciate the part of MAGA that is focused on health and wish they would focus on this issue.
This article is written by someone who doesn't understand the problem. They missed the part where, in some areas of the city, 40-50% of people don't have a car. So those people need either public transit or a walkable grocery store. You should do some research before you write that many words.
That stuck with me the entire time I was reading the article. Tons of people have to do at least some walking to get their groceries, and many choose to, like myself. I’m sure more people would do some of their grocery shopping on foot if they had stores close to them
I walk to my local grocery several times a week and ill tell ya, its a blessing. I really dont want to live anywhwre I cant walk to the grocery now. Its that nice.
It is so nice. I used to as well before boycotting Target and the closure of the only grocery store. At least I have a car. Other people in my neighborhood have to walk miles if they don't.
People have tried this theory a ton of times and it doesn’t work. When you’re used to prepared and processed foods you keep eating them, it’s not an access issue.
The idea of food deserts, which this apartheid nonsense is just a modern rebranding of with some typical modern racial theory tossed into. The concept that diets are a problem of access and if you just stick a grocery store in a blighted area everybody will start eating better fresher foods. They don’t. The reality is food habits are driven by deeper behavioral factors, learned behaviors growing up, etc.
Of course people won't magically start eating healthy because the food is there, but it's physically impossible to eat healthy food if you don't have access to it. We don't set behavior, we enable it.
You have to buy that food if you can only make it to a grocery store once very 2 weeks. You can't buy most fresh stuff because it spoils in 4 or 5 days. It 100% is an access and cost issue. Poor people it costs more of your check and more of your time to go multiple times a week to a grocery store.
So you're stuck buying stuff that has so much sugar and salt because otherwise it spoils. You have to buy the super salted wonder bread over the fresh loaf because the fresh loaf spoils in 3 days and it's 10 days before you're back again.
We did. The author states, “And remember, very, very few people walk to a grocery store, especially in winter, carrying numerous bags of groceries. What is important is that there is no part of the City without grocery stores accessible by car or uber or bus.” The author dismissed the idea that people actually have to or choose to walk to grocery stores, instead claiming that that void is filled by the fact that people can drive, uber, or use public transit. This ignores the fact that many people do not have cars, many cannot afford to uber, and that the public transit system, despite being one of the better systems in the US, is still abysmal for most use cases.
As someone who has lived here forever at least I’m not delusional about the state of the city. A few great vibrant neighborhoods and a bunch of neighborhoods I wish seemed safe enough to raise a family without checking the yard for homeless feces and needles.
The ever-shifting definition of socialism is one of the most frustrating (or entertaining, depending on how you look it at) parts of discussing the ideology. Apparently the bog-standard, almost-dictionary-verbatim definition isn't even good enough.
I'm saying that I've encountered too many definitions of a word that you just can look up in the dictionary for its commonly understood usage. (Not to mention that's never been a "true" example of it in the real world.)
Case in point: the author here says socialism is "collective ownership" but you say its "worker control". That seems pretty pedantic at best.
The author isn’t using common parlance, they are describing the ideology of an individual/group. Instead of using that groups ideology, however, they are using a different definition.
For example if I looked up the definition of “conservative” it would be “a person who is averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.”. That would be a shit definition if I was describing someone’s politics though. Or for example if I looked up “Republican” it would be “a person advocating or supporting republican government.” So if I said that the people in the article were Republicans, would that really be accurate? Or would we both agree that it would be inaccurate?
The distinction is incredibly important and describes different things.
The distinction is incredibly important and describes different things.
How is that distinction "incredibly important" here though? The author says socialism's goal is "collective ownership" and "the government to own businesses" then cites a self-described socialist who advocates for collective ownership in the form of city-owned grocery stores (ie, a government owned business).
Because the if the bourgeoisie class collectively owns things, that’s not socialism.
The self described socialist, as pointed out in the article, has also proposed supporting private ownership of grocery stores too. Does that mean that private ownership is socialism now? Or would that be asinine? And that clearly a socialist can propose something that they think would help without that proposal being “socialism”.
