Guilt by Association
My grandfather grew up poor, and got poorer during the Depression. He and my grandmother went hungry on more than one occasion, and I've wondered, over the years, whether malnutrition was one reason that their first child, my uncle, was born mentally handicapped. It's not good to go hungry while you're pregnant. My grandfather, Bob, got his first real break in the forties working as a salesman for Colgate (he had been rejected from military service because of his flat feet). He moved on from there to being a travelling salesman for General Mills, which is where he had his real success. On the strength of selling Wheaties and Betty Crocker products to grocery store owners and managers, he built up a good, middle-class life (complete with home ownership) for himself and his family. You could, with luck, do that in those days.
Would it have been possible for him to bootstrap his way up the economic ladder had he been black? Maybe not. That's important to remember. But although having black skin might have kept him in poverty despite hard work and talent, having white skin did not automatically get him out of it. It took luck, work, and an economy considerably less predatory than the one we have today: an economy that was created by a politics considerably less corrupt than the one we have today.
In 1964, my grandfather was approached by a store owner he was acquainted with, a man named George Jenkins. Jenkins had broken away from the Piggly Wiggly grocery store chain and started his own grocery store, arguably the first premium grocery store, a few decades back. It was not publicly traded, and ordinarily only his family and employees were allowed to buy stock. But Jenkins needed some extra liquidity at that time--more cash--and so he asked my grandfather (and probably some others of his acquaintance) if he'd like to buy in to his company. I just recently found the original receipt of that transaction in my mother's closet. Dated 1964, it records that my grandfather bought $600 worth of Publix stock.
Over the years, it turned out that Jenkins' idea for how to run a grocery store was pretty good. (The idea centered around two things: excellent fresh fruits and vegetables, and impeccable customer service.) The business prospered. And by the time my grandfather died in 1987, my family entered either the top of the middle class or the bottom of the upper-middle class, depending on how you're counting--on the strength of my grandfather's $600 1964 investment. As of this writing, five people are keeping their heads above water on the strength of that investment, including one mentally handicapped person (my uncle's widow) and one person who nearly worked herself to death trying to qualify for retirement benefits with failing kidneys (my partner).
I've told you this personal story at length because, arguably, my mother and I are part of Publix's "ownership structure." And today, that fact is politically significant.
Today, by the logic of Twitter, we must somehow be tainted by the fact that Julie Jenkins Fancelli, George Jenkins' daughter, gave $500,000 to fund Trump's January 6th rally. This fact, unearthed recently, has occasioned a Twitter storm and a trending call to #BoycottPublix.
@Publix
What a disgusting display of inciting domestic terrorism from an heiress. How patriotic. Any comments? Anything?
@Publix
are you condoning the death and violence on the US Capital on 1/6?
I am calling for a nationwide boycott of @Publix because profits from this supermarket chain were used to fund Trump's illegal & seditionist efforts at stealing the election & overthrowing our Constitutional Democracy. Please retweet if you agree. Thank you.
Publix replied:
Jan 30, 2021
Mrs. Fancelli is not an employee of Publix Super Markets, and is neither involved in our business operations, nor does she represent the company in any way. We cannot comment on Mrs. Fancelli’s actions.
And here was the response:
I don't think anyone would care if she was an employee, it's if she is part of the ownership structure. If it's not this, it's something else, Publix is in the news every day for supporting Trump (of all people). Nothing about Publix is a pleasure anymore.
Now, like I said, I and my mom are also part of the "ownership structure" of Publix. We, like Julie Fancelli, got our money from profits made by Publix Supermarkets, Inc. So does a disabled Publix bag boy who works around here. I know that because I know the lawyer who had to take legal action to preserve his disability benefits. His Publix stock had achieved a value that put those benefits in danger. But she managed to preserve those benefits by arguing that, aside from his bag-boy wages, that Publix stock is all he has. He's part of the "ownership structure" too.
I am not saying that the disabled bag boy gets as much money from Publix as Julie Fancelli (nor do my mother and I). I'm saying that he, and she, and I, and my mother, all have the same relationship to Publix: either we ourselves or someone in our family owns Publix stock and gets money from it.
So therefore, by the logic of Twitter, all my donations to Democrats over the years since I inherited the stock from my grandfather are the political actions of Publix Supermarkets, Inc. In fact, last year my mother gave money to every Democratic race she came across, especially focusing on black candidates and female candidates. She's part of the "ownership structure" of Publix too. So I guess that makes Publix, Inc., part of the Resistance. Go Publix!
The point here is not that Publix is good. I'll get to that in a minute. It's that what Publix is being excoriated for is not, in fact, what they're guilty of. Publix did not fund the Capitol Rally on January 6. The daughter of the founder of Publix funded that rally. When Publix says the woman is not their employee and does not represent the company, they mean that she is not on the board of Publix and does not make decisions for the company. Therefore, Publix's political decisions and Julie Jenkins Fancelli's political decisions are not the same, and are, in fact, unrelated. When the gentleman says "I don't think anyone would care if she was an employee," he is ignoring how power works in the business world. Anyone with blood ties to big business gets money--unless they piss their parent off so much as to be disinherited. But not just anyone with blood ties gets power over the business. It's the CEOs, the CFOs, and the Board of Directors who have control. What Julie Jenkins Fancelli does with the money she makes off her father's business is no more under Publix's control than Publix's business choices are under Fancelli's control. You might as well say that Publix is responsible for me sending a portion of my dividend check to the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016, or responsible for my mom making a donation out of her dividend check to preserve the headwaters of a local river. But that's typical of the sad, decrepit liberalism of the Trump era: always ready to attack an individual or organization for what they are not responsible for with great vehemence, while eliding, ignoring, or de-emphasizing the wrongdoing for which they are responsible.
In the wake of Fancelli's reactionary political choices, a lot is being made of the fact that Publix, Inc. did, in fact, donate money to Donald Trump--or at least individuals associated with Publix did--to the tune of $88,000 dollars and change. But what they don't mention is that individuals associated with Publix, Inc. also donated $48,000 to Joe Biden. And individuals associated with Publix, Inc. donated $50,000 and change to Bernie Sanders. These Twitter warriors apparently feel it's OK that corporations, through individuals associated with them, donate large amounts of money to politicians and political organizations. Nobody is boycotting Publix for that. Because you can't boycott Publix for that without admitting that our whole system has been captured by the private sector, and that would mean that you'd have to make a bipartisan, or, better yet, a non-partisan analysis of corruption in our political culture. Instead, we elide the donations that don't fit our narrative, and focus on the ones that do. And we trade overwhelmingly on guilt by association, blaming an organization for the actions of an individual despite the fact that the organization cannot control that individual's actions.
