A tale of two companies


Leah and I went to see Michael Moore’s movie about Capitalism last night in Austin. As you might expect, the movie will not be showing in small town Texas. Attending the show became worthy of a story in and of itself. We arrived late but were able to park near the entrance to the 14 screen theater complex because there were almost no cars in the parking lot. A single security guard stood in front of the facility; he looked to be a bored off-duty policeman earning a few bucks on the side. A sign at the ticket booth said, buy tickets inside.

All but one set of doors at the entrance were locked. Two employees stood behind the refreshment counter. One sold us tickets and then moved over to sell us popcorn and a soft drink. Between the cost of admission and our refreshments the toll came to $37.

We went into the theater to discover the entire place contained only five people. And it wasn’t just Moore’s movie that had failed to draw a crowd; the whole place was deserted. Of course it was a Monday night, but nevertheless... We’re talking a movie complex valued around 10 million bucks or so, right off of Interstate-35 on a piece of prime Austin real estate, and it’s empty.

The movie was a mixed bag. Moore, like so many others of left-leaning orientation does a good job in identifying the evils in this world. But I think part of the point that he’d have us to believe—that capitalism is the real culprit—and that somehow good honest American citizens are the innocent victims here doesn’t ring true to me.

As we were leaving the theater I began thinking about this company I had watched grow during my life. The company instituted a profit sharing plan that guaranteed a decent retirement for anyone that stayed with the company; they provided health insurance, paid decent wages, stressed company loyalty, going both ways, up and down the ladder. They favored well-made American made products.

Then I thought about this other company. This company paid horrible wages, moved people from full time jobs into part time status to avoid having to provide worker benefits. Cut-throat product acquisition teams beat producers out of potential profits to the fraction of a penny and scoured the world for the cheapest prices available without concern over the conditions under which products were created or the compensation that workers received for their labor.

Both companies are the product of capitalism. In fact these two companies are one and the same: Wal-Mart, before and after Sam Walton’s death.

I also think back to people of my generation, of the period in the sixties and early seventies, the awakening period, Strauss and Howe would call it. I remember back-to-earth hippie drop-outs I knew, smoking grass, getting back to nature, caring for the environment, eschewing the drive to make more money, be rich and the idea of surrounding themselves with creature comforts and trappings of wealth. Others that weren’t hippies still weren’t worried about jobs or overly concerned about how they’d make money. They listened to music and sought ways to enjoy life. They weren’t driven.

I remember revisiting these people in the 80’s. The hair was cut and styled, the hippy clothes were now business suits; they now carried brief cases. They’d moved to suburbs, had big new houses and a couple of brand new cars. They’d given up pot for cocaine and coffee, perhaps pharmaceuticals as well so they could sleep at night, and they were on the point for ways to make money any and every way possible. They had joined the establishment they once railed against.

For those of you just a few years younger than I, you missed seeing these changes. You came of age during the unraveling. Take my word for it. Something happened and we the people, virtually all of us, made a turn for the worse. I don’t know why or how, I just know it happened.

Capitalism is by design a system that entails unequal wealth distribution, but when people are compassionate, the effects of capitalism can and are mitigated by charity and good will. Socialism, in theory, seems the fairer way of dividing wealth, but in real practice can be and is corrupted by those of bad intent. Someone has to be in charge of the distribution of wealth; privilege and favor can and will be sold by corrupt officials. I tend to believe socialism disincentivises people, but that’s not the point of this article.

Problems with each of these systems begin with the individual. But individuals are not immune to the prevailing tides of an era. The hyperindividualism of the 80’s and the 90’s combined with a loss of social conscience destroyed this nation, and other nations as well, some which call themselves socialist. The wave affected people from three eras, those of the silent generation, boomers and Gen-Xers. Boomers probably deserve credit as the worst of the worst, but that’s just because Gen-Xers didn’t have the opportunities we did due to the stage of life they happened to be in when the unraveling began. They hadn’t yet achieved positions of power and control.

Laying all the blame on capitalism oversimplifies the condition and the state of affairs we now encounter. Notice I did not say problem, because problems entail solutions and we have no solutions for the ills that beset us.

You can’t vote it away. You can’t tweak the rules. We didn’t follow the rules we had and we won’t follow the new rules until we reap what we have sown and come to understand the consequences of the choices we have made.