The true definition changes as the latest iteration of “real communism” fails. Communism is pie in the sky nonsense that thumbs its nose at the basic realities of human nature. Capitalism has flaws, but communism is just a shortcut to the fascism.
It's the second part my friend. It's not government control (usually), it's community or worker control. Co-ops and the like. Like a community grocery store
They both are wrong. It’s specifically ownership by the proletariat. Classes like the petty bourgeoisie, the lumpen proletariat, and peasants would not be included in that.
Food apartheid, eh? Someone using that terminology is not to be taken seriously.
Agreed. Sounds like a world view a bit disconnected from reality
Can we talk about why stores close in low-income places? It's theft and assaults on staff. It's not because of race, it's because the few people in abject poverty are under extreme stress just to survive which makes them behave in unpredictable ways. The idea that a new grocery store run by a government agency wouldn't suffer the extreme levels of shoplifting is something you can only imagine with your head in the sand.
No dude, you have it backwards. The behavior creates poverty, not the opposite
But basically your saying... Let them starve. Don't keep trying different things till something works. Just let them starve and die.
You aren't wrong, but the logical conclusion of your statement is let them die... Including any of the children.
Nope. They aren't starving because they can't get to food, they don't have money to buy food with. Different problem.
Anyone who trusts the government with controlling our grocery stores needs to check into the loony bin.
Especially the mpls city council
Unlike the famously trustworthy corporations lol
I trust Comcast over the mpls city council lol
I have yet to see a compelling case for city-owned groceries stores in Minneapolis. Advocates usually point to some combination of access and affordability but I think this piece shows that access really isn't an issue and it's beyond naive to believe a city-owned grocery store leads to sustainable affordability (ie, a city can undercut private grocers but the store will run at a loss and require subsidies to stay afloat).
Food shelves exist, and clearly the market hasn’t collapsed. It’s always hard to tell if the people who write these articles are out of touch, disingenuous, or just didn’t think through their arguments
The problem has always been that subsidies don't make something affordable. They just shift who pays for it and always on the back of people already doing more for society as a whole.
There definitely needs to be more grocery stores, but nobody in their right mind sees it as a good business idea to open one in Minneapolis.
Using the term "apartheid" is offensive to the memory of those who suffered under apartheid.
That said, poor communities in the U.S lose a lot of money, and a lot of their health, because the food available to them is cheaply made, expensively sold, bad for health.
Because we are sharing a country, what's bad for the poor is bad for everyone. I appreciate the part of MAGA that is focused on health and wish they would focus on this issue.
Food apartheid? 🤣 commie gobbledygook.
Oreos debunk food apartheid.
You know what causes “food deserts”? People frequently stealing from stores with no repercussions, which then causes those stores to close.
This article is written by someone who doesn't understand the problem. They missed the part where, in some areas of the city, 40-50% of people don't have a car. So those people need either public transit or a walkable grocery store. You should do some research before you write that many words.
That stuck with me the entire time I was reading the article. Tons of people have to do at least some walking to get their groceries, and many choose to, like myself. I’m sure more people would do some of their grocery shopping on foot if they had stores close to them
I walk to my local grocery several times a week and ill tell ya, its a blessing. I really dont want to live anywhwre I cant walk to the grocery now. Its that nice.
It is so nice. I used to as well before boycotting Target and the closure of the only grocery store. At least I have a car. Other people in my neighborhood have to walk miles if they don't.
People have tried this theory a ton of times and it doesn’t work. When you’re used to prepared and processed foods you keep eating them, it’s not an access issue.
What theory? We’re not talking about the kinds of food people eat, just that people like not having to use cars to get food all the time
The idea of food deserts, which this apartheid nonsense is just a modern rebranding of with some typical modern racial theory tossed into. The concept that diets are a problem of access and if you just stick a grocery store in a blighted area everybody will start eating better fresher foods. They don’t. The reality is food habits are driven by deeper behavioral factors, learned behaviors growing up, etc.
We were talking about how people get to stores, not what they buy…
Of course people won't magically start eating healthy because the food is there, but it's physically impossible to eat healthy food if you don't have access to it. We don't set behavior, we enable it.