It would be nice if, instead, people boycotted Publix for what the organization has actually done wrong. It would be nice if people boycotted Publix because they have refused to sign on to the Fair Food Program, which advocates for the human rights of people who work picking crops. It would be nice if anybody on Twitter gave a shit when an actual representative of Publix said "“if there are some atrocities going on, it’s not our business” (Publix spokesperson Dwaine Stevens, 12/11/10). http://www.allianceforfairfood.org/publix
It would be nice if people boycotted Publix because last year they threw their weight around and managed to quash a plastic bag ban in my county and other counties in Florida:
Publix is backing expensive lobbying efforts through the Florida Retail Federation to prevent customers from working with their cities and counties to ban plastic bags and other throwaway plastics...Publix and the plastics industry are hiding behind the Florida Retail Federation to strip local communities of their rights to enact laws to reduce plastic pollution. https://engage.us.greenpeace.org/onlineactions/jTrF1aHZ8kaY4YBKScToyg2
A boycott on either of these bases would be factual, fair, and principled, much like the boycott that actually happened when Publix supported NRA candidate Adam Putnam for Florida governor, giving him over $600,000. Of course, Trump-era liberals would say that, if a person or an organization has done bad things, who cares what they actually get punished for? Does it matter that we simply let Trump's North Korea tweet slide and then banned him for a bunch of boilerplate? Does it matter that we let Publix continue to support human rights violations in its supply chain, but then boycott Publix because someone who is not on the board, but is related to people who are, takes an individual action that is reactionary and ugly? In fact, does it matter that Fancelli herself, loathsome though her politics is, did not actually fund the insurrection, but rather funded the rally which preceded it? I'd argue that it does matter, since funding an insurrection is a criminal act, while funding a rally is not. If Fancelli actually funded an insurrection against the federal government, it should be the FBI who's talking to her--not a bunch of people in the Twitterverse--and it should be criminal charges she's facing--not a boycott of her father's company, which apparently had nothing to do with the Jan 6 rally at all.
We are descending deeper and deeper into the politics of the smear, where guilt is spread around without benefit of rational analysis, honesty, or principle; where organizations and people can get away with all manner of evildoing for years and never be held accountable for it, yet eventually (don't worry!) get successfully accused of something they didn't actually do. That way, all sorts of people can successfully commit everything from acts of corruption to acts of reactionary racism to acts that could, arguably, be called atrocities without ever being held accountable, while a series of sin eaters--both individual and organizational--get presented to us one by one to provide occasional targets for our frustrated rage. That's why, when we smear people and organizations, and try to take them down, we must always charge them with something for which they are not guilty. If we charged them with the actions for which they ARE guilty, that might turn into a moral principle--one which we would then have to apply persistently and even-handedly.
And we can't have that.
Comments
If I'm ever up nights
worried about the ethics of having my money in Publix Supermarkets, Inc, it'll be the people of Immokalee on my mind, not Julie Fancelli and her wretched political views.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
As a Democrat and an "Activist" Until 2016 . . . .
. . .
it is painful to offer this heartfelt opinion on this type of activism -- In the name of suppressing fascism, Organized Liberalism is now implementing fascism. Like the Nazi Party forcing Jews to wear a designation, my erstwhile political allies are now enforcing sanctions for status crimes -- not for anything a person has done but for who they are, or who their friends and relatives are.
They are as of right now a short step from painting a big T on the front doors of all who voted the wrong way or gave their money to the wrong candidate or said the wrong thing.
Trump did his job perfectly. From exile, he will continue to find an internet outlet for his silly-scary twitterations. Anyone who subscribes will of course go on a "list" . . . .
Who would have guessed that our illusory democracy would end this way?
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
I think a lot about this episode...
The woman talking is a war criminal who committed genocide...
"In the final analysis, we've won...You and the rest of your kind take blind comfort in the belief that we are monsters; that you could never do what we did. The key ingredient in the anti-agapic cannot be synthesized. It must be taken from living beings. For one to live forever, another must die. You will fall upon one another like wolves. It will make what we did pale by comparison. The billions who will live forever will be a testimony to my work, and the billions who are murdered to buy that immortality will be the continuance of my work. Not like us? You will become us. *That's* my monument, Commander."
I've gotta tell you, if I had been Sinclair, she would have never gotten off the station, and neither would her immortality serum formula.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thank you for this well thought essay
First, I just want to say that probably the majority of large share holders in any business will be doing everything they can to protect their money and that includes supporting politicians and issues that many of us find abhorrent. It is natural for them to do so in this country which has emphasized the protection of capitalism over everything else. As far as individuals supporting politicians with their money, that is their choice and that choice is often made because they believe they will benefit from it, no matter how much we disagree.
With regard to your grandfather, we cannot choose our forebearers or even judge their decisions which were often made under vastly different circumstances than what we see today. What I say is that your grandfather made a very wise investment that is still helping members of his family today. There should be no guilt attached to that.
Guilt by association is just another tool in the arsenal that the elites are using to keep us divided. We are seeing a lot of that happening right now as the ruse that the elites have perpetuated is beginning to fall apart. Hopefully people here at C99 have adequate critical thinking skills to avoid falling for that trap.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
You're very welcome.
I've been considering sticking my nose out of our lifeboat and posting this where it will get more eyes. But I see the sharks circling, and I have a feeling it might inspire more than online, verbal barbs. If I do post it, I might have to excise the part about my family, because I sure as hell don't want my 73-year-old mom to have to take any IRL crap for this.
Thanks for this comment in particular, b/c I forgot to include this point:
As far as individuals supporting politicians with their money, that is their choice and that choice is often made because they believe they will benefit from it, no matter how much we disagree.
I object (and I know you do, too) to the system which puts politicians up for sale and makes policy a commodity sold to the highest bidder. But here, the objection is not to buying politicians or policy; the objection is to *which* politician. In other words, corruption is fine, as long as it's corruption that serves my team. In fact, what's being objected to here is political choice.
I know that they think that what they're objecting to is the funding of sedition, but, like I said, if that's sedition, why hasn't the Biden Justice Dept sent somebody down here to talk with Julie Jenkins Fancelli? If I funded a militia that tried to overthrow the government, you can bet somebody would be down here talking to me. Probably more than talking. That would be a *crime*, for God's sakes. Do they really think that the U.S. government needs some people with Twitter accounts to make sure sedition gets punished in this country? No. I bet that the security state knows that funding a rally, even that rally, isn't sedition, and they're obviously unwilling to bully a member of the 1% the way they would bully one of us.
