Some months ago in Econ class, the discussion turned to various kinds of ownership (private, State, collective etc.). I generally argued for as cooperative a system of management as possible, but I did speak out against “a mass-collectivization program like Stalin did with the farms.” At this point, a guy previously unknown to me spoke up and said ”Hey, you shouldn’t criticize Stalin. That’s just way out of line.” My professor smiled amiably and changed the subject. To the minimum wage, and how big companies like Wal-Mart pay their employees very little even though they can afford much more. This elicited another cry of protest from Party Comrade, who vehemently defended Wal-Mart and their low wages.
Later, I asked around to see if that guy was kidding. No, apparently he really does like both old Joe Stalin and Wal-Mart.
I asked myself; how could this be? How could someone idealize Soviet Russia in its worst years and a huge multinational corporation? Then I realized: they’re not so different.
Stalin (independent of his sheer brutality) had a definite economic system. It entailed the entire economy of the USSR geared towards a set of well-defined and pre-set goals set one or even five years in advance. They would produce a certain number of cars, a certain tonnage of steel, a certain amount of grain etc. All industry was concentrated together, and all orders came from the ‘Supreme Soviet’ – that is, the Kremlin. There would be no local control and no deviation from the script.
This ‘central planning’ or ‘scientific socialism’ was, in fact, instrumental in helping Russia become an industrial power, but it proved clumsy and unworkable, considering (among other things) the size of the Soviet empire and the logistical impossibilities that entailed. America, for its part, prided itself on its culture of independent businesses and entrepreneurship.
Now, however, things have changed. At the time of Teddy Roosevelt’s ‘trust-busting’, five companies controlled 55% of the US meat industry. Now, three companies control 80% of it. Microsoft has a stranglehold on the software industry and laughs in the face of the DOJ. Chain stores, ‘big-box’ outlets, and all-purpose megastores are taking up a larger and larger part of the American economy and driving small businesses to extinction. Wal-Mart, with annual revenues of $218 billion, or about 2.5% of total GDP, is simply the biggest.
So… a small collection of incredibly huge, unelected, all-powerful cartels with top-down management controlling our economy and reacting with total indifference to the needs of their workers? Sounds like Stalinism to me.
8 comments:
Excellent point but I must quibble a little bit.This the degree to which Stalinist Soviet Union reflected the components of true socialism as described by it's many theorists, including Marx.At the point where an unaccountable State bureaucracy,rather than the collective working class ,owned all the means of production it resembled more a monopolist State corporatism.I know I sound like an apologist but I really think the case can be made. As to todays "free market" ,you are correct in pointing out it's State corporatist attributes.But again it lacks that crucial element of worker control.
Than again, maybe it's just cheaper to go to Wallmart.
Your classmate is bonkers, to be sure, but I have to say that your statement, "Stalin, independent of brutality..." That's a bit like saying, "The bird, aside from its feathers..."
I think the linking of WalMart and Uncle Joe is a stretch. Yes, the urge to amass centralized control is there, but that's about it.
I don't mean to trivialize the enormity of Stalin's crimes, but if you are going to analyze him from a purely economic standpoint, you have to push them aside as much as possible. At least for now..
"I think the linking of WalMart and Uncle Joe is a stretch. Yes, the urge to amass centralized control is there, but that's about it."
That 'it' is pretty damn important; it was the whole basis for the Soviet economy for decades. If supporters of neo-liberalism really supported the 'free market' and 'fair competition' they'd be up in arms about this kind of thing.
Perhaps the biggest parallel is that both enrich Communist states.
Loyal:
I don't want to split hairs, but I don't think there is a "purely economic standpoint." That's a fiction of "liberal" economics. I'm old fashioned - prefer "political economy."
Trans-ient, the true costs of products at Wal-Mart my be externalized to such a degree they are not reflected in the price of a commodity.If the food has been subsidized, tax payers are sharing the cost.If the environment has been harmed in production, future generations are sharing that cost, if labor is being exploited, the costs may show up in degraded social conditions such as the effects of poverty and unemployment.ETC..
For there to be a "free market" consumers would have to have all this information, forcing prices to reflect cost.
Troutsky - "For there to be a "free market" consumers would have to have all this information, forcing prices to reflect cost."
I thought the "free market" ignored long-term and intangible costs. If Walmart is damning themselves by destroying the environment, so be it. The true free market allows companies to act irresponsibly and/or short-sided. Such is the nature of the beast.
As for the comparison, Loyal: as long as there are at least some other stores to go to, Walmarts market-share, though powerful is not monopolistic. And that is what I see as the major difference between "uncle Joe" and Walmart. In short, it's a difference of scale, but to such an extent as to minimize the connection.
Interesting post though.
Post a Comment