Labor: Organize Wal-Mart!
Posted by Geoff on July 29th, 2005
It is an anti-labor behemoth, a modern monument to capitalist greed and pitiless exploitation. Wal-Mart, the world’s largest profit-making enterprise, today sets the standard in this country for union-busting and wage-gouging. A growing legion of American companies, inspired by the giant retailer’s relentless drive for ever greater profits, has sought to adopt its brutal methods to cut costs—above all, by slashing workers’ wages and benefits. Wal-Mart stands as a mortal challenge to the organized labor movement: Unionize this goliath or suffer ever greater setbacks.
July 30th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
better idea: let’s all stop shoping there, and encourage others to do the same
July 31st, 2005 at 8:29 am
Easier said than done; but little by little, if you tell your friends about the true face of Wal-Mart, some of them listen and engage themselves in personal boycotts of Wal-Mart.
July 31st, 2005 at 10:29 am
And then what? Please realize that the way Walmart runs is not accidental and not restricted solely to one business, but systemic to the whole capitalist system. The strategy of boycott “affirms” the capitalist system, whereas the strategy of unionizing is the first step (in organization and consciousness) towards socialist revolution. The boycott is a dead-end; the union is not.
July 31st, 2005 at 1:42 pm
I agree, the boycott would not help the workers at all, if anything, it would worsen their
situation. Unionization is the way to go.
July 31st, 2005 at 5:37 pm
a consumer movement will never “bring capitalism to its knees” or “re-instill” business with a friendly disposition toward their workers– that isn’t the point of workers opposition to capital.
the root of the problem is the exploitation of the proletariat-ie. the extraction of surplus value from the labourer (which is the source of capitalist profit), and its reinvestment into capital (which perpetuate these ‘exploitative’ relations).
As Geoff said, ‘boycotting affirms capitalism’. it places ’special’ importance on the consumer. However, the consumers are not exploited. And as consumers, they don’t stand in fundamental opposition to capital.
My feeling is that the ‘consumer solidarity’ of the middle class (which is a product of angst and guilt which many feel about buying ’sweat-shop’ products), will quickly melt away when real actions are taken by workers to challenge the exploitative capitalist social relations of production and private property.
furthermore, fair trade and boycotts fail to realize that exploitation (as Geoff said) prevails universally under capitalism. trying to be ‘friendly’ as a capitalist or proping up small businesses does not challenge or even recognize the fundamental problem of exploitation which is the source of proletarian opposition to capital. This petty bourgeois position is not revolutionary. It marches backwards through history not forward into the future.
consumerist reaction is a dead end! a program of supporting unions looks forward to a socialist future. to those who have the power to revolutionize the capitalist form of life. The proletariat!
July 31st, 2005 at 10:00 pm
And the unions have done a great job getting workers ahead in the struggle against Wal-Mart! (facetious statement) So have the young revolutionaries of our time.
I don’t really agree that a personal boycott is a dead-end, but frankly not enough. It also seems that there is an assumption here that all consumers are middle-class and ignorant of class struggle and exploitation of workers.
Many people with a tighter grasp of class-struggle seem to think that if it’s not the full solution, then it’s either a dead-end, reactionary, petty-bourgeois, doesn’t make a lick of a difference, etc etc. However, half-solutions are often necessary. They are transitional, too, sometimes.
It’s like saying “Food Not Bombs” doesn’t solve the problem of workers’ exploitation, so it’s a fruitless and pointless activity… okay, so let the people that use it go hungry. Ditto for homeless shelters and affordable housing, and so on. No, Food Not Bombs does not properly address the problem of exploitation/oppression, and is not the appropriate resolution to the problem, but is still a required half-step (I think) no matter what label someone wants to apply to it.
So… if the unions are the solution (which I agree, they are) how many of us are working with the unions or encouraging workers to unionize? In this case it would be the United Food and Commericial Workers Union.
If consumerist reaction is a dead-end, as well… good luck convincing anyone who consumes to jump aboard your boat, because we are all consumers, unless you don’t buy anything. Thus you’ve eliminated any struggle made by workers, because they are consumers, and their struggle must be a dead-end (also a facetious statement).
I’m just trying to make one point: don’t be so one-sided; because that’s another criticism I hear flying about.
July 31st, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Cutting through your rhetoric online is a task for which I do not have the patience and I consider this last post of yours, at best, a shoddy attempt at sophism. Instead, I will ask you to please explain how a consumer boycott is not a dead-end, without slaugthering basic logic.