What I say is that your grandfather made a very wise investment that is still helping members of his family today. There should be no guilt attached to that.
Thank you; I think so too. I do not, however, exactly let myself off the hook for keeping my money in a company that so disrespects the humanity of the people who pick the crops it sells. I'm going to continue to keep my money there for the simple reason that I don't think my family can be safe in this economy without it. That's prioritizing my family over theirs. I admit it. I think it's understandable and unethical at the same time. But then again, I shouldn't be in the kind of predatory economy where I don't dare move from an advantageous investment situation, because we would have little hope of getting either jobs or another stable investment opportunity. If you're cast adrift in the ocean, you hang on to whatever floating piece of wood you've got, especially if your family is also hanging on to it.
I wish Publix would listen to its smaller shareholders but, of course, they don't.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Corporate governance
one share one vote. I've often thought that reform would be to have one share one vote BUT also one shareholder one vote. IOW, decisions must not only have a majority of the shares but of the shareholders.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
That would be helpful, but getting a board to do it seems
close to impossible.
A friend once got involved with an effort to democratize a credit union (the idea being that the people needed financial organizations which were not entirely outside their control). We tried to elect a couple of people to the board who hadn't been there for decades. Not only did they not win, the current board brought police officers inside the building during the election.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It would have to be a law
Brnging the problem back to not having bought and paid for hacks in Congress,
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Fantastic reply.
This reply could be an essay of its own.
Nearly all of us are sucked into a system that is very unequal in its outcomes. If we have family or even those of us who do not, we are forced to ensure to the best of our ability to create a secure future. That means that in some way, we are part of this system that overwhelmingly favors the oligarchs which we must participate in order to keep our heads above water.
The issue is not you, me, any of us or our forebearers, but is the system itself. The fact that we must participate in it is simply a symptom of the disease that is capitalism.
One last thing. While some companies are much worse than others, no company is innocent. Capitalism requires that every company seek the lowest costs while reaping the highest profits.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Well, that's true--both parts of it--
Publix is far from innocent, but there are reasons why it would be terrible if they were driven out of business, or even made much less successful, and not just reasons to do with my family: their main competitors down here are essentially the Walton family and Jeff Bezos (in his Whole Foods persona), depending on how much money you have.
Despite the things about Publix which are evil, they have managed to hold on, somehow, to some of the older way of doing business in this country (as in, not extracting every ounce of value from every person, place and thing you can while giving back as little as possible). From the reviews I've seen, it's much better to be a Publix employee than a Wal-Mart employee (though there appears to be a serious gap between full-time and part-time Publix employees, with the part-timers getting the serious short end of the stick).
I doubt very much that a Walton who did what Julie Jenkins did would get raked over the coals like this, and Bezos is close enough to the CIA that he doesn't have to care what people think.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Strikes me that I just ignored the heart of your comment...
Nearly all of us are sucked into a system that is very unequal in its outcomes. If we have family or even those of us who do not, we are forced to ensure to the best of our ability to create a secure future. That means that in some way, we are part of this system that overwhelmingly favors the oligarchs which we must participate in order to keep our heads above water.
The issue is not you, me, any of us or our forebearers, but is the system itself. The fact that we must participate in it is simply a symptom of the disease that is capitalism.
There's *a lot* to unpack here that has to do with what individual agency is and how it relates to social systems; American culture tends to have assumptions that (I think) prevent much accurate or helpful analysis of that question.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Shareholders protecting their money.
This is what Wall St. has done by systematically shifting the Pension plans from "Defined Benefit" to "Defined Contribution plans. DC plans rely on the success of the market to determines your level of confort in retirement and can run out of funds before you die.
DB plans provide a fixed amount monthly until you die, much like SS.
Those who have 401k type accounts are "married" to Wall St. and will protect the stock market without question.
IMHO
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Yes, I understand this very well
As a retired government employee (local government), I was fortunate enough to participate in a defined benefit pension plan. I also chose to participate in both a 401K plan and a 457 plan, offered by my employer.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Dems and Republicans is the new Dungeons and Dragons…
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=737
In my family, instead of Publix it was a few gifted shares of Procter & Gamble stock that became worth something as the decades flew by. My mom never did understand the wave of national paranoia about supposedly evil occult symbolism that led to P & G having to drop their traditional man-in-the-moon logo.
https://www.qwant.com/?q=procter%20gamble%20logo
I'm both highly appreciative of this comment and horrified
by it (I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons since I was in my late teens. I'm now 53, and fully intend to play in, and perhaps run even more D&D campaigns). So comparing my beloved hobby to the moral Superfund site that is our politics is kind of awful. But nonetheless, your point is very well taken.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I don't think this is about Trump per se
That's the outrage de jour, but not the underlying problem which is the shallow mob mentality that reacts and attacks randomly and without thinking.
Case in point: back in 2010, when my state of Arizona had lost our elected governor to Obama's administration and we got stuck with the odious Jan Brewer instead, the republicans in the state legislature took the opportunity to push through the law SB 1070, aka the infamous "papers please" law, and overnight the entire world turned like a pack of rabid coyotes on anything that could be even remotely associated with Arizona.
Including an iced tea company that is based in New Jersey, but unfortunately for them, had chosen a sunny logo and the name Arizona Iced Tea for their brand. And so they instantly became the target of an outraged mob who called for a boycott against them and much rage was directed at them online. Their response, that they are not located in or in any way connected to the actual state of Arizona, made zero difference to the blindly raging mob on the Internet. All it took was hearing the word Arizona and the hate flowed freely. Guilt by association... ah, yeah.
This phenomena didn't start with trump and it won't end with him. Also it is not limited to liberals or the so-called left (democrats) or progressives.
Remember the Dixie Chicks? The lead singer made a negative comment about Shrub one time, and immediately the entire world of country music, mostly rightwing/republican "freedom lovers" who don't believe in cancel culture for stepping out of line on the group think, responded by smashing their records and boycotting their concerts and cancelling them off the radio and bullying them with death threats.
The problem IMO is mob mentality, and I believe such behavior is strongly encouraged and exacerbated by the nature of the internet and social media, Twitter in particular because by its very nature it precludes deep thought, nuanced expression, or time to think.
