There's a flash movie making the rounds, Mom & Pop vs. Wal-Mart, that I've been meaning to post about. I don't have a sense of humor for such things, especially the raw vulgarity, but many ALP readers have no such inhibitions.
To me, the most interesting part is the end, when Pop comments about people and things entering and leaving the newly remodeled Wal-Mart. The last thing he says is "Ohy, I hate my life," and puts his head in his hands and sobs away. What slice of the North American population does such a sentiment appeal to? The defeated and angry?
Anyway, the co-creator of the flash movie, Cathie Walker, wrote to me that the impetus for the movie was first and foremost that almost everybody on the production team (who make these things for a living) knew or knows somebody who had some problem with Wal-Mart.
Posted by Kevin on August, 31 2005 at 09:56 AM
brandon weber wrote:>his hands and sobs away. What slice of the North American population does such a sentiment appeal to? The defeated and angry?
Yes. Those who lose their good jobs because of Wal-Mart. And those that have to work there.
Seems quite obvious.
Hilarious animation, thanks for posting it.
-- September 1, 2005 07:00 PM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:That sentiment appeals to those down on their luck? Really? How about triumph over difficult circumstances?
-- September 1, 2005 10:34 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>How about triumph over difficult circumstances?
Great in a fantasy world. One person in 10,000 can do that in our capitalist society against a massive machine such as Wal-Mart.
You can dream all you want to, but reality is much more stark. Despite what your Repub leaders are telling you, smiling in the face of absolute horror doesn't always work.
-- September 1, 2005 11:40 PM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:I'm not one to tell people what type of art and entertainment they should enjoy. If a person wants to wallow in sorrow or anger, that's his business. Of course, smiling in the face of horror and desperation won't do a damn thing except make some people feel that you are too proud to ask them for help. But Pop's attitude is pointless as well; how does crying and making snide complaints about other people "work"?
-- September 2, 2005 10:57 AM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>how does crying and making snide complaints about other people "work"?
I agree with you - - my preference would be to show Pops engaging in collective action to fight back the Wal-Mart beast, and succeeding here and there.
But it "works" just as well as any big box coming to small town America and taking out a dozen small family-owned businesses in a heartbeat without giving a damn. All in the name of profit and shareholders.
There has to be a human expression of the grief and sadness from such happenings, commonplace in nearly every town that WM goes into. That is what I identify with more than anything in this cartoon.
Of course, I know that capitalism doesn't have time for human emotions or small town tradtions. The dollar supercedes all of that.
-- September 2, 2005 11:35 PM ∞
Andrew wrote:Brandon,
Why no contempt for the small-town America consumers who decide to take their dollars and spend them at Wal-Mart instead of at "mom n' pop's"? Wal-Mart doesn't shut down their competitors; consumers do it by deciding not to shop with them anymore.
Does your emotional calculus take into account the happiness of those consumers who can stretch their budget further at Wal-Mart or only the sadness of those retailers who lose market share to Wal-Mart?
-- September 7, 2005 08:29 AM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>Does your emotional calculus take into account >the happiness of those consumers who can >stretch their budget further at Wal-Mart or >only the sadness of those retailers who lose >market share to Wal-Mart
"My" emotional calculus really amounts to nothing since I had nothing to do with the cartoon in question. I simply agree with a lot of it.
And, as has been evidenced very clearly and disturbingly for quite a while now, those who buy stuff only on their own self-interests are cannibalizing all future generations to be selfish motherfuckers who can't even concieve of anybody else in the world. Who gives a shit if buying from Wal-Mart helps to drag the rest of the world down in wages and working conditions? Again, the "conservative" mindset of "I've got mine, and tough shit if YOU don't" rears its ugly head.
-- September 10, 2005 10:57 PM ∞
Andrew wrote:>> Does your emotional calculus take into account
>> the happiness of those consumers who can stretch
>> their budget further at Wal-Mart or only the
>> sadness of those retailers who lose market share
>> to Wal-Mart
> "My" emotional calculus really amounts to
> nothing since I had nothing to do with the
> cartoon in question. I simply agree with a lot
> of it.So your answer is "No"?