You have to buy that food if you can only make it to a grocery store once very 2 weeks. You can't buy most fresh stuff because it spoils in 4 or 5 days. It 100% is an access and cost issue. Poor people it costs more of your check and more of your time to go multiple times a week to a grocery store.
So you're stuck buying stuff that has so much sugar and salt because otherwise it spoils. You have to buy the super salted wonder bread over the fresh loaf because the fresh loaf spoils in 3 days and it's 10 days before you're back again.
The author actually addressed walking/public transit. Did you read the article?
We did. The author states, “And remember, very, very few people walk to a grocery store, especially in winter, carrying numerous bags of groceries. What is important is that there is no part of the City without grocery stores accessible by car or uber or bus.” The author dismissed the idea that people actually have to or choose to walk to grocery stores, instead claiming that that void is filled by the fact that people can drive, uber, or use public transit. This ignores the fact that many people do not have cars, many cannot afford to uber, and that the public transit system, despite being one of the better systems in the US, is still abysmal for most use cases.
Are people starting to troll the one sane page about mpls?
Uh oh, is your echo chamber leaking?
As someone who has lived here forever at least I’m not delusional about the state of the city. A few great vibrant neighborhoods and a bunch of neighborhoods I wish seemed safe enough to raise a family without checking the yard for homeless feces and needles.
I legit think posting articles like this push people further away from the left with their sheer stupidity.
It’s not sounding like you read the article, bud. It was clearly posted by someone right-leaning.
Man when your first two sentences are both wrong, it doesn’t bode well for the article
Thats literally definition of socialism.
The ever-shifting definition of socialism is one of the most frustrating (or entertaining, depending on how you look it at) parts of discussing the ideology. Apparently the bog-standard, almost-dictionary-verbatim definition isn't even good enough.
Schroedinger's Socialism
Ever shifting? Are you saying that Marx’s definition has changed? Like I get that you haven’t read any of his works, but maybe start there instead
I'm saying that I've encountered too many definitions of a word that you just can look up in the dictionary for its commonly understood usage. (Not to mention that's never been a "true" example of it in the real world.)
Case in point: the author here says socialism is "collective ownership" but you say its "worker control". That seems pretty pedantic at best.
The author isn’t using common parlance, they are describing the ideology of an individual/group. Instead of using that groups ideology, however, they are using a different definition.
For example if I looked up the definition of “conservative” it would be “a person who is averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.”. That would be a shit definition if I was describing someone’s politics though. Or for example if I looked up “Republican” it would be “a person advocating or supporting republican government.” So if I said that the people in the article were Republicans, would that really be accurate? Or would we both agree that it would be inaccurate?
The distinction is incredibly important and describes different things.
How is that distinction "incredibly important" here though? The author says socialism's goal is "collective ownership" and "the government to own businesses" then cites a self-described socialist who advocates for collective ownership in the form of city-owned grocery stores (ie, a government owned business).
Because the if the bourgeoisie class collectively owns things, that’s not socialism.
The self described socialist, as pointed out in the article, has also proposed supporting private ownership of grocery stores too. Does that mean that private ownership is socialism now? Or would that be asinine? And that clearly a socialist can propose something that they think would help without that proposal being “socialism”.
You're right. Conservatives keep labeling anything they don't like as socialism which then muddies the water of it's true definition.
The true definition changes as the latest iteration of “real communism” fails. Communism is pie in the sky nonsense that thumbs its nose at the basic realities of human nature. Capitalism has flaws, but communism is just a shortcut to the fascism.
How? Why don’t you just use the Marxist definition?
Because it is irrelevant to anything tangential to reality.
The Marxist definition is irrelevant? Can you explain how?
I already did that and you played dumb.
That’s not how Marx defines it.
It's the second part my friend. It's not government control (usually), it's community or worker control. Co-ops and the like. Like a community grocery store
The comment I replied to claimed both were incorrect.
They both are wrong. It’s specifically ownership by the proletariat. Classes like the petty bourgeoisie, the lumpen proletariat, and peasants would not be included in that.
What is your definition of socialism?
Marx argued for worker control of the means of production.