sociology paper over karl marx and wal mart
Introduction
It seems as if every generation in our nation’s history has had one or more events that have tested their determination and ability to come together as a cohesive unit; the reaction that the event inspired in the individuals has come to define the core group that went through it for decades to come. When looking back in time at, for example, the past 100 years, there are cohorts of individuals who have dealt with any one/combination of four wars, a depression, presidential assassinations, terrorist attacks, and various economic crises, somehow managing to pick up the pieces and rebuild a part of society whenever necessary. One thing that you cannot take away from the American people, regardless of what era of people you are discussing, is that they have a propensity to band together when the going gets rough and find a way to dig themselves out of whatever hole they may be in at the time.
Our nation is currently in the midst of one of those cohort-defining activities, as the economic crisis of the past few years has caused some pundits to use the dreaded d-word (depression) in terms of describing the potential next few years that we’re going to have to go through. With bailout after bailout to have to appropriate money to, millions of people losing their jobs every day, and even more losing their homes, it looks as if there will be no easy way out of this mess, mostly due to the fact that America has slowly been moving away toward its (working class) citizens and becoming somewhat of an economic oligarchy. In times of economic struggle, the prices of gas (especially during the always tumultuous hurricane season) and food have skyrocketed to all time peaks; while they have been deflating for the past couple of months, the fact does not change that there was some intense price gouging going on from the corporations in order to take advantage of the population’s weakened emotional and financial states. That is to say that the focus of American society is no longer on the middle class worker (despite president after president promising to “lift the burden” off of the working class) and has moved toward the corporation and the bourgeoisie that are in charge of it. With the Gini Index (the measure of income discrepancy between the top 20th percentile, the next 20th percentile, etc.) at its highest yet (meaning the gap between the rich and the poor is at its zenith and widening with each passing day) and the dynamics of laissez-faire economics coming into question, this is the time when plans are made, solutions are put into place, and we determine where we are going to be some years from now.
Wal Mart
Though we are considered to be in an economic recession at the moment, there is one corporation that can be considered the cockroach of the business world, as it has the capabilities of surviving even the most nuclear of market conditions. It is the second largest entity in the country aside from the federal government, with annual sales higher than the gross domestic product of at least 161 countries (Rosoff, Pontell, and Tillman, 2007). Wal Mart would be considered to be one of the most notorious corporations in America today, if not the world; while the company itself would stress its family friendly image and the extreme low prices that have helped many a working class family survive on a week-to-week basis, there is another side to Wal Mart that most do not see. It takes place away from the bright, shiny advertisements and it does not get as much press as the “rollback prices” that Wal Mart likes to tout itself as having. Wal Mart is known for having one of the worst labor relations policies in the country, which has slowly become common knowledge thanks to the media. When the problem became too widespread for even the most pro-corporate media outlets to handle, the information that many average people did not know about slowly began leaking.
Other Problems with Wal Mart
When looking at Wal Mart, one cannot help but notice the sheer volume of gender discrimination lawsuits, based on the lack of upward mobility for women in the country and the pay discrepancies that have been going on for many years. Wal Mart has an extremely low number of women in management positions, as well as a low amount of minority representation at its upper ranks; while this is certainly not anything too unusual in the white-washed corporate boardrooms of America, but Wal Mart’s racism/sexism is not only much more apparent due to the exposure the corporation has but also the fact that the workers affected have been able to band together and collectively sue Wal Mart like no other work force. In fact, Wal Mart is currently facing the largest discrimination lawsuit in history, which is one of their largest legal stumbling blocks at the moment. Irony, huh?