A period of crisis is upon us and will be for a number of years to come. It is going to hurt like hell. It may kill a bunch of us. But the crisis is the cure.

Accept it and learn from it. Or die a fool. That choice is yours.


Don October 13, 2009 - 10:39pm
( categories: USA: E-Voting )

with WalMart itself.

What goodness and morality was in the early WalMart was in Sam Walton, and it died with him. The instant the corporation was no longer guided by Sam's own morality, imported from an external value system, it did what one would expect: it abandoned the principles and went on the hunt.

Capitalism contains no morality; it is, quite precisely, amoral. Capital behaves morally when it is constrained to do so, either by law or by morality imported from external value systems, such as the beliefs of its founder. Corporations are effectively immortal, and often outlive both their founders and the morality they imported, leaving behind nothing but a consuming machine.

A tiger in a cage isn't a good tiger before it breaks free and chews someone's neck and a bad tiger after. There's no right and wrong here - it's a tiger. Once outside a sturdy cage it kills things and eats them when it can - that's what tigers do. It might give the sentimental impression of being a good tiger when it's under external control, and a bad tiger when it's free to act as it wishes. But it's just a tiger.

The early WalMart was just a tiger in the sturdy but ultimately temporary cage of Sam Walton's morality. Maybe he even heard it growling once in a while and shuddered.

I've got nothing against tigers, I'm just strongly in favor of extremely sturdy cages.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch October 14, 2009 - 1:46am

and to be sure, he adopted socialistic ideas into the model he created. But he wasn't alone. There was a time, as Moore's movie points out, that companies like GM and others also provided safe working conditions, decent health insurance and retirement benefits.

To be sure, these were hard fought for concessions in most cases. In Walton's case, I don't think so. He was the product of another era--the GI generation. They had lived through a crisis and learned valuable lessons from it--that no man is an island and that we thrive or fail as a group. They had an innate sense of community. It has been lost on subsquent generations.

I could also argue that Socialism is doomed to failure and corruption if you look at the track record of countries that have tried to implement it. Some of the most repressive societies ever created bore the socialist label. (Graft ruled--payoffs and bribes required to do anything. No dissent allowed. Etc.)

America at her best was a hybrid between the two ideologies, but rules are of no use if people don't follow them. Compliance was largely voluntary. At some point we decided not to comply any longer.

The idea that a government can somehow force morality or compassion on a people is doomed to failure. It's like telling a child not to do drugs or have sex.

But the child doesn't learn until they've tried and harvested the fruit of their actions.

Harvest time is here. We will once again adopt socialistic tendencies when the time is right. If we survive payback time.

I don't take our survival for granted, however.

If and when positive changes are made, it will not be the government forcing change on the people, but instead people forcing the government to change. I look around and see that we're not yet there.

I did inhale.

Don October 14, 2009 - 8:30am

... Swedish model. Not sure why it is so hard to attain.

quax October 14, 2009 - 9:05am

I was thinking the imported, external morality might have more to do with Sam Walton's Judeo-Christian American heritage than socialism :D

We build great tigers and socialism builds great cages. It's time to accept two realities. The first is the American Fear: cages built for tigers may eventually become cages for ourselves. The second is the American Blind Spot: tigers will always make shitty domestic animals.

As is noted by Jeff Wegerson here, what we really need is a new system which gives incentive to success without inevitably unleashing an amoral horror powered by greed and shielded from consequence by a mechanism (corporatism) designed specifically to evade personal responsibility.

Perhaps, as Jeff suggests, a synthesis of socialism and capitalism - or something else that contains some sort of moral vision coded into its DNA. A system that takes the idea "a rising tide lifts all boats" and makes it something more than grim farce.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch October 14, 2009 - 11:17am

...who discovered money. The only capitalism I've railed against is the criminal/immoral version practiced there in the U.S. And yes, it's people who've been responsible for the rolling disaster that is the U.S. My hope is that everybody takes a long, hard, look at the last 20 years. I agree; something very basic has changed there. My feeling is; the change is going to affect everybody for a long, long time.

Celsius 233 October 14, 2009 - 1:56am

The problem here isn't the hippies that became yuppies, but the lack of counter weight to corporations. Once upon a time we had powerful unions who could close down entire industries, could force congress to control the excesses of corporations, but they are dead...