I’ll now address your comments one by one:
“And the unions have done a great job getting workers ahead in the struggle against Wal-Mart! (facetious statement) So have the young revolutionaries of our time.”
Further on you agree that the unions are the way to go, making the motives behind the above sentences questionable, at best.
“I don’t really agree that a personal boycott is a dead-end, but frankly not enough. It also seems that there is an assumption here that all consumers are middle-class and ignorant of class struggle and exploitation of workers.”
You know exactly with whom you are dealing: Don’t build straw-people. A market economy *presupposes* that all members are “consumers”, insofar as we “consume” commodities. There are no such moronic assumptions being made here; we are rather, dealing strategy.
“Many people with a tighter grasp of class-struggle seem to think that if it’s not the full solution, then it’s either a dead-end, reactionary, petty-bourgeois, doesn’t make a lick of a difference, etc etc. However, half-solutions are often necessary. They are transitional, too, sometimes.”
Please explain to me what kind of half-cocked notion of transtional you are working with. Also, please explain how a consumer boycott sets the foundations for future work in terms of the proletariat better organizing itself. You have already qualified boycott as “personal”, thereby forcing problems generated from the class-struggle onto the level of the individual (How does this help organize the class; how does this raise consciousness? How is this transitional?)
“It’s like saying “Food Not Bombs” doesn’t solve the problem of workers’ exploitation, so it’s a fruitless and pointless activity… okay, so let the people that use it go hungry. Ditto for homeless shelters and affordable housing, and so on. No, Food Not Bombs does not properly address the problem of exploitation/oppression, and is not the appropriate resolution to the problem, but is still a required half-step (I think) no matter what label someone wants to apply to it.”
Firstly, Food Not Bombs is an example of a crisis in capitalism and statutory retrenchment (read my essay on Citizen’s Press). Secondly, you are comparing apples with oranges. How is a homeless shelter the same thing as a consumer boycott? Who the fuck is against homeless shelters?! Again, straw-person.
“So… if the unions are the solution (which I agree, they are) how many of us are working with the unions or encouraging workers to unionize? In this case it would be the United Food and Commericial Workers Union.”
This must be a shot at the local Marxist community. When was the last time you engaged any of us in discussion about these matters?
“If consumerist reaction is a dead-end, as well… good luck convincing anyone who consumes to jump aboard your boat, because we are all consumers, unless you don’t buy anything. Thus you’ve eliminated any struggle made by workers, because they are consumers, and their struggle must be a dead-end (also a facetious statement).”
The point, Neil, is to deal with workers qua workers, not qua consumers, for Christ’s sake! Oh yes, I can see clearly now, the consumer revolution is just around the corner! (my turn for a facetious statement!)
“I’m just trying to make one point: don’t be so one-sided; because that’s another criticism I hear flying about.”
It seems you have tried to make more than one point. Here’s a lesson for you: Instead of accusing others of one-sidedness, first get over your progressive-sidedness.
July 31st, 2005 at 10:49 pm
I should mention that we are working with workers qua workers (not consumers!) because it is the class that is going to change History. “Consumers” embody every class in society (Workers, Capitalists, and Petty-Bougeois, alike!).
August 1st, 2005 at 2:24 am
There seems to be some disagreement here about the role of a consumerist boycott. So, I will add my one and a half cents as usual… not that anyone cares what I have to say but I like seeing my name in print…
Personally, I do not see what an individually based consumerist boycott’s effect would be. What is the outcome that you are looking for?
In real terms:
1. Where else is there for the poor to shop for goods that is not propping up capitalist enterprises that pay minimum wages?
2. What mass organization can call for such a boycott that would actually have either a significant propagandistic or real economic impact on the company enough for the capitalists to change the running of the company?
(I should say,before I go on, that I try not to shop at large department stores either but mostly because I do not like the “atmosphere” and I rarely need anything from WalMart…)
I think that the only time a consumerist boycott is useful is if the workers at the store are calling for a boycott. If the workers call for a boycott of the store because they think this will add to their power to force the company to give concessions then this is useful. However, simply boycotting the store as an individual will have little to no impact on the process for “transitional” demands (in this case, I assume the “transitional demand” is concessions for wages, worker organization, anti-discrimination policies enforced, etc.).
The analysis here is not whether the boycott is a useful tool in and of itself but, instead how it can be used as a useful tool to gain “transitional” demands.
