WalMart, the great saviour of small format filmmaking...

[ccortez]

Guys, guys, guys......

We are veering away from the central issue: Walmart isn't unique. There were many "Walmarts" that came before. The "degree" of worker exploitation is a meaningless and dangerous argument because it suddenly validates the idea of selective abuse; that it's essentially okay to buy old cameras off of ebay now because the workers that made them 40 years ago weren't abused "as much" as the workers of today.

Well, okay, but...

We can't fix the past. We can attempt to behave in such a way as to respond to the present conditions and improve the future ones.

That is what I meant when I said this is all silly. As long as any of us buys items (specifically cameras and projectors) made by an exploited worker at any time in history -past or present-, we have zero room to preach about the ethics of Walmart. Capitalizing on the practices of past Walmarts is no different, in my book, than capitalizing on the Walmarts of today.

Isn't the dangerous argument the one that says since we can't do everything then we should instead do nothing?

Anyway, I mostly agree... WalMart isn't the problem, capitalism is. And capitalism will eat itself without my help, so I argue this stuff simply for fun and because my brain needs exercise.

I think my biggest complaint about Walmart is simply that it's "tacky".

Word up.

Sorry. I know that overlooks much larger social issues here but, frankly, there are tons of things we buy in this world that we would be totally freaked about if we knew how they were really produced.

So true. I made chicken tacos last night. All the while, I am thoroughly familiar with the horrendous chicken-processing practices, as outlined on the PETA site, "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" section. Ick. Don't go reading that before dinner, folks...

I did use free-range, organically-fed and raised chicken in my tacos. I try and buy meat that is as local and organically-raised as possible, as industrial meat production is a blight.

My point here is that I have a choice, and my choices involve costs that aren't all directly related to the amount I spend on products and services. Maybe I can't always make good choices, and maybe even when I make good choices the damage done by my bad choices far, far outweighs any evil I might avoid by the good ones I make. Should I stop considering all factors, political and otherwise, in my choices?

Notice that I don't go telling people what to do. But I do sometimes point out the unintended consequences... ;)

In that respect, I am simply pointing out that some here need to put down the stones they are so eager to cast. ;)

But how then are any of us going to get stoned?

[MovieStuff]

Guys, guys, guys......

We are veering away from the central issue: Walmart isn't unique. There were many "Walmarts" that came before. The "degree" of worker exploitation is a meaningless and dangerous argument because it suddenly validates the idea of selective abuse; that it's essentially okay to buy old cameras off of ebay now because the workers that made them 40 years ago weren't abused "as much" as the workers of today.

Well, okay, but...

We can't fix the past. We can attempt to behave in such a way as to respond to the present conditions and improve the future ones.

I'll buy that. I see little opportunity to actually practice that idea and not starve or deprive myself of fun but it sure sounds good.

That is what I meant when I said this is all silly. As long as any of us buys items (specifically cameras and projectors) made by an exploited worker at any time in history -past or present-, we have zero room to preach about the ethics of Walmart. Capitalizing on the practices of past Walmarts is no different, in my book, than capitalizing on the Walmarts of today.

Isn't the dangerous argument the one that says since we can't do everything then we should instead do nothing?

Yes but that isn't the argument I am making.

My argument is that it's dangerous to fool one's self into thinking that ethics is always relative; that one product is okay because the level of exploitation it represents is less offensive than another or that it fits certain "guidelines". For instance, a company can call themselves an Equal Opporunity Employer just because they hired X number of minorities and, therefore, their conscience is clean because they met their Federally mandated quota. But, in reality, research would show that they don't promote minorities and wouldn't hire them unless the government made them do it. But, hey, the meet the guideline for responsible hiring practices because someone, somewhere, decided that a certain 'degree' of exploitation was acceptable.

Likewise, it is easy to talk about how bad Walmart is and how they take advantage of people but, if someone really was concerned about ethics in everything they spent money on, they would find little to spend money on at all. And, IMHO, the degree to which they research that reflects the degree to which they are really sincere. But most people find it much easier to talk about lofty ethics than practice them. That is what I meant when I said that doing so takes more resolve than most people have. And that includes me. I do my best but......

If a typical computer really reflected the price of a fair wage, we'd be so busy working to pay for it we wouldn't have time to post. As it stands, it seems there's always time to call big coporations names on a cheap internet computer made in a Malaysian sweat shop, ya know? ;)

Roger

[Evan Kubota]

"WalMart isn't the problem, capitalism is."