This is one reason I stay away from it. And also why I still struggle with the idea that Twitter is now the one and only place that a person can express themselves in the public square nowadays. If that is true then it really is all over, because Twitter is basically a sea of stupid that is constantly spinning hurricanes and tidal waves of rage and pure emotion fueled by ignorance and lies repeated at light speed.
Your words re Twitter remind me of the little arrows in diagrams
P
in this (otherwise unrelated, totally non-political) article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-strange-topology-that-is-...
You could be describing the explanatory diagram from Nature, depicting these fields of little arrows, each of which can spin around — like minds on Twitter — and then out of nowhere these vortices form, like tweet storms, with opposite polarities (“winding numbers” in the article)… The vortices can combine or, if oppositely poled, annihilate each other without a trace…
This is exactly right:
the underlying problem which is the shallow mob mentality that reacts and attacks randomly and without thinking.
For most of my life, the left, the liberals, and even the Democrats held the fort against this kind of thinking. What's been going on for the last five to ten years or so is the horrible reversal of that stance.
No matter how many times I think about it (and I have thought about it), there's no way I can abandon my moral compass just because there's so much social pressure to do so. Not like that. Not in the "abandon truth, all ye who enter here" way.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A couple of things
Since the consolidation of the media into five or six giant holding corporations, there is very little news or objective analysis available to the vast majority of people. We are heavily propagandized whether it is via opinion being presented as news or entertainment such as Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous or the Kardashians that present an unrealistic image of what we should aspire to be. Further the arts and humanities along with the attendant critical thinking skills teaching have been pushed onto the back burner in our educational system. Instead of being able to teach children how to think, teachers are forced to teach the test.
The majority of Americans are struggling just to meet their basic needs each month and do not have the luxury of doing the deep research into what is really happening to them by the corrupt system under which we live.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I have to admit I feel a bit guilty...
I, too, recoiled from Arizona--though not in as stupid a way as vilifying "Arizona Iced Tea," which is as dumb as objecting to Corona Beer.
Mainly, I said I wasn't going to be a tourist in AZ until those practices were changed. In retrospect, that wasn't well thought out. A more logical response would have been to refuse to be a tourist in Maricopa County. But even that has its problems, because the cops seem pretty unaffected by economic pressure on their city or county. It's not like their funding will ever be cut.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Heh...
That was exactly the point I wanted to make. Thank you!
As for the boycott of AZ, well that is complicated and admittedly a sore spot for me to this day. SB 1070 was, for the most part, never enacted in the first place because it was immediately challenged in court and most of it was ultimately overturned.
And Arizonans subsequently mounted a successful recall of Russel Pearce, the person most directly responsible for it getting pushed through the state legislature, along with the Koch brothers and Kris Kobach, among the many non-Arizonans who made our state their playground for this effort once Obama had poached Janet Napolitano and left us with Brewski. And then, after that, the recall groups set their sites on Joe Arpaio. The recall failed just barely, but the people in Maricopa County finally voted him out in the next election. My point being, we were fighting back for the right reasons and not because the world decided to hate us all.
The boycotts and hate added some pressure, to be sure, but I don't think it was overall a good thing and being on the ground here, it felt like being abandoned by our so-called allies in our hour of most need. When people should have stood with us to help fight back, instead everyone just made themselves feel good by standing back and looking down at us, because we lost a round in the struggle. Thanks for Nothing, was my feeling at the time. Now I will admit that the boycott did add some pressure, but as you say a more targeted effort would have been a lot more useful, along with some show of solidarity for the rest of us who were trying to fight back through various means.
Anyway, sorry for rambling, I just meant to say that you were not alone, guilt isn't good, but I do appreciate hearing your thoughts in retrospect on it all.
Dude, I am *so sorry*.
Mainly because that was an incredibly stupid mistake for me to make, having been on the opposite end of it myself not too long before.
There are still people who think the election fraud in Florida happened because we Floridians are stupid and don't know how to manage a ballot, that it was about "hanging chads" and people not reading the ballot carefully, rather than being about Tom DeLay sending Republican staffers to bull their way into a superintendent of elections office and yell at the top of their lungs so the vote counters couldn't do their work, or being about police checkpoints set up in Leon County near predominantly African-American polling places, or being about creating software that falsely identified African Americans as felons so the state could kick them off the voting rolls...nope it's all about how dumb we are. I felt absolutely abandoned myself, and it just plain sucks that I didn't see that was happening to y'all as well--to the point that I actually participated in it myself!
It just goes to show that no matter how hard you keep an eye on yourself, you're still gonna screw up sometimes. But that doesn't excuse it.
Apologies.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Wow, thank you CStMS, that's amazing
That is by far the most responsive and thoughtful reply that anyone has ever given whenever I have expressed my feelings about the boycotts. I appreciate so much that you really do get exactly what happened -- that means the world to hear. Thank you. And you make me realize that I have the same need to rethink and apologize for the times I laughed at and/or scolded "Florida" for being such a mess. I too should have known better.
They've got a lot of ways of dividing us.
The media sucks, and it's hard to be as vigilant as one needs to be.
Once more, I realize how glad I am we have this place (and think again that we need some backup...)
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A very amusing Brit once made a video in which he called
Twitter "the Devil's asshole."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Excellent essay
Showing the moral bankruptcy of today's "Liberals", better named "ilLiberals".
Thanks also for showing that small shareholders are not fanged Wall street monsters. although many here disagree with me. I say that capitalism is not the enemy, it is the few (and their wannabees) that use capitalism for their own antisocial corrupt desires that are the problem. Apparently, Karl Marx didn't envision Josef Stalin or Laventiy Beria , either.
Although lord Acton was talking about the Papacy, his statement on the corrupting influence of power is, IMHO, a universal principle.
As for Twitter, it is just a high tech way of inciting mobs to riot.
If we regard humans, not as fallen angels that are inherently good, but as risen apes that are inherently animal but sometimes a bit better, we will be much better off.
Should your Grandfather have been executed for being a "Capitalist Oppressor"?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I think this is a deeper, more complex issue
than it seems:
Thanks also for showing that small shareholders are not fanged Wall street monsters. although many here disagree with me. I say that capitalism is not the enemy, it is the few (and their wannabees) that use capitalism for their own antisocial corrupt desires that are the problem.
Of course I don't think small shareholders are fanged Wall St monsters. (And I'm a socialist, by the way; that's why I say my position is complex.) We could have a long, fruitful discussion about this (and maybe we should). But the short version of my position is this:
Power and responsibility go together.
