1- What were the reasons for Wal-Mart shifting its focus to Africa? Do you think Africa offers good growth prospects for Wal-Mart in the future?
2- Why did Wal-Mart face opposition from trade unions and other government departments over its acquisition of Massmart? Do you think the opposition coalition had a valid point in opposing the deal? Justify your answer.
3- What strategies should Wal-Mart follow to succeed in a market like Africa with its low income levels and high poverty incidence? Do you think its low-cost model will be successful in Africa? Give reasons to support your answer.
rn.’ Party officials returned to the countryside in an all-out drive to collectivise agriculture with a special levy of 25,000 industrial workers, many with military experience, known as the ‘25000ers.’ They were dispatched to intimidate peasants that had resisted, demonstrating that Stalin’s method to collectivise agriculture was implemented by coercing the peasants, since if they were not compliant, they faced extreme consequences. Therefore, the achievements of collectivisation cannot be justified by the methods because they were too extreme, and majority of the peasants were intimidated into joining commune farms in fear being sent to a gulag or executed. As a result, by 1931 2 million were sent to gulags and 7 million were executed. Regardless of the economic gain resulting from the policies the methods used went beyond what was acceptable in human terms therefore it cannot be justified to any extent. However, Hoffman’s argument can be contradicted by a speech given by Stalin on agricultural reform. He suggested, “the way out is to unite the small and dwarf peasant farms gradually but surely, not pressure but by example and persuasion,” suggesting that the peasants and government needed to cooperate in order to successfully integrate the small peasant farms into communes. However, it is vital to consider that the speech was delivered in December 1927 which is significant since Stalin had not consolidated his power and major debate had occurred on the future of Lenin’s New Economic Policy. By this stage Stalin was empathetic towards the policy of collective agriculture but there still remained opposition. Thus, this speech may have been created to glorify the process of collectivisation in order to amass enough support from the party to advocate it as an economic doctrine. A counter argument is suggested by Jean Elleinstien who argues that Stalin methods included “increasing taxation on the rich and abolition taxation on the poor, stepping up aid to collective farms and state farms,” suggesting the government and peasants remained compliant with each other which means that the methods can be justified since they were beneficial. Her argument can be credited by the accounts that suggest the farms had access to clean water and electricity and schools and health centres were established on the farms in order to incentivise more peasants to join. Even women were allowed to work instead of staying at home. As a result, nearly 50% more of the population in the countryside could be mobilised to work the fields. This allowed the transition of labour from the countryside to the cities. These methods of incentivising collectivisation confirm some validity to her argument since it testifies that the state not bullying the peasants but helping them transition into collective farm. Therefore, the methods are justifiable since they were not brutal but only an aid for the peasants. However, Elleinstein’s argument can be heavily contradicted. For example, the interview of an OGPU colonel who in an interview commented, “did I do all that in order that I should now surround villages with machine-guns and order my men to fire indiscriminately into the crowds of peasants?” This undermines Elleinstein’s case that there was cooperation because it explicitly highlights the use of violence to subjugate the p>GET ANSWER