This is a “Trotskyist” analysis but I think that it applies in most analysis of boycotts use by the
“left”. Simply boycotting one capitalist enterprise for another might lead to smaller businesses doing better (this might seem better). However, from the point of view of the worker it might be easier getting concessions out of a larger corporation than a smaller business because of the nature of current capitalist markets at the micro-economic scale (Fluctuations in the local markets and the like can force the (unorganized/un-unionzed) workers to give concessions more often in smaller companies that do not have the large amounts of capital supporting them). Not sure if this holds for corporations like WalMart but it does for large manufacturing companies. This type of action to gain transitional concessions must also be balanced with the larger scale demands of the working classes, so it will depend on the nature of the overall struggle whether or not unionization of WalMart is a good demand. However, right now it looks like it is the best choice for the workers there.
(On a side note: This is much like dealing with the boycotting of elections. It really is only useful if it is called for by the mass workers’ parties as a strategy for making a statement about worker power and solidarity against the “capitalist democratic” process. It is only called for when there is sufficient organization on the level of the working classes and only when making a statement can have a larger impact than voting for the party that will allow the working classes to maintain or gain concessions the best.)
August 1st, 2005 at 2:51 am
Neil,
you’re missing my point about consumers- they are not revolutionary body. workers on the other hand (which of course do consume- but you and i both know i wasn’t implying that they don’t consume) have a revolutionary potential as they stand in opposition to capitalism. your comment about unions having,
“done a great job getting workers ahead in the struggle against Wal-Mart! (facetious statement) So have the young revolutionaries of our time.”
shows a smug arrogence of someone content to engage the class struggle from an armchair position (please refrain from pointing out ‘hypocasy’ or something as a counter to my comment we both no it doesn’t change what i’m saying about your involvement in the movement). you’ve managed ‘to sum up’ the real life and death struggle these people are engaged in only in ‘a few sentences’. however, I caution you as a comrade don’t mock workers for trying to fight against their capitalist exploiters. It is not an easy struggle, the question to be asked is where is our energy best used? in an individual (or other) boycott, or in the unions- where workers are already engaging themselves in militancy against capital. please no more finger wagging!
ps. i acidentally submitted a comment as Anonymous which starts: “a consumer movement…” i do not support the argument of the first speaker.
August 1st, 2005 at 2:56 am
hehehe, sorry that should read “(please refrain from pointing out ‘hypocrisy’ or something…” shame on me for not proofreading…
August 1st, 2005 at 5:56 am
I have no intention of pointing out hypocrisy or mocking workers. I know I’m not actively engaged enough in workers’ struggle, but I’m not going to try to pretend that I am either.
I guess I’ll just retreat to my half-cocked, progressive arm-chair for now (that is humour, not cheap shotting), but let’s be honest right now, avoiding any people made of straw or sophists (more humour - text just doesn’t do it well). None of us (you folks know who I mean by “none of us”) are nearly as engaged as we should be, and when pointing to the lack of “practice” in groups like the Spartacists, etc, we don’t really have any ground to stand on. In this light, we are hypocrits. Okay, so I lied about pointing out hypocrisy… but I pointed out my own, as well.
I had something else, but I forgot what it was now. It probably doesn’t matter too much, anyway. I concede my stance on boycotts. Except, I’m still not shopping at Wal-Mart (I hate it there! And their stuff sucks - but that’s the point isn’t it - planned obselescence.).
But Chris, what is the following supposed to mean? “you’ve managed ‘to sum up’ the real life and death struggle these people are engaged in only in ‘a few sentences’.”
I agree with Graham, though, about the boycott of elections. And not caring about contemporary politics (for apathy or any other reason), I think, is not an adequate excuse to not vote… and yada yada, I don’t feel like saying more about this right now… I’ve lost the will to say more, my head hurts and I’m hungry.
(Sorry for my bitter tone… haven’t had a great week, and my weekend wasn’t that impressive since it’s the first time I’ve had two days off in a row in three weeks and my brain is suffering the impacts of my first night off… probably why I couldn’t think straight through my first post.)
August 1st, 2005 at 9:41 am
Firstly, who’s pretending? Secondly, you are simply rehashing points *already* made by other comrades at the last MRG and agreed upon by the group. As concerns the Spartacists: Do they lack a practical element? How can you support this claim? Furthermore, I do not think that it is sufficient to say “be practical”, or “we are not sufficiently practical.” How is anyone to achieve anything without a proper theoretical framework and proper policies? The issue of the boycott is a good example of this. Of course many other questions can be raised in relation to “praxis”.
