How does wal-mart destroy small business again?

[The New Yorker]

Many of the communist here in NY use Wal-mart as an example of how capitalism is flawed. They say they destroy small mom and pop stores and such.

So i know you guys got you're theory. So post it bellow and umm happy posting.

[ComradeRed]

It demonstrates the flaw in social darwinism, which is the entire basis of laissez-faire capitalism's justification of lack of state intervention.

[DaCuBaN]

What I want to know, is why any communist would care that small business is being destroyed...

It's capitalism either way, so who gives a monkey's uncle? I think you're getting yourself confused here: Many people here dislike Wal-Mart as they pay their workers fuck all, and always buy the cheapest they can - irregardless.

It's considered to be 'unethical'.

[ComradeRed]

I don't care one way or the other, it just proves laissez-faire wrong.

[The New Yorker]

no no There say things like "wal-mart runs out small business!"

[ComradeRed]

Yes, destroys competition, which doesn't reproduce! That is the fatal flaw in laissez faire!

[Capitalist Imperial]

The success of henry walton is a scapegoat for those bristling with class envy.

[Hegemonicretribution]

The only problem is that it is fast becoming a monopoly. The benifits that Wal-Mart recieves as a result of economies of scale mean that smaller stores cannot compete regardless of quality. As there is more of a market for cheap goods, than for high quality ones, those that truly care are fucked. Not as a result of communism turning everything into a government run fuckup...but by capitalism turning retail into a profit driven force based not on allowing the individual to succeed. Instead allowing the massive firm to determine what people buy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I dislike it because it is what capitalists believe communism would be like (those that don't predict shrtages and low mtivation).

[redstar2000]

The success of henry walton...

Henry?

The bloodsucking bastard's name was SAM Walton.

The Wal-Mart "Business Model" and the American Working Class (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083586725&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Rasta Sapian]

why go to the bank, grocery store, why fix your broken tv, when you can buy one cheaper at your local Walmart, I wonder if they are hiring, the local company i work for is going out of business :(

[Bourgeoisie]

I hate Wal-mart just like the next guy. But the commies should love Wal-mart. They prop up these Chinese slave factorys by buying their crap. Not to mention everyone that works in a Wal-mart gets paid dirt.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 27 2004, 05:18 AM
Many of the communist here in NY use Wal-mart as an example of how capitalism is flawed. They say they destroy small mom and pop stores and such.

So i know you guys got you're theory. So post it bellow and umm happy posting.
Well its very simple.

Big shop, lots of money, can afford to put its prices low.

Small shops cant keep up.

They go bust.

Supermarket wipes out competition.

Capitalism relies upon competition to work.

Thus capitalism = bad.


Simple? I can put it into psudo code as well if you like...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 04:28 AM
It demonstrates the flaw in social darwinism, which is the entire basis of laissez-faire capitalism's justification of lack of state intervention.
When you consider the fact that Darwinism involves the use of predation and force, as opposed to trade, where force is absent, is where this anology starts to fall apart.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 01:43 AM
I hate Wal-mart just like the next guy. But the commies should love Wal-mart. They prop up these Chinese slave factorys by buying their crap. Not to mention everyone that works in a Wal-mart gets paid dirt.
Wal-Mart is a socialist's worse nightmare; a corporation that has almost as much power as they want the government to have. :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 05:55 PM
Capitalism relies upon competition to work.

Thus capitalism = bad.
Why is competition "bad" ?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 31 2004, 01:00 PM
Wal-Mart is a socialist's worse nightmare; a corporation that has almost as much power as they want the government to have. :lol:
It's not a communist's worst nightmare, the communist sees Wal-Mart as the logical culmination of the way capitalism works.

That the corporation can possess as much or more power than the government is something we have recognized for quite a long time.

[inquisitive_socialist]

The fact that walmart exists is a demonstration of why capitalism is flawed. walmart exports production jobs to countries where the average worker is paid 80 cents to a dollar an hour. most people call that slave labor. then, by sellinfg their products at astronomically lower prices, they crush competition by forming a monopoly. communist and socialist despise walmart for its low wages harsh hours and lack of benefits, not because its a government on its own. it may be large but i can tell you fdor a fact that boeing, sikorsky and lockheed- martin have more power than walmart or sams or both.

[ComradeRed]

When you consider the fact that Darwinism involves the use of predation and force, as opposed to trade, where force is absent, is where this anology starts to fall apart. The purpose of social darwinism is, basically, the scapegoat of saying that the best commodities will be made if competition is like that of Darwinism. It is the bourgeois economist's applications of Darwinism to economics as a vain attempt to justify L-F as the "best" economic system.

[apathy maybe]

It is not that small businesses are good. It just that they are not as bad as large businesses.

As to the question, I think Enigma answered that quite well. As to your question of Enigma's answer Moneybags', competition per say isn't bad. It is just that capitalism relies on it, but it also destroys it. So thus, capitalism is bad.

[Hoppe]

What's actually the problem? People pay lower prices at Wall Mart as opposed to going to inefficient expensive smaller shops. Now they can spend what they saved on stupid things like communist activists, painting etc. You should be glad.

[monkeydust]

How does wal-mart destroy small business again?


I can't speak for Wal-Mart, but I know what all the supermarket chains in the UK do. Here's a few reasons why their free market competition is less than fair.

Firstly, they employ "loss leaders" to put out of business smaller local chains competing on a particular product. This means that a supermarket will sell certain products, with local competition, at a loss, making up profits overall by the sale of other products.

A bakery round the corner of your local Supermarket has not the methods for such cross-subsidisation.

Secondly, smaller shops cannot procure taxpayers' money for their endeavours in the way that supermarkets can. The free parking that superstores use is subsidised by everyone in Britain. With an incentive to park next to a supermarket for free, why pay to shop elsewhere?

Finally, Supermarkets have the political clout to "avoid" legislation which smaller chains do not:

David Sainsbury (the former chief exec of Sainsbury's and the richest man in Britain, also a Labour peer) is actually a minister at the department of trade and industry, which oversees competition policy. He's also personally donated £5m to the Labour party (not that you can "buy influence" or anything). His cousin (and chief exec before he), John Sainsbury is also a peer and was Thatcher's most frequent confidant in the 1980s. His brother, Tim Sainsbury even used to be a Conservative MP.

Tesco inhabits no less than six government task forces, including the DTI's Competetiveness Advisory Group. A Tesco executive sits on both the UK Eco-labelling board and on the government's Advisory committee on packaging (alongside a guy from M+S). Andrew Stone, Managing Director of Marks and Spencer, was also made a life peer soon after Labour took office in 1997.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This only accounts for British stores, but, from what I've heard, Wal-mart is considerably worse.