That's what I always heard every time I read or watched Spiderman and heard the famous quotation: "With great power comes great responsibility." I didn't just hear "If you're powerful, you are responsible;" I also heard "If you have no power, you can't be responsible," or, to put it more exactly, "You can only be responsible for the things, situations, and reactions over which you have at least some power."
Our culture--if you can still call it that--really loves to blame people with little or no power, while making people who have a lot of power invisible and taking them out of the equation. I don't do that. Before I blame someone, I find out what I can about their position and resources, and then imagine what their field of potential actions might be. That's where my position on immigrants comes from: it's just ridiculous to think that a bunch of people with no money, often fleeing political violence back home, are responsible for the bad state of affairs (economically) in the U.S. They don't have enough power to determine U.S. economic policy. In the same way, small shareholders don't have the power to determine the policy choices of the businesses they're invested in. It's like a light switch: we can either be in or out, on or off. The only real choice is whether or not to invest. Because I can tell you, the board of your corporation is not going to be interested in what you have to say. Not in my experience, anyway. I have tried to talk to Publix about other issues, and so has my mom, and they respond with a form letter, like all big institutions when you tell them they're doing something wrong.
As for capitalism, it depends on what you think capitalism is. There are basically two schools of thought right now, and I respect both of them:
1)The sane capitalist would say: "What we're living under now isn't capitalism. It's corporatism with a heaping helping of nepotism and kleptocracy on top--pretty close to fascism, really."
2)The sane socialist would say: "Yeah, but capitalism is so constituted that it will always turn into something very like that in the end."
There's no way to conclusively prove that capitalism could never end up differently than this (of course). On the other hand, exactly what the Marxists said would happen (back in the 30s and 40s) did happen. They said, "New Deal, great, awesome. What are you going to do when they decide not to keep their end of the deal? Especially when we're no longer here threatening revolution and scaring their pants off? Maybe you can trust *these* guys, but what happens when it's different guys running the show? What's to stop them from taking--or destroying--everything?"
I haven't chosen one view over the other, but one thing is self-evident: in order to work as part of a functioning civilization, capitalism relies on government, and big capitalism (big business, big banks) requires big government. That was (if I'm remembering correctly) what Adam Smith said when he was dealing with the question of what was going to stop successful businessmen from forming monopolies and cartels and essentially removing all competition from the equation except their competition with the consumer and their competition with the worker. He said "Well, if they form cartels, the government will just step in and make them stop."
Competition is the thing--the only thing, really--that keeps capitalism honest, that makes it possible for it to be any of the things its adherents generally claim for it: that it is populist, providing the best possible life for the largest number of people possible; that it is also populist because it prioritizes the consumer above all else; that it encourages merit in both people and products; that it encourages innovation and invention. All these things rely on competition between businesses, between private-sector actors; they also rely on having at least a neutral playing field without rigged contests--and it would be better if that playing field were, if not level, at least not massively tilted so that certain people enter the contest with such extreme advantages that the chances of their losing the game are infinitesimally small. There has to be, if not exactly fair competition, at least real competition.
Having advocated for a public option back in the day, I think I know exactly how much the powerful appreciate competition. "Public option" was the nice, milquetoasty way of saying "Y'all have got a cartel over there, and it's got to stop."
At this point, they don't even bother to defend their anticompetitive position beyond asserting their superiority as a given, as a junior Wall St exec did in the aftermath of the 2008 crash. A journalist went into a bar where mid-level and junior execs hung out, and talked to people under conditions of anonymity. A young exec said "If those people lost their houses, that just means they're not as smart as I am." His position implies no rules, no morals: arguably no civilization. I would argue that that position is an anti-civilization position. Or, as Kenneth Grahame put it in Watership Down, "It's the same all the time. These are my claws, so that is my cowslip. These are my teeth, so that is my burrow." It's just one more take on might makes right, with a little social Darwinism thrown on top. If you haven't succeeded, there must be something wrong with you. Automatically. There is no way to subject the system to critique without the critique simply rebounding on everyone who doesn't have money; everyone who does have money is automatically right.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Models are but models, but some intensive modeling
done by some physicists (or mathematicians, I can't recall for certain) showed that in a perfectly free market wealth and resources (and hence power) will invariably concentrate in a very few hands and it not interfered with, all in the hands of a single individual. Presumably during the oligarchic periods there will be an intervention to prevent that and damned if it ain't another Tuesday in Paradises.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Wow, I didn't know that.
Well, that's as close to proof as one could get (when you're saying, essentially, "This thing I'm looking at could never end up any way than this.")
But it's not really surprising; as I said above, Smith himself relied on government regulation to keep competition real and at least somewhat fair, so that everything doesn't become pro wrestling, and without competition, capitalism is just a particularly insincere form of aristocracy.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Never played "Monopoly"?
The game was designed to show what happens under a "perfectly free market" - one player winds up with everything.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Yes, a binary distribution
The top company has half the market, the second has a quarter of the market, the third has an eigth. usually any more companies are too small to survive so you have a "Big Three" like GM Ford and Chrysler were before the Arab oil Boycott and the arrival of Japanese economy cars.
Indicating that you need "managed capitalism" and the Libertarian ideal of many sellers none big enough to affect the market by themselves, just doesn't exist and can't exist. at least not as a stable solution.
Capitalism has many instabilities. as a former control engineer I understand this. Libertarians want an uncontrolled system. Uncontrolled systems always crash and burn.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Well put...
the Libertarian ideal of many sellers none big enough to affect the market by themselves, just doesn't exist and can't exist. at least not as a stable solution.
Yeah, not for long. I don't know how long.
I get what they want--at least, the good-faith actors amongst them. It's the same thing I want when I wish for an entirely unmoderated forum where everybody is free to speak as they wish. Of course, I want that, but in practice it just doesn't work, because there's people who just want to destroy things. And that's just the low-hanging fruit of immorality, the ones that are easy to pick out and identify as bad. There are other problems with lack of regulation as well, but you don't even have to look into them or look beyond that low-hanging fruit--because all by themselves, the obvious bad-faith actors are generally enough to screw up whatever you're trying to build.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I could continue the analogy
The Soviet Communists wanted a totally controlled economy. Heavy control in physical systems usually means slow and unresponsive. It's an analogy. Real answer is in game theory. I never had formal training in game theory. I did buy a text book when I was a grad student at university of Maryland. It's extremely interesting but tough slogging. Warning: No brag, just fact. I aced every math course, undergrad and grad and I say game theory is tough slogging.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Thanks.
