It's true, according to this poll, three times as many support Republicans over Joe biden. If you're looking at it from an economic view, you as a small business owner stand to gain when regulations are cut, and wages, taxes, and labor standards are lowered. Some of them have moral proclivities that push them towards democrats, but most just look at the bottom line and vote republican.

People like to romanticize and sympathize with small business owners, especially in america, but their politics don't actually differ that much from their big business counterparts.

This implies your power only extends to the company you work for. How are we going to change companies with workers outside of our collective interest? How are we going to change Twitter, we aren't going to be able to convince the well paid workers over there to strike because there creating a right wing propaganda machine. How are we going to change companies that exploit labor in the third world? If everyone in the u.s. who worked for temu strikes they could still manufacture and send there cheap plastic over here through the mail.

The engine of the modern economy is mass consumption just as much as labor, especially since a lot of labor is done overseas these days. Everyone not buying stuff from Amazon is just as much an existential threat to it as the entire work force striking. Either way you deny them there profits and force them to pay there fixed capital costs with no revenue.

You could argue it's less feasible to organize the mass of consumers then it is to organize a workplace, but the power is still there either way.

Small business owners are for the most part Republicans and are a large reason trump got elected. They may have closer ties to the community but fundamentally they still are capitalists and will vote for and support monetarily the party that cuts regulations and taxes. Restaurant owners, big and small, are the backbone of the campaign to stop minimum wage increases. They need to know, just as much as the big business owners, that austerity like this has consequences.

If you want to support the staff, which may struggle through this, buy the cheapest thing on the menu and leave a huge tip.

This isn't an either or situation, unless you were planning on buying a gun today to go shoot elon with, you not buying stuff today isn't going to prevent you from doing whatever it is you plan to do to improve the political climate.

By the way, what is it you plan to do?

They pulled their pride month merchandise and cut DEI programs after pressure from conservative groups. So if they're gonna choose them over us then we have to actually make it a choice and punish them, otherwise they'll just cave to conservatives every time since the liberals will just buy stuff any way.

The top 10% are split right now. Kamala won handedly with the professional managerial class liberals who form a big chunk of that 10%. A lot of them may not care about poor people, though a lot do, but most of them hate Donald Trump and Elon and what they're doing to their beloved liberal institutions.

The reach is fine. There were many posts on this prior to today, and even my girlfriend found a post on it from tik tok or Instagram, it has spread. This one may not be that big, but if it does make a blip and the news covers it, then people will be more open and familiar with ideas like this or eventually a general strike.

Before unions became more formalized a lot of strikes would start out with a minority of the most militant workers striking, which would inspire others until the majority got on board. There were cynics like you, often paid by management, telling the militants that it was pointless and they wouldn't accomplish anything, eroding solidarity, and sometimes if they eroded it enough the strike would break. Sometimes though they were able to push past that, strengthen their resolve and solidarity, and get their demands.

So if you don't think something will work but support the cause, shut up. Your comments serve to erode solidarity and resolve which helps enemies of the cause. For what? So you can say i told you so when it's done?

I dont have a car, so buy groceries and things in a lot of small trips of what I can carry. Maybe not every day, but at least every other day. Also keeps me active and walking since I like to have a destination / objective to motivate me.

If you buy one giant load from Costco a month, then I can see not needing to go out much but that's just not possible for me.

Ape hierarchies, at least within the troops, are mostly about mating not resource distribution. It's not like the alpha male gets first pick of the fruit and all the other chimps wait until he's done and then go in hierarchical order, they just disperse and grab what they can.

If you want to go down an essentialist path most pre-agricultural societies were anarchic. There may be a chief but they "ruled" at the discretion of the tribe. The chief, or anyone really, couldn't hoard resources because

1. they couldnt monopolize violence and coerce people since there's no specialization in anything much less violence so violence becomes a numbers game.

2. There's only so much you can carry. Pre agricultural tribes were nomadic mostly and when the tribe moves camps you have to carry everything with you. So even if you were able to hoard enough food that won't rot you won't be able to carry it to the next camp.

3. Because of the above, wealth isn't really a thing. This forces cooperation because without wealth, the individual can't protect themselves from hardship. Selfish individualism only works if you're able to build up some wealth to act as a buffer for leaner times. If you don't have that wealth then you're reliant on your social connections so you tend to cooperate and redistribute because it's in your best interest to stay in good standing with the group so they will help you in harsher times.