What's your occupation?

[super8man]

Meat eater vs Vegan...this should be the start of an interesting tangent in this thread...

[ccortez]

"WalMart isn't the problem, capitalism is."

What's your occupation?

I'm (sort of) a business process engineer at a medium-sized American corporation. My title is "Senior Project Manager".

What's your point?

[ccortez]

I'll buy that. I see little opportunity to actually practice that idea and not starve or deprive myself of fun but it sure sounds good.

Just start by taking a meaningless stand by not shopping at tacky-ass WalMart, which you probably wouldn't do anyway. Then tell everybody how good you feel about yourself for doing so. That's what I do. ;)

My argument is that it's dangerous to fool one's self into thinking that ethics is always relative; that one product is okay because the level of exploitation it represents is less offensive than another or that it fits certain "guidelines".

Hmm... now we're delving in to the complexity of the situation, aren't we? Is all labor exploitative? Or is there some formula that might help us understand when one man's labor is reasonably rewarded while another is exploited?

To me, it's kinda like porno -- I can't define it, but I know it when I see it (apologies to Justice Marshall or whomever it was who said that).

Likewise, it is easy to talk about how bad Walmart is and how they take advantage of people but, if someone really was concerned about ethics in everything they spent money on, they would find little to spend money on at all.

That is certainly true. Another truth is that it almost always costs a bunch more money to buy products that aren't exploitative. Any idea what I pay for "fair trade" coffee or natural chicken? It ain't sam's club prices, folks. And I can only afford to do so b/c of the unnaturally high wage I make here in the good ol' US of A doing far less work than my brown-skinned counterpart elsewhere. How self-righteously tautological is that?!?

And, IMHO, the degree to which they research that reflects the degree to which they are really sincere.

That's a very generous analysis; most people think I just have too much time on my hands. ;)

But most people find it much easier to talk about lofty ethics than practice them. That is what I meant when I said that doing so takes more resolve than most people have. And that includes me. I do my best but......

"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Ghandi

If a typical computer really reflected the price of a fair wage, we'd be so busy working to pay for it we wouldn't have time to post. As it stands, it seems there's always time to call big coporations names on a cheap internet computer made in a Malaysian sweat shop, ya know? ;)

Hey, buddy, I'm currently typing on an IBM, so this machine was definitely made in a chinese sweatshop, not a malaysian one!

Aside from that... the PC is indeed a good example of the principal you cite. I hereby accept the hypocrisy attached to my usage of them. But I'll never buy one at WalMart! ;)

Kudos to awand for not locking this thread. Yet... :twisted:

[Evan Kubota]

"What's your point?"

The only reason you can afford to even spend time discussing this subject instead of working (same for me) is because of capitalism, the system you purport to despise. If you hate capitalism, why do you work for a corporation? Oh, because if you failed to accept any occupation that existed as a result of capitalism you wouldn't have enough money to sustain a reasonable quality of life. If you aren't willing to make the sacrifice of finding some occupation that isn't contributing to what you view as a problematic system, don't bash the system that allows you to eat.

I frankly think it's ridiculous to declare that certain products were made with exploited labor - have you visited the IBM factory in China or whereever? I doubt it. However, from what I read, much of the assembly is done by robots. Sweatshop-level labor wouldn't be able to properly build a PC by hand from a pile of components. I'd expect most humans would be working in the packing division or maybe final assembly.

At least you appear to recognize the hypocrisy of your situation, but at the same time, you continue to spout off about how good it makes you feel to stage a meaningless moral stand. :roll: We live in a world where it's incredibly difficult to do anything absolutely. The least you can do is not be a self-righteous prick about your perceived 'moral victories' when compromise is an inherent part of being a consumer in America.

[chachi]

If I may chime in...

My girlfriend buys most of our meat and veggies from the local farmers market every saturday morning. She makes fun of both the price and condition of the stuff we do end up buying at the local MEGA CHAINS!

Anyhoo, I appreciate anyone with strong convictions in almost any area.

Just don't ever tell me how bad Mcdonalds, Nike and WalMart are while your using Cocaine.. I'm often suprised by how many Neo Hippies I meet that just don't have their boycotting priorities straight.

Afterall, surely smugling drugs in dead babies is worse the getting fat?

[MovieStuff]

The least you can do is not be a self-righteous prick about your perceived 'moral victories' when compromise is an inherent part of being a consumer in America.