This comment by Can't Stop the Macedonian Signal and the comments following it are exceptionally good. These ideas are some of the the best criteria for evaluating capitalism I've seen. Richard Wolff couldn't say it better.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
Thanks so much, polkageist.
I'm really glad this conversation has turned out so great.
Thanks to everybody who participated.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I saw this and thought of you and this essay
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2021/2/2/2013510/-I-just-got-off-the-phon...
A different look at it from people that think every person that follows Trump needs to be held accountable for it. SO what if people funded the gathering with Trump on the 6th. There is no law against getting people together for chatting and especially when they got a permit to do it. But then DK entered the upside down world soon after Obama became pres.
I too thought the essay and comments were most excellent. Lots a smart people here.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Good morning CSTMS. May I say "Brilliant!"?
In particular this paragraph:
I kept looking for a good place to stop excerpting and found none before the terminal period. Sadly, to coin a phrase, "it was ever thus", heh. The difference it that it has been democratized. There was a time when this was the province of Broadsides, leaflets, posters and newspapers. It was not, generally, the province of "every Tom, Dick and Harriet", but of only a few, and lacked any element of instant gratification as well as any real means of instant amplification. Later the mind manipulators in the mold of Bernays, larger mass circulation papers, and then radio and the idiot box and firms like Saatchi and Saatchi, etc. came to run the show, but, except as to political squabbles, they were all on the corporate and or business side. The internet again broadened things, but except for early BBS type interations it was still not overdemocratizing until the advent of spambots and thence anything bots.
Enter the twitstream and it all goes to hell anything and everything that can generate any kind of emotional or hormonal rush (adrenaline, dopamine, rage, fear, hate, pity, whatever) becomes almost self reinforcing in a mindless manner, unanalyzed becausse it is not about facts, reason, logic or any of that, but strictly about that emotional rush and the feeling of well being and accomplishment that comes from participating in something larger than ones self even if it is a fantasy or a lie. (I guess faceplant(tm) gets some credit for this too.) People generally don't indulge in heavy ratiocination while masturbating is really what it all comes down to. From there, it has become self reinforcing and reflexive and taken over normal discourse and interaction to the point that the Beach Boys' "Be True to Your School" has become the anthem of damn near any and every movement and organization. My tribe, yeah!, your tribe, boo! and never any introspection nor any tribal identification that has more than one or two superficial and mostly artificial characteristics.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
In Hawaii of the 1950s, even simpler than the Beach Boys’ song:
Hey, I neer fut, you fut!
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Gotta grab some lunch, but this is interesting--
I'll be back.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That is an incredibly high compliment--so thank you.
I kept looking for a good place to stop excerpting and found none before the terminal period.
If by "it was ever thus," you mean "a fair amount of this shit has always been around," I'd agree with that. If you mean "it's always been like it is now," I disagree pretty strongly. The period of my lifetime (1968-present) has been, roughly, the period of some rather radical (not in the good way) and extreme changes in this country's culture and politics. The engineering has been right out in the open a lot of the time. Hell, in the 80s they called it the culture wars.
Al Gore is right about one thing, at least--it's been an assault on reason. The fundamental assumptions of the culture--how we find things out, how we determine if they're true, how we allocate blame, who has the power to punish, even how we converse--all of that has changed, so radically it hurts sometimes.
Go back sometime and re-read some of the political books that came out in 2000 or early 2001, or even up to 2005. When I do that, the difference between the conventions of thought now and the conventions of thought then are shocking. If you want a real shocker, pick up a newspaper from the 70s, or watch Cronkite.
I'm not saying that was a halcyon Golden Age, though if you came by in a TARDIS and offered, I'd jump at the chance to get the hell out of here. But IMO, the change from the sixties to now has been real, intentional, and brutal.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
By the way, back atcha,
This is a really great paragraph, and sums the situation up quite well:
Enter the twitstream and it all goes to hell anything and everything that can generate any kind of emotional or hormonal rush (adrenaline, dopamine, rage, fear, hate, pity, whatever) becomes almost self reinforcing in a mindless manner, unanalyzed becausse it is not about facts, reason, logic or any of that, but strictly about that emotional rush and the feeling of well being and accomplishment that comes from participating in something larger than ones self even if it is a fantasy or a lie. (I guess faceplant(tm) gets some credit for this too.) People generally don't indulge in heavy ratiocination while masturbating is really what it all comes down to. From there, it has become self reinforcing and reflexive and taken over normal discourse and interaction to the point that the Beach Boys' "Be True to Your School" has become the anthem of damn near any and every movement and organization.
I am sensing some of this and didn't have the words for it; I've seen in some a nasty pleasure in smashing people's reputations, an avidity I don't like at all.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Time to bring this song out again...
The things that pass for knowledge I can't understand
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I guess this how the Pol Pot type of social change can happen
— A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller, Jr.
* Substitute pejorative of one’s choice in place of “smart” — i.e. “racist”, “Trump-supporting”, etc.; or, once the equal-and-opposite reaction sets in, “woke”, “diverse”, etc.
Damn.
Maybe I should take another look at that book. It's been a long time.
As for the folks of learning (updated name for the "men of learning"), well, there is no sin like being a genuine rationalist. Rationalism is, in its way, its own religion, but it's a religion with a twist: the practice of it can be turned inward onto itself. If *everything* that you *can* see can be and often should be subjected to scrutiny, that includes yourself and reason and rationality itself. There are even limits to reason, and errors that arise if one becomes too absolutist in its practice. Thus rationalism is one of the least authoritarian of the spiritual practices.
If reason is what you believe in, you're believing in a method of observing things, asking questions about them, and coming to (often temporary) conclusions about them. Thus, your loyalty will be to the method, and to the facts you (and others) establish, not to a particular tribe or group. That's why pretty much every authoritarian political or cultural movement I can think of has gone after the scholars first (often the artists and writers as well, for similar though not identical reasons).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Great book. Reread it this last year. Good quote to use here.
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
"The Law is a Whore" is an old adage, probably dating
at least as far back as Hammurabi's code. Because it is true, it renders the interjection of legal principles, definitions and rules into reality based discussions touching upon ethics or the propriety of various socio-political behaviors of dubious merit. Now and then, however, some bits and pieces are apropos.
