this is an interesting book, i recommend you give it a read-- even if you dont agree, you will at least be stimulated. an anecdote: naomi klein was here in kingston last week, speaking at the 10th anniversary of queen's university's stauffer library. thoughtfully, the administration shut the library down in the middle of the day (ie: they kicked all the students out) and had their little by-invite guest lecture, which was followed by a private reception behind a screen of watchful and highly-prominent private security guards. at that moment i could clearly visualize naomi klein as canada's governor-general a few years from now...

Surely the author is not really convinced that the only way to social change is through government regulation? When consumers have all the information, and can make choices based on values, they will behave a certain way. Look at recycling: 20 years ago, everything went into a bin under the sink and was buried. Today, you can hardly find a mall without the requisite set of green bins for cans, bottles, paper, and cardboard (in those areas without door-to-door collection, of course). This complete change of direction in consumer behaviour was the result of information campaigns, not government regulation. I think the focus of the adbusters bunch is to have the same effect on consumer choices, not to "sell" a particular brand of conformism through non-conformity.

What about andrew potter's THIS magazine, which is about as "old school leftist" as you can get? The larger ads in THIS are predominantly for unions, and the articles "sell" the same "cool" counter-culture that Klein does in No Logo. Rumor has it that Potter's jealous of Klein's success; in an editorial in THIS a while back, he condemned her because she lives in a loft in a trendy Toronto neighbourhood - suffice to say it was a petty critism. Anyway, what's wrong with alternative culture becoming cool. If it becomes more trendy to drive prius hybrid vehicle than it does to drive a hummer, isn't that for the best? Adbusters and No Logo (and even THIS magazine) and like go a long way in creating an awareness that you don't find in other mediums. And I've always said that awareness goes a long way. It seems that anyone heavily involved in an alternative subculture (be it music or politics) tend to get upset when "the masses" catch on their ultra-intellectual ideas. Heath and Potter should embrace the public rather than mock it.

Slightly topic-related: Download "The Power of Nightmares: The Politics of Fear", a three-part BBC special that aired in Oct and early Nov. Discusses Individualism and a whole lot more... actually I was pretty tired when I watched it and I think I need to again...

Both can be done. Pressure on government and individual choice. The more fronts the better. Anyway, I always like to know that if someone is going to make money off my hard earned bucks that it be someone who is at least trying to do things differently. In my opinion, some companies deserve my money more than others. A small coffee company that has a direct relationship with producers in Central America, that supports Fair Trade and Organic production,etc, deserves my money more than some trans-natonal. On the planet, us North Americans are the richest people on earth. What we want to buy effects the entire world. So you're going to spend your money anyway, why not support smaller companies that are actually trying to do things differently. I realize that places that make soft drinks for large trans-nationals are probably unionized but their products are really unhealthy. Should I support the company because they have a union or should I support someone that doesn't cause long term health issues? Well , I'm rambling. Good issue to raise, and it should probably be discussed even more.

Are Heath & Potter telling me to keep up my pressure on politicians to introduce more humane regulations on the rearing of farm animals while still eating meat?

I'm confused: aren't consumer boycotts another form of 'consumer-based revolt'...you know, those things my union has been encouraging me to take part in for years and years?

Of course we can't effect social change solely via individual consumption choices. Did Naomi Klein or anyone else suggest that we could?

I'd like to at least skim this book before I judge, but it sounds like a huge straw man....

By our very nature as animals we are designed to consume. However, I am concerned that the No Sweat/Fair Trade brand will become as popular at Nike or Reebok with the actual worker being effected not one iota. I took part in some of the negotiations with my employer to get them to recognise the NoSweat movement, a long road that is yet to be travelled. Yet, go in to any major supermarket and look at the least expensive non-food products ALL made in China. China is worst offender when it comes to Sweat shops and paying minimal wage [25cents per day] yet their products are everywere and Canada trades with this nation.I'll wager there are very few [who are probably not reading this] who actually look at labels to see where the product is made. I read yesterday China owns 45% of the US debt.What is the real cost of paying a decent wage and having decent working conditions ? Why does our morality fly out the window when going for the least expensive coffee cup or bookshelf ? Our stores and malls are full of product essentially made by slave labour and yet we consume it with out the consciousness of those who made it.

