“In spite of what any pundit or city councilperson says, Wal-Mart has long served its low-income customers well, and it has improved the lives of many by making food, toys, tools, and clothing more affordable for millions.”

This could be taken from a Walmart press release.

I’m not denying that on a consumer level middle-class people sneer at Wal-mart as too low class for the real quality consumer, but to claim that those who criticize Wal Mart for its poor labor practices locally and slave labor abroad are snobs is specious, and purposefully so. I’m reminded of the Bush Sr. railing against the “intellectual elite” who dare to criticize the conservative agenda.

The reason Wal Mart is selected as the poster child of retailer malfeasance is because its so large and because it is, in fact, so malfeasant.

See, that’s where I’m not sure I agree. If (as the writer argues, and I’m not educated enough on the topic to comment definitively) both Wal Mart and Target *do* have business practices that are roughly equal in “badness”, then don’t you see a class component at play in the resounding vilification of Wal Mart vs. the kind of indulgent “they may be exploiters but aren’t their boxes cute?” tolerance enjoyed by Target?

However, the reformist nature of the anti-Walmart campaign, the anti-Nike campaign, and all the other anti-corporate movements that target specific corporations to the exclusion of the basic problem is worth pointing out. Still, trying to make poor old Walmart out as a victim of its class identity is pure sophistry.