All this changes with agriculture and the invention of wealth, first in grain then in gold and then stocks etc. Now your dependence on society is directly porportional to how much wealth you have, to the point where really rich people can fuck off to a cabin or island and never work or contribute to society ever again.

Violence specialization also becomes more or less a thing, increasing up until the invention of firearms at which point it becomes more of a numbers game and the hierarchies lessen.

All of this is to say that hierarchy is not natural, but the result of the ability to accumulate wealth combined with violence specialization and monopolization. If we get rid of those two concepts then anarchy may take over, how we do that in the modern world is another question.

It is anticapitalist by nature in that capitalism is a system where a person can own the means of production and use that ownership to acquire profits. That ownership is a form of domination and creates an arbitrary hierarchy, who makes all the decisions: the owner, why do they make all the decisons: because they had the wealth to buy the company.

You can have organization and markets though without capitalism, such as with anarcho-syndaclism. Basically you have a bunch of coops that are run and controlled by elected workers councils that can trade with each other voluntarily.

To be fair to the Germans the mud hut would probably apply to almost all the countryside in the empire. The prosperity of Rome wasn't spread out that evenly, both geographically and socially.

A good one for Germany would be "get loot across the rhine" and then for gaul it could be "hide valuables from germans"

The whole reason they want to cut medicaid is to justify their tax cuts for billionaires, so I don't think that will help their depraved goal.

Seems to be more complaining about the lack of it. The better the skill based matchmaking is the larger those yellow slices would be. But a lot of gaming companies know about the gambling mindset of players who want to roll the dice and hope they get in the lobby where they stomp the other team so they'll make the matchmaking not as good and make it a coin flip on whether your on the stomping team, so the yellow slice becomes smaller.

It's weird, he already bought her a condo in downtown Manhattan probably worth millions, but she's not seeking child support and wants full custody. So seems like the deal was she inseminated herself and got a condo in return and that was the end of it.

So not really deadbeat, more that neither he or the mother want him involved.

And the class war continues. The capitalist led with an opening salvo of attacking aid to the poorest in the world with USAID and now they're going after the poorest in there own country. Wonder who's next on the block?

From what I hear the greens are pretty centrist. Like the democrats in the u.s. but with more of an emphasis on sustainability, but slowly and progressively. They tend to want to preserve the existing social safety net but not expand it like a more left wing party would, or substantially raise taxes on the wealthy. Foreign policy they're pro Israel and pro Ukraine, as opposed to a lot of left parties that are split on Ukraine but more solidly pro palestine.

They cater to the educated middle to upper middle class urban liberals who want to see some progress on climate changes, which is less of a radical stance outside the u.s., but don't want a radical shake up in the economic system.

You can check out there German Wikipedia page, most browsers will translate enough to understand these days.

Here's an interactive map so you can see the percentages better. They are only winning the eastern cities with 21-25% while in the western cities they're getting 12-15% , so it's not like there killing it in Berlin and doing nothing in hamburg. If you compare it to 2021, they've made just as much gains in the western cities as they did in the east.

I'd say it's more about the poorer areas wanting a change either with the afd or linke/bsw. Most of the tankie elements of der linke have signed onto the bsw, so pining for the good old days of the gdr isn't really their selling point anymore. Unless you were just pining for the higher social security and not the authoritarian state or russian domination, which is a lot of people in the east. This split is also part of the reason for their gains in the West as more left leaning people who are hesitant to be associated with the old school communist now have a party.

Reuters has an interactive map where you can see the percentages for each district

Shows a bit more of a positive view in the sense if your looking at this as an American and think AFD got a majority in all east Germany, they didn't, the bluest areas are 40-44% percent while most are at around the 32-36%, but they got the plurality. A bit depressing though in that all of west Germany they're taking 15-20% which this map doesn't show well

the successor to the SED

That mantle has mostly been taken by the BSW these days. Anyone who pines for the "good old days" of the GDR are flocking to them.

A park with very limited capacity and that almost always requires the destruction of the natural landscape.

Golf is elitist by nature as the courses require a ton of maintenance to keep them from going to there natural state, which costs money, and that cost is split among a small amount of people that can occupy the course at any given time without causing traffic. Combine that with the equipment costs and that filters out most lower income people.

If courses were turned into parks and left to nature far more people could enjoy them as they wouldn't have to pay or worry about getting hit with a ball because they set there picnic up in the wrong meadow.