Not only has Wal Mart had a lot of problems with their employee relations, but they have continually been accused of plotting to run mom-and-pop shops out of town and gaining a monopoly on the town’s economy; this generally occurs in smaller towns, as the lack of available retail resources and the less active economy leads people to search for the biggest discount/deal they can find, which is what Wal Mart tends to provide for them, though at a terrible price. In Marx’s words, Wal Mart’s dismantling of the mom-and-pop store has caused them to “melt into air”; take a look at any town with a Wal Mart and most of the time, the Wal Mart is going to be the centerpiece of the town (Arpi, 2006). While the consumers get low prices and are able to afford more items, the economy becomes extremely stagnant and dependent upon Wal Mart for just about every necessity. After driving out the mom-and-pop shops, the small town economy becomes one dimensional and in addition, those low prices are all the consumers can afford, which keeps the dirty cycle of Wal Mart bargain shopping on a permanent repeat. This does not only include American workers; as with most companies nowadays, Wal Mart has factories that are based in other countries, mostly to avoid various sanctions (environmental, social, etc.) that would be placed on them if they had kept their factory in the states. Even in other countries, Wal Mart is full of “low wages and stifling practices” that prevent a country from growing (Schils, 2008). Consider how Wal Mart treats a small town on a grander scheme; to be in, for example, Mexico with a Wal Mart would be like a small town expanded into an entire country.
According to a study from 1992-2000 concerning the expansion of Wal Mart, a new Wal Mart opening in your community could guarantee other retail workers in the community a 0.5%-0.9% wage decrease (Jacobs, 2008). In addition, other workers can expect between 1%-1.5% of wage creases with the introduction of a new Wal Mart (Jacobs, 2008). This shows that while Wal Mart can bring positives to a community (i.e. increased traffic, new jobs), the negatives are often long-term and much more severe.
Another problem with Wal Mart is how anti-union they have been; though a lot of their concepts are technically within the boundaries of the law (Wal Mart has a history of walking a fine line in cases like this), they tend to diminish worker’s right and create a hostile work environment, as is the case with a lot of white-collar crime (Pier and Ganesan, 2007). Wal Mart not only threatens workers with potential termination (hinting that every employee in the store is “replaceable”) but they tend to use their aggressive tactics in order to help keep out unions, be it hiring those who are deemed “weaker willed” that others or whatever the situation may call for (Pier and Ganesan, 2007). There is also a Wal Mart special task force that is designed specifically for problems concerning the formation of unions. The job of the special task force is to defuse any potentially harmful situation and to make sure to not give into the demands for a union; while they have been known to make certain concessions, rare if ever is the case that shows the task force giving into the demands of the workers and helping to create a union. Should this occur, the executives of the company have their ways of making sure the union either disbands through the breakdown of interpersonal relationships or has no real leverage in the company itself.
The Major Concepts of Karl Marx
Karl Marx is one of the more polarizing figures in sociological theory; the type of vitriol that he seems to inspire is astonishing, as his promotion of the concept of communism seems to be too much for most to be able to get past. Despite the obvious differences between what Karl Marx defined as communism and how communism has been practiced in the past, Marx has been blacklisted, so to speak, in a lot of economic and societal discussions, his contributions invalidated due to a seeming sense of superiority from those opposed to his teachings. This does not stop some of his more key concepts from not only being socially relevant to this day; in this time of economic downturn, more and more people have been turning to Marx’s thoughts in order to not only better understand the current situation we’re undergoing but to try and find solutions from someone that we have not listened to as much as we need to in order to have a successful economy.
Karl Marx introduced the concepts of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat into the economic lexicon and they have become the concepts he is most known for. Originally a 16th century French term for the body of urban freemen, the bourgeoisie refers to the “capitalist class”; they own the means of production and are in a significantly higher part of the societal hierarchy than the proletariats, mostly due to the inverse relationship between the amount of members in their class and the amount of capital to which they have control (Marshall, 1998). As expected, the proletariat is the opposite of the bourgeoisie; the proletariats (or “working class”) make up most of the general population (the proletariats are much more diverse than the bourgeoisie) yet they don’t have nearly as much control as the bourgeoisie do. The only way in which they can exercise control is by selling their labor; the proletariats do not like the system, as it is not conducive to upward mobility until certain circumstances are met, so they tend to work within the system moreso than the bourgeoisie, especially due to the fact that they don’t have any way of “throwing their weight around”, so to speak.