August 1st, 2005 at 12:44 pm
I don’t know if the Spartacists lack a sufficient practical element or not, because I have not been able to see or not see what activities they are engaged in; but there seems to be a lot of talk about groups that do and groups that don’t have adequate practical applications of theory, and the Sparts are one of the groups that came up. It was merely an example, and the first one that came to mind.
Having a proper theoretical framework is necessary, but at the same time pointless if not used to do anything. I think we all already realize this, and it has now just come down to useless online bickering (at least if feels like bickering to me when we do this).
I already know my framework is not strong enough, because I haven’t kept up with all the reading, and with my current situation this summer, I have a continued lack of motivation to engage in many intellectual pursuits (I spend much of my free time watching movies and/or boozing), such as doing the appropriate reading.
August 1st, 2005 at 2:04 pm
If you and/or anyone else is interested, we could meet to discuss key theoretical issues and attempt to relate them to praxis. I know if one is working full-time graveyard shifts, it is difficult to get motivated to do anything. I was also in such a situation a couple years ago and remember how difficult it was. In any case, we should continue to work to create a “culture” (forgive the loose meaning) of revolutionary politics (theoretical and practical). Would you be able/willing to replace some of your movie time with engaging dialogue on a regular basis? If anyone else is interested, email me: geoffm[at]sdf.lonestar.org
August 1st, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Neil,
my comment was not personal:“you’ve managed ‘to sum up’ the real life and death struggle these people are engaged in only in ‘a few sentences’.”
it was meant to point out that your comment about unions doing a ‘great job’ seemed to me to be rather arrogant and sarcastic (fogive me please if you weren’t being sarcastic). unions and workers throughout North America are engaged in ruthless struggle against Walmart. it sounded like you were belittling them. It also sounded like a ‘thought-stopper’, ie. a statement meant to shut down debate or consideration of a topic. for instance ‘unions have done a really great job’ i assume (correct me if i misread you) is supposed to be taken as an indication as to the ineptitude of following a strategy based around working within unions (with workers) to make political economic changes.
anyway, perhaps this forum isn’t the best one for dialogue on political issues like this. face to face discussions seems to clear up ambiguity of language and facilitate pleasant conversation. Personally I would rather talk to you about these things off of the internet setting. We seem to be caught in some sort of antagonistic bickering (for lack of a better word) which i don’t think is conducive to learning.
August 1st, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Geoff, be careful about putting your email address complete on a website, because data trackers might pick it up and you’ll start getting unexpected junkmail, which is such a pain in the butt (kinda like me :D). (I now get junkmail ALL THE TIME at my UNB account from having my address on the Youth Environmental Symposium webpage… argh!!). I don’t know if you’ve seen it done this way, but something like: geoffm[at]sdf[dot]lonestar[dot]org (just one way of doing it). Perhaps Graham can edit this??
I think we’ve reached the end point of this argument. I’ve found out where I went wrong, and we can try to resolve some other issues (as Geoff’s latest post indicates) in person. We all seem to feel it works much better in person.
About your comment though Chris (”you’ve managed…”): I simply did not know what it refered to, but thank you for pointing it out. Since it points to my statement (”union have done a great job”), and we are aware of the debate (agreement?) we’ve had about the contemporary progress (can’t think of a better word right now) of unions, and Chris has deduced properly what I meant. Union struggle has diminished, they are conceding to demands far too often lately (except for some notable exceptions - e.g. the crisis in Vancouver, or the mill workers that have been on strike in Miramichi since December, but I’m less aware of what’s going on in Mir. right now)
I’ve pondered (at work, when I have all kinds of time to ponder when cleaning the produce section at the Super Store… it takes about three hours and I’m by myself the whole time, so it is a good time to ponder random things and listen to music on my mom’s portable cd player :D…) that perhaps we need to develop a strategy based around our culture. We have somewhat done this, but I don’t think we have perhaps developed it enough, and perhaps not broad enough; i.e. engage workers directly, but also engage the unions or become involved with the unions to help encourage more engagement among workers.
There is definitely a downside to the second part, that being that workers must be willing to engage the unions at the same time. I think this is where a two-part strategy could come in (engaging workers directly to engage the appropriate union, and working with unions to make sure they are willing and prepared to help the workers). This is maybe a little more on topic with the present article (Organize Wal-Mart).
