Take a photo of a barcode or cover
owensf 's review for:
The People's Republic of Walmart: How the World's Biggest Corporations are Laying the Foundation for Socialism
by Michal Rozworski, Leigh Phillips
An interesting polemic, with lots of fun tidbits that made me want to research things further. I think the lack of bibliography/sourcing is a major knock against it, and makes it tough to take it seriously.
I also thought the first half or so (about amazon, Walmart, etc) left much to be desired. The arguments themselves felt unsatisfactorily in-between being simple and complex: the discussion of Amazon’s logistics felt like an overview from a business magazine, and I felt like I didn't get a great picture of how this "planning" actually works. Yet, they name-drop some esoteric jargon at times: I think the reader of this book could handle some more advanced discussion of the math/theory behind logistics/planning.
Similarly, I don't feel like enough space is taken describing an obvious counter-argument: "OK so Amazon/Walmart are vertically integrated. But people still buy stuff with limited money, how does the system work without scarcity/money?" They talk about it a bit, but I think this point is much less obvious than saying that Walmart/Amazon use logistics, which are basically planning (and which they discuss at length).
The writing itself (especially in the beginning), felt sloppy. A lot of stuff in the Sears section had me scratching my head, wondering how an editor didn’t catch it. For example, they drop some latin (or maybe it was French) phrases without context, and I had to look them up. However, there were times when they had to explain relatively simple concepts (like what a variable was), which I thought was strange. Who is the target audience for this book? Is it more for laymen, or is it more for people willing to dive a bit more into the weeds? I think either is fine-or even in-between, I'm sure the authors want it to be applicable for everyone-but they walk the line in an unsatisfying way, where some sections assume the audience is much more well-read than other sections.
The writers also can't help themselves from talking about the conditions of Amazon warehouses, and things of that nature, at length. I don't think the space they devote to it is worthwhile given the shortness of the book.
I thought the Soviet Union/Chile section was interesting. Someone more familiar with the history of the 20s-50s Soviet Union would get a lot less out of it than I did, but I think they provide an interesting focus on the history of planning here. Made me interested to research the topic further.
I also thought the first half or so (about amazon, Walmart, etc) left much to be desired. The arguments themselves felt unsatisfactorily in-between being simple and complex: the discussion of Amazon’s logistics felt like an overview from a business magazine, and I felt like I didn't get a great picture of how this "planning" actually works. Yet, they name-drop some esoteric jargon at times: I think the reader of this book could handle some more advanced discussion of the math/theory behind logistics/planning.
Similarly, I don't feel like enough space is taken describing an obvious counter-argument: "OK so Amazon/Walmart are vertically integrated. But people still buy stuff with limited money, how does the system work without scarcity/money?" They talk about it a bit, but I think this point is much less obvious than saying that Walmart/Amazon use logistics, which are basically planning (and which they discuss at length).
The writing itself (especially in the beginning), felt sloppy. A lot of stuff in the Sears section had me scratching my head, wondering how an editor didn’t catch it. For example, they drop some latin (or maybe it was French) phrases without context, and I had to look them up. However, there were times when they had to explain relatively simple concepts (like what a variable was), which I thought was strange. Who is the target audience for this book? Is it more for laymen, or is it more for people willing to dive a bit more into the weeds? I think either is fine-or even in-between, I'm sure the authors want it to be applicable for everyone-but they walk the line in an unsatisfying way, where some sections assume the audience is much more well-read than other sections.
The writers also can't help themselves from talking about the conditions of Amazon warehouses, and things of that nature, at length. I don't think the space they devote to it is worthwhile given the shortness of the book.
I thought the Soviet Union/Chile section was interesting. Someone more familiar with the history of the 20s-50s Soviet Union would get a lot less out of it than I did, but I think they provide an interesting focus on the history of planning here. Made me interested to research the topic further.