But I think that you are misreading Chris's intent. Far from seeing him as a self-righteous prick that can't compromise, I see him saying that we should compromise when we can because ethics isn't an "on" or "off" situation. You can be ethical in spirit and accept that reality that being ethical in real life is often a string of unrelated compromises, none of which is totally satisfying but we do what we can. I mean, Chris can correct me if I am misreading him but I think he's one of the good guys and being very realistic about it.

Roger

[steve hyde]

These arguments always seem to go the same place. It starts out with someone arguing that consumers are rational spenders and they will vote with their feet and always walk to the place with the lowest prices. Then a bleeding heart lefty steps in and makes an argument based on the inequalities of capitalism and criticizes the rational spender for not having the guts to stand for something other than the bottom line.

Then someone will want to dig up the origins of the problem and argue that the problem has been around a long time and we are just seeing a different iteration of the same old shit.

All of this is true. Most of the arguments are valid on both sides. There is truth in all of the points of view that have been presented here.

Nobody seems to stop to talk about that.

Instead the argument goes around in circles and the rational spenders start wanting to start comparing the lefties with stupid hippies. Again, they make a valid point.

Then the lefties say wait a minute Gandhi brought the British Empire to its knees without the use of violence. Then the rationals spenders want to change the subject.

Finally the discussion goes into its masculinist posturing mode characterized by finger pointing and rebutal. The rational spenders start pointing out the fact that the lefty works under the rubric of the capitalist mode of production and that therefore makes the lefty a complete and indisputable hipocrit.

Then the lefties start defending themselves by talking about how they do small things to make the world a better place....

Again, all of these arguments are valid and full of truths.

So what happens in the the end of the conversation? The rational spenders walk away thinking they're right and the lefties walk away thinking they are right. I wonder if anyone learned anything new....

[MovieStuff]

These arguments always seem to go the same place......

But it's so entertaining that we can't look away. :oops:

Roger

[Evan Kubota]

"I see him saying that we should compromise when we can because ethics isn't an "on" or "off" situation. You can be ethical in spirit and accept that reality that being ethical in real life is often a string of unrelated compromises, none of which is totally satisfying but we do what we can."

Fair enough. In that case, why trumpet it to the world that you bought free-range chicken or "fair" trade coffee? For that matter, why even mention that you send your film straight to Dwayne's instead of processing it through Wal-Mart? "Prick" is an inappropriate word, but it's the only expression I could think of at the moment. If you accept compromise and ethics without a codex, there should be absolutely no reason to tell other people about your perceived 'ethical' behavior. Just do it.

[steve hyde]

....perhaps one of the problems is that nobody stops to define explicitly what they are talking about. Nobody says, for example that they are using a definition of capitalism that is characterized by a division of labor among the capital owning class and the laboring classes. I see people painting capitalism with a broad brush e.g, if you work under capitalism that makes you a capitalist. That certainly isn't the definition I use.

When I reference capitalism I'm talking specifically about a political economy founded on inequality. Inequality is what makes capitalism.
Capitalism is about surplus value going to the capitalists instead of labor.
Therefore capitalsim is a political economy that was created by the rich elite to insure that the rich elite remain the rich elite.

Walmart is an icon of this mode of production. Walmart produces and reproduces inequality at a grand scale. Walmart consolidates cultural diversity and spits out homogeneity. WALMART SWALLOWS INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS!!

All this time I thought I was talking to Independent Filmmakers on this forum. Where is the independent spirit? It's not just about film, it's about lifestyle. Independent filmmaking is about new ideas - not the rehashing of old ideas or popular ideas.

Walmart saving small gauge filmmaking????? Is filmmaking about running film through a cameara or is it about communication?

Filmmaking is about communicating ideas...

Steve

[steve hyde]

These arguments always seem to go the same place......

But it's so entertaining that we can't look away. :oops:

Roger

It's fun to argue. And it can be productive. I'm always glad to see these arguments. It helps me get an idea of who people are and what people care about. I see a lot of fascinating, complex and intelligent characters on this board - that is why I keep coming back.

[ccortez]

When I reference capitalism I'm talking specifically about a political economy founded on inequality. Inequality is what makes capitalism.
Capitalism is about surplus value going to the capitalists instead of labor.
Therefore capitalsim is a political economy that was created by the rich elite to insure that the rich elite remain the rich elite.

Right -- just because I caught the plague doesn't mean I'm in favor of the unsanitary conditions, widespread poverty and medieval medecine that encouraged the plague to become an epidemic.