The killing blow (Taft-Hartley Act) occurred in the late forties and it took thirty years for the bleeding to kill unions, but once they were dead, there was nothing to oppose corporations.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

Don Quijote October 14, 2009 - 7:51am

If Capitalism was the thesis and Socialism the anti-thesis then what we are looking for is the synthesis of the two. A big problem for socialism is that is has been so badly abused as a word. With folks as diverse as Hitler and King using it you know it's going to get biblical in its interpretations by others.

I always liked the notion of the bigger the entity the more government it needed. So a mom and pop family business would have a lot fewer government rules to watch out for than a Walmart. In effect, capitalism for the small and socialism for the big. Let the entrepreneurial spirit run free for individuals but as success piles upon success begin the process of nationalization.

The other thing to watch out for is the blurring of the concepts. Capitalism and socialism are economic concepts, whereas fascism and democracy are political concepts. Comparing a democratic capitalistic society to a fascist socialistic society is an apples to oranges comparison as would be comparing an authoritarian capitalism to a progressive socialism, to use alternate words for fascism and democracy.

Capitalists always say people vote with their pocket books and that makes capitalism more democratic than socialism. But that is only true if like Monopoly everyone starts out the same and then unlike Monopoly everyone keeps having the same dollar denominated voting scheme.

But I certainly share your gloom about the near future. As much as all of us here can speculate on what exactly a good economic and politic system requires, so much is out of our hands that it becomes depressing trying to imagine how we get from here to there.

Jeff Wegerson October 14, 2009 - 9:32am

His wife and children are among the richest people in America through their holdings of Wal-Mart stock. They rank right below Buffett and Gates. They could certainly pressure the company if they thought Sam's ethics were being violated.

Numerian October 14, 2009 - 10:36am

But I guess they are voting with their pocketbooks as well.

And isn't Walmart just the poster boy of our economic dilemma: low wages, no benefits for selling cheap foreign goods? Oh, and they are our largest corporation are they not?

Zman1527 October 14, 2009 - 10:59am

Capitalism's purpose is to support the free enterprise system. It's purpose is not to make families wealthy so they can create dynasties and act like royalty. This has been a problem since the beginning of the United States of America. Given, however, that families like the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Gates, and other have used their wealth to the great benefit of all citizens.

Taking America back is not accomplished by destroying capitalism but by insisting that capitalism be regulated to limit and redirect wealth into the free enterprise system to stimulate entrepreneurial efforts, research and development.

The system of capitalism will not regulate itself, which is the myth that the conservatives want everyone to believe. We have seen the proof. We need well balanced, transparent, practical regulation and we need it now.

Channing
Ventura CA USA

Powder Monkey October 14, 2009 - 10:56am

and corporatism will always move to purchase the means of regulation, rendering regulation moot.

What guarantees that corporatism will inevitably turn into an ungovernable atrocity of legally-facilitated greed is that according to the inner dictates of capitalism there is no moral differentiation between regulation and, say, competition - both are just business challenges to be overcome. The "need to do good for society" is simply a business challenge - like a shortage of resources or increased competition. The concept contains no inherent moral weight, so it will instantly be evaded or circumvented or defeated wherever possible. When you amass enough wealth - you buy off the regulation that constrains you. There is no right or wrong here, it's just what you do.

This is the critical flaw: tigers make shitty domestic animals. Perhaps this is why we turned to domesticating cattle instead - one only needs to invest enough in fencing to protect the cows rather than oneself.

The only way to salvage this system - if it can indeed be salvaged - is to overturn corporate personhood and the shielding from personal responsibility that accompanies it.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch October 14, 2009 - 11:25am

Legally... That was an insane idea to begin with. And it should change... Congress could do it.

creativelcro October 15, 2009 - 8:25am

is HEB. Big changes (many in line with Walmart) after Hiram passed on . Now they did start seeling beer and staying open on Sundays then which many think was a change to the good.

newsman October 14, 2009 - 1:21pm

get me started on HEB. Bastards replaced most of my favorite brands with their "Hill Country Fair" house brands. I go out of my way to NOT shop at HEB, though sometimes I admit I must. Now, WALMART, you won't ever catch me in there.

_____________________________________________________
Distrust anyone who wants to teach you something.

OldLakeRat October 14, 2009 - 1:47pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.