Wal-Mart On The Social Structure Of Accumulation

According to Bowles et al, Ch. 7, what are the key (1) institutions and (2) relations that comprise a social structure of accumulation? (1 points)Key institutions that comprise a social structure of accumulation are things like legal framework and rules of law (government-related); it has to do with the overall structure of how capitalism is working from within. Key relations that comprise a social structure of accumulation include relationships between capitalists and capitalists, capitalists and laborer, laborer and laborer, and capitalists and economy (Bowles, 2018, p. 145). Describe in some details the key institutions and relationships that form the social structure of accumulation in the US modern capitalism as illustrated in the movie “Is Wal-Mart Good for America? ” (5 points)

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an institution that helps form the social structure of accumulation in the US modern capitalism as illustrated in the documentary. First off, trade policy and trade flows may have not eliminated jobs necessarily, but it alters the kind of jobs available in the US. China is pricing their products in a manner that is contrary to the obligations they took on when joining the WTO a few years ago. The Chinese have advances that no one else in the world does, like their undervalued currency, defying workers’ rights, and government subsidies to Chinese producers at interest rates that may not even be repaid. The International Trade Commission is another institution that had an impact on Chinese producers illegally dumping TVs in the US market. Along with that declaration came new import duties, which raised Chinese prices. For the most part, these measures are regarded with profit making strategies (Young, 2004).

One of the key relationships that form the social structure of accumulation in the US modern capitalism is the capitalist-capitalist relationship, which can be seen between Rubbermaid and Wal-Mart. Seeking profit, Rubbermaid relied heavily on the business Wal-Mart was giving them. When Wal-Mart was not making as big as a profit as they could, they asked to redefine the terms in part to get lower prices. There is a classic example of consolidation as Newell, a competitor, eventually bought out Rubbermaid and Wal-Mart swallowed more power (Young, 2004). Wal-Mart, American workers, and Chinese workers classify as capitalist-laborer relationships. Wal-Mart goes global in production in part because there is an absence of labor regulations. In doing so, Wal-Mart contributes to the exploitation of workers in China as well as loss of potential factory workers in the US. Wal-Mart grows even more powerful and more capable of making a higher profit by paying minimum wage to their workers. The laborer-laborer dynamic is best identified as relationships between the US workers and the Chinese workers. The laborers have less involvement in unions, possibly contributing to the inequality among workers.

There is also a sense of competition amongst the US workers and the Chinese workers. The factory workers in China may prevent US workers from attaining factory-working jobs, as more and more companies are undergoing globalization. The government and economy relationship is seen a few different ways, one being the Chinese government and the US economy. China is rather deregulated, making it rather easy for factories to administer cheap labor. China’s devaluation of currency is attractive to Wal-Mart because it meant even lower prices on exports. The US government also helped China’s economy skyrocket. In the late 1990s, President Clinton signed a trade agreement with the Chinese that made China the new economic frontier (Young, 2004). Also China’s market gained access to US products. All of these measures were in hopes of achieving more profit from the trade flows with the enormous country- China.