—
Something separate: Geoff, I forgot to ask in my email what you do in the mornings, or particular mornings, as to get together and discuss/address praxis, strategy, developing (my) adequate theoretical framework. Perhaps you could respond to this, too, Chris, since you could be involved in this (as long as neither are too busy).
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:32 am
Okay, so a “personal boycott” obviously is the wrong direction to go, since it doesn’t raise any class consciousness (I don’t know why I was so dumb and missed that the first time around!). I’ll skip “mass” boycotts for now, because that was pretty much address by Graham.
However, how does a personal boycott “affirm” capitalism? Is it the individualization of the activity or is it something more?
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:47 am
It affirms it insofar as it works within its boundaries and does not push its limits. It works within the “rules”, thereby “affirming” it.
August 2nd, 2005 at 9:47 am
Okay. I get it. Thanks!
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Well, I still don’t get it. I wrote the original comment, so in light of the discussion that has arrived, I would like to clarify my concerns, and motives for making that comment. I mean, I like the Idea of organized labour, but with walmart, I think we have a bigger problem.
It seems I have four separate comments, and none of them are very well writen, but if you can bare with me:
1. Organsed labour in neccessary jobs is one thing. Organised labour at walmart is something completly different. Walmart is a monstrous machine, designed to encourage worker exploitation on a scale far greator than its own internal work force. Shoping at walmart afrirms walmarts right to exist. Working at walmart affirms walmarts right to exist. Even if you are a unionzied worker. And under no cercumstances, do I see any need in this world for an entity such as walmart.
The scale of Walmarts coruption is clearly larger than the exploitation of its work force. Think of the local economies were destroyed by walmart. Think of the supliers from which walmart purchases goods. Walmart always buys from the lowest bidder, directlt encouraging worker exploitation in countless other companies and contries. ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/inside.html )
So my question is: could you gauruntee that a unionized work force at walmart would care about the right of the workers in companies that suply goods to walmart? Would unionised workers care about the local economies in which walmart stores were situated? Even if these unionized workers did want to do something, it seems to me that any attempt at modifying the Walmart business model would destroy the foundation of walmarts empire, and thus cause them to loose there jobs?
Therefor, it seems to me that even a Unionized worker at walmart, would have a deep conflict of interest, provided one of there interest was keeping there job at walmart.
2. I think you underestimate certain emerging organizational powers that could actually form a boycot that could put very well tople walmart. What is this emerging organization power? … It is the very same power that alows walmart themselves to organize. Information Technology. Walmart is as big as it is, because it was the first to exploit technologies to be able to manage comodity transactions on a massive scale.
The same technology is avaialable for us, not simply as a workforce, not simply as consumers, but as human beings, to catalog our own resources with the same effeciency as walmrt does. That is, we can keep track of every purchase we make, not just as individuals, but as a comunity. (Give me one year, and I can put this technology in a 99$ device you can keep in your pocket. Give me 2 years, I’ll do it for 25$. 5 years, 99 cents.)
It is possible for us to use this data to model the flow of wealth, and thus make it abundantly clear where our money is best spent to encourage transitory steps to a better world, and allow comunities to activly direct wealth localy, towards imporoving the life of comunities, and away from centralised, unacountable, and easily corruptable entaties.
3. One more question, why is “class consiousness” necessary for a revolution? It seems to me that this oversimplifies things way to much. The porblem with the world is not ignoance of class, but ignorance in general.
4. Now humbly, I could be very wrong about all this. So, if you could recomend one book that might help begin to enlighten me concerning the ignorance revealed in my questions and comments, what would it be. Thanks.
August 2nd, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Hi J.P.,
Your request does not ammount to an inconsiderable task; not because there isn’t a plethora of literature dealing with these problems, but that you want us to recommend a singal book.
Firstly, though, I feel it necessary to clarify that my position on the boycott is based on a wide range of theoretical premises, of which you have not yet been informed. These premises are the result of a large study, the skeletal of which I would be more than happy to share in a personal discussion.
With your above post in mind, please grant me the leisure of recommending a couple introductory texts for study, which deal with some of the problems emerging from your above post:
- Wage Labour and Capital, by Marx
- The Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Marx & Engels
Both of these texts are available online at the MIA (www.marxists.org).
Again — and I can’t emphasize this enough — we can deal with these issues much more swiftly in person.
In solidarity.