Ask the "rest of the world" that makes the stuff that Wal-Mart sells if they prefer working in factories and getting paid what they get paid (which is more likely than not higher than what they'd be getting paid in a non-factory job) or if they'd rather return to breaking their backs on farms.
-- September 12, 2005 01:19 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>Ask the "rest of the world" that makes the >stuff that Wal-Mart sells if they prefer >working in factories and getting paid what they >get paid (which is more likely than not higher >than what they'd be getting paid in a non->factory job) or if they'd rather return to >breaking their backs on farms.
Actually, we CAN'T ask them. If they told us the truth, they'd lose their jobs, possibly be tortured/shot.
THAT is Capitalism at its finest! Something tells me if Wal-Mart could pull that off, it would be thrilled to death. We were nearly there in this country before unions and a social conscience started working their magic.
And if the right-wing has its way here in the US in our time, we'll be back there shortly.
Do you want fries with that?
-- September 12, 2005 09:20 PM ∞
Andrew wrote:So your assertion is that those who work to supply the goods that Wal-Mart sells are forced to do so at gunpoint and don't willingly take those jobs?
I suppose that there is a disagreement over the term "capitalism". I take it to mean a free market in which Wal-Mart can no more force someone to work for them (what you and I both would condemn) than someone can force Wal-Mart to give them a job (which I suspect you would consider some form of "social justice" or some other such statist drivel).
-- September 12, 2005 10:46 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>So your assertion is that those who work to >supply the goods that Wal-Mart sells are forced >to do so at gunpoint and don't willingly take >those jobs?
Just a teaser:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Workers in six countries filed a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on Tuesday, claiming the world's largest retailer overlooks sweatshop conditions at toy and clothing factories from China to Nicaragua.
The suit, filed in California state court in Los Angeles, lists as plaintiffs 15 workers in Bangladesh, Swaziland, Indonesia, China and Nicaragua. They claim they were paid below minimum wage, forced to work unpaid overtime and in some cases even endured beatings by supervisors.-- September 13, 2005 10:48 PM ∞
Andrew wrote:If the allegations are true, I would hope that Wal-Mart takes a hard look at these suppliers and demand that they stop handing out beatings to workers, who presumably still have the freedom to quit their jobs and not face down a firing squad.
This still doesn't prove your allegation that Wal-Mart would "love" to be able to execute any employee that is disatisfied with their employment.
By the way, labor conditions in this country were already improving before labor unions reached significant numbers and lobbied the government for special protections.
-- September 19, 2005 09:19 AM ∞
brandon weber wrote:Andrew said:
"This still doesn't prove your allegation that Wal-Mart would "love" to be able to execute any employee that is disatisfied with their employment."Here's what I actually wrote:
"If they told us the truth, they'd lose their jobs, possibly be tortured/shot. "
"Something tells me if Wal-Mart could pull that off, it would be thrilled to death."
Of course, there is no way to PROVE that they would or wouldn't do such. But it does fit their model of treating employees.
-- September 19, 2005 05:21 PM ∞
Andrew wrote:The article you linked seems to indicate that those workers receiving beatings weren't Wal-Mart employees, but employees of a company or companies that sell to Wal-Mart. Big difference.
-- September 19, 2005 10:14 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>but employees of a company or companies that sell to Wal-Mart. Big difference.
So it's JUSTIFIED that Wal-Mart buys from suppliers who beat employees? Because it's not really them?
Are you insane?
-- September 21, 2005 12:35 AM ∞
Andrew wrote:No Brandon, I'm not insane. If you care to re-read what I wrote, I already stated that I hope Wal-Mart demands that those suppliers stop the practice (if the allegations turn out to be true). I haven't, however, jumped to the conclusion that Wal-Mart is operating with full knowledge that its suppliers are using violence against their employees on a regular basis.
-- September 26, 2005 11:03 AM ∞