In law there is a thing called a closely held corporation, or simply a close corporation. The utility of this concept has been greatly damaged by the Supreme's terrible Hobby Lobby decision, in which they strove to reach a finding based on their religious and political beliefs and hung it upon the close corp. peg for lack of any other remotely suitable grounds. Be that as it may, a close corporation is one so closely held in terms of share ownership and control (think 100% owned by a single person as the archetype) that it is simply the alter-ego of the owner. For such a corporation, the law may "pierce the corporate veil" and attribute all corporate acts and activities to the owner. This is not supposed to apply solely to the owners homophobia and it's putative religious underpinnings, but to everything - such an entity is not taxed as a corporation but as part of the owner's return, with a concomitant loss of a lot of special corporate breaks and benefits, for example, and the owner is liable for corporate debts, contracts, violations of law, and torts. With respect to such a corporation, it is proper to attribute its owner's political and other donations and support to the corporation and vice-versa; that's what alter-ego means. Publix is such a corporation, so the acts of its owners should not be attributed to it.
Beyond that, political contributions, in this country, are as often as not bribery. This is why one so often finds large corporations giving somewhat heavily to both parties. They may have a favored team to which they give more generously, but they generally hedge their bets, it is not about who wins, but about what favors and largess they can garner from the winner. In the case of a well heeled individual, however, it is much more complicated. There is often an overriding ideological preference, in addition to any hoped for largesse or special treatment for entities they own or the related industries, and their social class as a whole, among other things.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Such an excellent essay and comment thread. These are the
essential issues, and I don't see how it will stop (peacefully). This is not a good road we are on.
Using the who you are or what you are is the origin I believe of what is now called ID politics, cancel culture, or whatever.
There are age old beefs which are being resurrected, and have long stuck in my craw. But, I dare not raise what I would say is a reasonable set of questions or review of now ancient history, without getting pasted, branded, and jumped all over. At seventy, it's getting harder to say well for the last ten years of my life or however I have, I want to fight the world. I do want to make my yard into a small prairie, and plant water plants next to a drainage; make a raised bed garden and create and easy to use house. As we get feeble, I hope we will be able to work within our given assets and privileges.
We can't bring up too much with our stateside family or friends without risking alienation, a fight or whatever. It is daunting. Like a collective loss of mind. I have dear friends of many decades I am very careful with these days. Starting with 2016 and Hillary. Wow.
Our conversations here have been easier and more forthright. However, I found out that many of our British friends labeled me a Trump voter for pointing out the downsides of Dems. It came close to shunning. They didn't want to hear nuance and made speculation on our country while we were right there in the room. Arrggghhh. When someone says 'I want to see Trump shot' I feel as a US citizen I should point out the truth of things as I understand it.
The one woman who got the nuances, was Jewish from NY. She understood me and defended my POV to a group of British female judges who just happened to be having a cocktail party we were invited to. There is more than one culture here and it can take some real listening skills and patience to make things clear or to at least attempt balance.
Thank you again for a great conversation.
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
You're welcome!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Great topic today and great responses
Think this has been said many times in this OT but glad we have such a place to discuss such an issue. This topic is something I have been wrestling with the past year and a half. My father felt his finances were none of our business and only my sister who was executor was aware of where his money was but was not aware of how much. When he passed away at 98 in 2018 we were all amazed at how much wealth he had mainly in CD’s and not in the stock market at all.
Now I am a heiress that did nothing to earn this money but my teacher retirement and Social Security checks do not make me in the $75,000 or above bracket and so have a check for $600 from the government that I am not in need of. As a result I am giving the bulk to the Capitol Area Food Bank and C99.
Because my Teacher Retirement is a defined benefit plan and the Texas Legislature would love to change it if they can. As a result, this is something the Retired Teacher Association is watching closely with the legislature in session. As most of you know, in 2019 I became a widow and for the first time in my life am dealing with issues alone and with help of friends, family and professionals. Dealing with this money in a way that can be an investment and at the same time not run afoul of the $250,000 limit for government insurance has been a real challenge.
It has been a real benefit to read all the opinions and what people are doing that has been of great benefit
Have a great day all......I am off the enjoy the sunshine while it is here on my bike!
Life is what you make it, so make it something worthwhile.
This ain't no dress rehearsal!
I am no fan of mob mentality,
or money in politics, or guilt by association.
That said, I applaud any individual who wants Ms. Fancelli to be punished, as it is doubtful any constabulary will arrest and charge her for a crime. If the limit of her punishment is to cut into her finances, then boycotting Publix is a positive act.
This is similar to the BDS movement to boycott and hurt the finances of Zionists. Punishing laws against BDS shows the power of money.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
How is it going to punish her?
I assume by driving Publix out of business?
You're going to have to do that, or something close to it, to make a member of the 39th richest family in the country hurt. Especially since she's also married to money, has a place in Florence, a mansion in Florida worth a few million, etc.
Boycotting Publix, and driving the stock price down, will hurt my family a lot more than it will hurt Ms. Fancelli. The bag boy will be hurt even more than us--possibly doubly, as he could lose both value of stock and his job. The employees who don't own Publix stock might be hurt the most of all.
All this will greatly benefit the Walton family and Jeff Bezos, who are the primary competitors to Publix--two profoundly bad-faith actors. And I don't think working for Wal-mart is going to be better for anybody.
I understand that sometimes you need to hurt innocents in order to get to the guilty party. Everybody who's ever contemplated revolution thinks about that--or should. But here, it's so inappropriate and unnecessary. If she financed sedition, have the fucking spooks come and get her. Or, alternatively, slap her on the wrist with some fine or other. Tell her not to do it again. Whatever. We're already funding this multi-billion-dollar security state every year with our taxes, and the excuse that the security state can't do anything because they're under the authority of the President (and Trump is the President) no longer applies. This is their job, for which they are wildly overpaid, and they're the ones who have the leverage to punish somebody like Fancelli.
Using Twitter accounts to push a boycott which, by the end of it, will probably leave Fancelli still a member of the 1%, but will hurt a lot of the rest of us, and which takes the entire issue outside the realm of the legal--is that really a good way to deal with sedition?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It is the easily available way
to punish her for what she did. She will never be charged with a crime, so embarrassing her, eliminating a source of her income, is all the little people can do.
They are not giving your group of shareholders a split second of thought.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Wikipedia sAys that Publix is currently employee owned.
Since CSTMS has stock that likely means that employees own a stake in the current iteration of Publix. The founder of Publix died in the 1990s. He might well be appalled by what his heir is doing with her share of his estate. Or not. Most of his heirs are apparently behaving themselves in a less revolutionary manner.
