I think that the problem is you’re looking at this from a reasonable perspective.

In fact you could do one better - it doesn't need to make a profit, just break even, so you could either have lower prices, helping the community save money, or higher wages, helping the community spend money. But since it helps most people instead of a few people, it's bad according to capitalism.

If you're inclined to be charitable, I believe the capitalist-brained reasoning goes something like:

These grocery stores will inevitably run at a loss and/or need to be subsidised - costing the taxpayers money - because the state couldn't possibly run them as efficiently as a private enterprise competing in the free market.

(Not saying I agree.)

"Won't somebody think off the job creators?" they'll unironically tell you after laying off thousands of people.

Yes but if it‘s city owned, the profits won‘t go towards exploitation of (mostly) non-white laborers and dismantling the social system. Just think of how many humanitarian aid programs could be defunded and how much the environment could be stripped of its resources if we let the private sector maximize their profits!

/s

Nice of the billionaire to vacate perfect real estate for city owned grocery stores

My 5D chess move would be:

• Go: ok bet, you wanna shut it down? Your stores are now in immediate administration under some eminent domain law
• In order to mitigate political backlash, make it known that they're able to sell their business to someone else, or the city, provided that the subsequent owner is bound to either run it, or sell it to the city

Watch them get mad because you haven't technically seized it, they can still sell the business (maintaining the sacrosanct rights to private property capitalists love so much), you've just prevented them from closing it down, and everyone gets to keep their jobs :)

It is because they are going to use the billionaires tax dollars to open a grocery store that he would have to compete against.

Oh wait, he probably doesn't pay taxes.

which millionaire?

Yes! Seriously if they don't like it, just go somewhere else. Go live in your bunker, I don't care just don't come back complaining about it and don't pretend like you can still own all the resources and land from down there.

There ability to skim money from those that actually do labor doesn't seem like to matter to the farmers who need to grow food to sell it, and the people buying it will continue to do so. I don't get how these skimmers/leeches think they are the beginning and end of all social contracts.

Closeted fearful European supremacists, lol. So what if everyone who looks like you and is in power is a liar, a thief and often a sex-pest? Just disassociate from them and pick someone because of their character! :D

You could make them and capitalism the hell out of it.

He is The Spectre of Communism!!! BOO!!

Probably, it's super common as a union busting tactic. Because once labor is organized you can't really put that cat back in the bag.

I think it's a bit confusing, but in my view almost all socialists (including democratic socialists) are communists since the end goal they are trying to achieve is communism. Socialism (which can be described as welfare state, majority-publicly owned capital, and planned or market-socialist economy) is almost always seen as a stepping stone towards communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society), even though it is would also be an improvement on its own.

(to confuse matters even further, Lenin's party was initially called Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, even though today's understanding of social-democracy would only apply to the Menshevik wing).

Aldi and Trader Joes will gladly take over all their locations. Those Germans don't care about Red and Blue.