No, but their owners don’t have the bulk buying power to negotiate for better prices with suppliers, the centralised management making the per-store-overhead more efficient, the employment power to push wages, the capital backing to run low prices without risking a bad month leaving a noticeable dent in their liquid assets or even run at a loss for as long as it takes for “lowest price” customers to flock to their stores and drive the local stores out of business.
When commenting on US politics, they should be aware of US political realities though. When taking position relative to US politics, they should be aware of that. At the very least, they should comment that they’re progressive or something along the lines of “Our political orientation isn’t represented in US politics” to acknowledge that, like you did.
But when your CEO endorses Republicans, pretending you’re neutral isn’t a good look.
I don’t think local drug stores can afford to be cheaper than a big corporate chain. But the pricing isn’t the point, it’s fostering competition against corporate monopolies.
Remember that the single purpose of corporations is to make more and more money. By their mandate to their shareholders, all measure of humanity is pushed into the background in favour of growth. The ultimate goal in that pursuit is monopoly: Being the sole supplier for their customers would allow them to dictate sales prices while being the biggest or even sole customer for their suppliers would give them leverage to shift prices in their favour. Their capital backing allows them to cushion out fluctuations in revenue and take losses, so they can afford to underprice and drive out competition, then crank up the enshittification to extort more money from their customers.
A (comparatively smaller) local store has less leverage to enshittify and exploit. Investing in their higher prices is an investment against that enshittification.
“True” doesn’t equal the whole truth.
Yes, the NSDAP, donning the disguise of a Worker’s Party, adopted a lot of worker movement symbology, and through their prominence has given it awful connotations. Unsurprisingly, the modern ideological descendants have taken up many of those same symbols.
Yes, other groups use some of those symbols, or some of the other symbols you mentioned. That doesn’t mean the symbols are now innocuous. It just means context matters. A single element (like the torches) in a different context (like an Armenian group) doesn’t make them Nazis. A hooked cross in the context of Hinduism might mean luck instead.
And in the context of people endorsing Neo-Nazi bullshit, the Nazi salute is very much unmistakable as that.
Apparently it’s an Israeli news outlet, which will color the way they put it