The bourgeoisie and the proletariat aren’t the only major concepts that Marx popularized. The labor theory of value refers to the value of the product that the proletariat produces being equal to the value of the labor put into it; in a capitalist society, the labor theory of value is violated on a daily basis, especially in modern times. The bourgeoisie are looking for the highest possible differential between the value of the product produced and the value of the labor, which is generally deemed a “surplus” (or profit) and pocketed by said bourgeoisie. The alienation that Marx mentions plays into his concepts of false consciousness and class consciousness; class consciousness is best exemplified by the mentions of those accusing Wal Mart of discrimination. They realized that to make a change, they would have to band together and take on the bourgeoisie, as there is strength in numbers. Anytime the proletariats realize that they are not the powerless class of people who are just resigned to their fates (which is where false consciousness comes into play), this is an example of class consciousness. On the bourgeoisie side of the spectrum, their class consciousness does not exist due to the competitiveness that capitalism instills. In Marx’s eyes, the bourgeoisie aren’t necessarily bad people but they’ve been implanted in a bad system which encourages the type of abuses that a corporation such as, say, Wal Mart has exemplified for decades. Their false consciousness is also exacerbated by the system in which they reside; for the bourgeoisie, their positions are concrete. They feel as if they will never be forced from their economic perch, despite the fact that the constant changing of roles is one of the foundations of the institution of capitalism.
What Would Karl Marx Say About Wal Mart?
Though there wasn’t anything as massive as Wal Mart during Karl Marx’s heyday, he would surely have an opinion on pretty much any aspect of the multinational conglomerate. For starters, Marx would be infuriated at how anti-union Wal Mart seems to be; without the proletariats, there would be no products and therefore no profit, so Marx would see the bourgeoisie as being foolish for burning bridges with their only workforce. Through the unions, Marx would feel that the proletariats are regaining some sense of themselves, letting go of the alienation they have experienced and trying to keep the labor theory of value in tact. Despite said bridges being burned, those same workers will have to continue to work at Wal Mart, due to the effect that the store had on the economy. He would see Wal Mart as a catalyst for the expanding gap between the rich and poor; thanks to the fact that Wal Mart does not pay the type of wages that other stores of its ilk that still retain sizeable profits (i.e. Costco) pay, the workers do not make any real progress. Marx would recognize this. He would be one of the leading activists for better treatment of the workers if he were around today.
Marx would argue that Wal Mart’s practices with its employees are alienating them from their products (either those in the sweatshops are being alienated from the industrial products that they churn out or those who are on the “floor” are alienated from the workplace itself), thus creating cynicism about the company itself and potentially affecting performance. If you are not only alienated from the product, the other workers (Wal Mart likes to pit its workers against one another and make threats that it mostly does not carry out, in order to intimidate potential unionizing as well as stifle those who try to form an uprising), the process of production, or yourself, how is that a positive, healthy work environment? How is that conducive to efficient production? How can that possibly affect the economy in a good way?
Conclusion
Through all of their poor relations and unethical decision-making, Wal Mart has slowly been getting better; the key word being slowly. While things are not at their absolutely worst point these days, there are still legal loose ends to tie up and settlements to make. The conglomerate recently lost one of their key CEOs (Lee Scott), which may be a sign of a different regime to commence; one cannot help but be idealistic about the loss of Scott, despite the fraternity-like comradery that seems to permeate the interaction between today’s corporate heads (as well as the fact that some days it seems like musical chairs between corporations and politics in terms of who is going to lead what). Karl Marx would be pleased to see that Wal Mart is making decent progress toward becoming a more responsible corporation, though the fact that they have been so damaging to their workers (and still continue to oppress them) would be disconcerting. Marx would also appreciate the fact that the media is finally getting ahold of issues like these and making it known; documentaries like “Wal Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices” and various other of its ilk are helping to spread the message that Wal Mart’s tactics are not okay.
If America wants to continue to be the world power that it has become since the New Deal was implemented and the economy made the historic turn around that it did, things are going to have to change, especially considering the corporate domination that has been going on in terms of the marketplace, both in a global and a domestic sense. If President-elect Barack Obama were to take some of Marx’s ideas into consideration when he is making decisions about the economy that could affect a nation for decades (if not centuries), our economy would greatly improve and stability would soon be restored to the free-falling home market as well as the bleak job market. It is obvious that our current system has not been working as well as it possibly could, hence the reason Marx’s concepts could be applied, despite the fact that those who are so vehemently opposed to him still cannot accept the fact that our supposed laissez-faire system of capitalism has gotten us into this mess. Once again, Karl Marx was right.