It’s like having a friend who is crushed to death by a huge stuffed bear and exacting revenge by killing all the bears they can find.
One of the good things about the pandemic is that our local Publix offers curbside pickup. This keeps people out of stores which protects employees, but there is another benefit. They use paper bags for the groceries to better sort them. No more plastic!
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Hola otc. I am of a somewhat different mind as to purpose,
We boycotted certain retailers who sold exclusively non-union produce in order to get them to carry union goods, we successfully sought behavioral change and won in stages, first they started carrying union products and eventually non union growers were forced to unionize after the boycott targeted non-union goods as opposed to the sellers thereof. A boycott of South African goods and services successfully forced them to do away with apartheid. BDS, as I see it, is primarily also about behavioral change, getting the Israeli populace to force the government to stop its illegal was against the people of palestine and its illegal land grabs there.
A second purpose, again not essentially punitive, is to not participate in wrongdoing. Many of us boycotted Shell simply because we did not wish our money to indirectly support all of the wrongdoing against the Ogoni people. Behavioral change was desirable, but considered to be outrageously unlikely. Like the boycotts of the makers of napalm and agent orange during the Viet Nam war, nobody really believed the wrongdoers would stop, but nobody wished to contribute to it an any way either.
In neither case was/is the goal punitive, but corrective or the desire to not indirectly perpetrate evil, this latter stance being akin to the withholding of tacit consent by speaking out, but doing so with one's wallet. Of course, in most cases, it is come of each.
Obviously, ymmv
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
In this boycott, a punitive motive
by engaging in an activity is tantamount to a teaching moment,
a corrective activity. I see different attitudes causing the boycotting getting the same results.
If Fancelli can fund expression of her heartfelt beliefs in a rally, boycotters can express theirs by shopping elsewhere and defunding her, to the extent possible.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I can empathize with your situation.
Grampa made an investment when the dinosaurs roamed the planet, and now that investment is supporting your family.
If there is public backlash against the company grampa invested in all those years ago, your divined could be negatively impacted, which obviously impacts your family that survives on that dividend.
Do you, as the stock holder, or executor if you will of the family's financial life line, not have a responsibility to insure that life line? Know what the company's management's thinking is, to be on them like stink on poo poo?
From what you've described above, it appears as though who ever is the financial manager of that family life line, maybe hasn't been as "proactive" in it's management of that life line? (depends on management strategy as well, so not meant as a slam, I have only 1 source of info.)
Public backlash, or a boycott, well that is just a "risk" that goes with any investment, is it not? Any one mistake by the company, or top level exec, founder, daughter of the founder etc... or false accusation in the media (twitter included) could send a company's stock spiraling, no?
You note the validity of the Greenpeace boycott, but I think (I'm guessing here) you might agree in principal with their effort to get Publix to get rid of plastic bags. But has the financial manager of the family's financial life line, looked into what Publix's management is doing about it, one way or another, and do they (fin. mgr) agree it's a good move?
Hey, if you think grampa's investment is still solid, their stock track record certainly is, and since it is your family's life line, forget everyone else. Family first no?
In August 2000, the stock was 9.30, today it's 57.95. That's a solid track record is it not? (I'm not a financial advisor...)
Or, you could divest from them, move that money into something that fits more with your ethical values and try and generate similar or better returns.
Does the fact that Publix contributes to Republicans bother you in principal? How about if their top management heavily contributes as individuals?
Looking at OpenScerets.org, it's a pretty good bet it's a GOP dominated company. I make that speculation based on the "from individuals", not the company amounts. For example. (click the link to opensecrets)
Total spending on the National Republican Senatorial Cmte = $280,641.00
From Individuals = $250,641.00
From the company = $30,000.00
Then you can look to the FEC filing for individual contributors for 2019-2020 and find out just who those individuals are.
That's top brass of the company.
And if we look at the Sustainability statement,
Does that square with what they actually do? Seems getting rid of plastic bags, would at least be a PR win for the company, imho.
Whoever is the family's financial life line manager, just needs to answer two questions, where do you want you family's life line to originate? And is that source in conflict with your ethical values?
On a deeper level, humanity in some respects is waking up, but for many their expression of this awakening and horror show that is unfolding in real time, is rage. That's just another risk factors in managing the family's financial life line.
In "Capitalists" terms, that's called a "Market Response" to public information, right? But since Publix is not a publicly traded company, how much, if any, will this impact your stock?
But considering this...
All during a pandemic none the less.
I would say grampa's investment is pretty solid despite the tweeterati crybabies. Whether you can hold your nose about the political leanings of the BOD and tops execs, well that's where you own personal ethics comes into play.
I wouldn't cancel you for sustaining your family from grampa's investment. I might suggest investigating other options to minimize risk to the family financial life line.
(PS: I didn't mean to disparage your grandfather by using the term grampa. But you always remind me of Fire Fly TV show...)
[video:https://youtu.be/QTI0yQzCHEc]
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Curbside pickup has killed the plastic bag. Paper is back!
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
I am not heartless, nor I am unmindful
of the importance an inheritance is to subsequent generations.
Who would want CSTMS to suffer because some rich weirdo RWNJ said something, or did something over which CSTMS has no control?
Maybe boycotting a store, unless in huge numbers, would be an unnoticed exercise in protesting, much like refusing to vote as a protest. Who knows if you were too sick to vote? Who knows if you could only buy groceries at the Dollar General?
I do not know what it is like to get any inheritance. I "inherited" my parent's funeral bill, and a forever responsibility to take care of my cancer-stricken brother, for whom I paid property taxes today.
But I know I refused to buy Raytheon stocks decades ago when I had a sum to invest, and an advisor. I said no.
I hope for a good outcome for everyone with the boycott.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
All I know is, collective guilt is a stick that will be used
to beat every one of us too, in the fullness of time.
As we have judged, so shall we ourselves also be judged, said some rabbi whom the empire deplatformed for seditious talk.
Are we all responsible for U.S. wars and torture and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Were all of America’s (and Americans’) sins washed away when George W. B. passed Michelle O. that cough drop?
How does one “divest oneself” of one’s American-ness, deplorable-ness, Boomer-ness, etc.? “I and my people and my cause and my generation are cool, you and your people and your cause and your generation all suck, just die already”—is that the message?
Where do we think the impulse to join a mob demanding “justice” (vengeance) comes from? It couldn’t be our own hearts, could it? It couldn’t be that hate is not only something out there with those other folks, that it comes from within each of us as well?