This is a good discussion to have but I also agree that it sounds like the authors of this book are off-base on a lot of points. We need to be critical consumers and know where are money is going. We need to ask ourselves the tough questions before we buy (including before we buy something from that is supposed to be anti-corporate cool). We also need to be engaged in the political process in whatever way we feel is appropriate for us. No one (and no idea) should be followed blindly (adbusters, Naimo Klien, union leaders, the "left" etc.). Ask the questions, learn, interact, discuss and think for youself!

3rs says that ubiquitous recycling bins were "the result of information campaigns, not government regulation." Here in B.C., that's not true. The main reason for an increase in recycling is that the provincial government legislated that landfills must drastically reduce the amount of garbage they accept if municipalities and regional districts wish to continue to receive funding for waste disposal.

I really don't see why it's necessary to criticize 'the means to an end' as long as the 'means' are ethically sound (not criminal or harmful to people or planet) and the 'ends' result in a common goal (putting power back in the hands of the people). No wonder the politically Right are taking over the world, the politically Left are too busy splitting hairs!

Unless people are convicted that it's the right thing to do to buy fair trade coffee, sneakers or whatever, and unless they pressure their governments to reflect those convictions in a political arena, making it cool to be anti-corporate will only be a fleeting trend. People have always been driven by the bottom line, not what a product represents. Most shoppers will choose the best value for their money, and who wouldn't? The real question is, what is their definition of value? Cheap or socially responsible? Some campaigns have been successful in making people choose socially-responsible products in majority amounts — e.g. dolphin-safe tuna and free-trade or organic coffee — there are millions of other products people buy without even considering that it might have been made in a Chinese sweatshop. It's impossible to expect people to make a moral choice about every single thing they buy. That's where government comes in, setting standards for the marketplace. That's where people should be focusing their attentions, on pressuring their elected representatives to reflect their views, not by subscribing to a trend and a philosophy which might be cool and have good intentions but has far less power than an actual government. And every Canadian citizen does have the power to influence their government and national and global change through that government. If only more people realized it.

Does this article promote dialogue? Many Tyee readers are taking it in the spirit of dialogue: respectful, insightful conversation which includes exploring and understanding differences. Feels like "rock-throwing" to me though. Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd, noted many years ago that citizens need to find the common ground of living sustainably ending capitalism (or at least keeping it subordinate). Yes, our society needs an active engaged citizenry. However, if for some citizens that choice begins (or even ends) with buying fair trade so be it. We do what we can, when we can. Why divert energies to carping at each other?

Not so long ago critiques of this sort were labeled "Trotskyite." They result in creating divisions among the good guys. And often are really straw horses. It's a shame to see two apparently quite decent persons get their knickers in a twist and waste the time they might otherwise have usefully spent in raising other's revolutionary consciousness or in raising Hell.

Although I agree with the ideals of the counter-culture movement, I'm afraid that its only true appeal is to a relatively thin minority: those with money who are also pro-environment, fair-trade and anti-corporation in their philosophy. Sadly, families on low income are more likely to buy No-Name type products from Superstore or Walmart than no-brand shoes simply because it is cheaper to do - never mind the fact that such stores offer pitifully low wages so as to ensure that the buying populace keeps coming back for more (another problem in itself). To effect true change in our social system, we need to elect governments that will make the necessary changes that support our visions and beliefs. This is accomplished at the ballot box, and the beauty is, activism of this kind is accessible to both rich and poor.

I think there are a few missteps by the authors --particularly in their lumping Naomi Klein's book and Adbusters together. I am not keen on adbusters, I find it largely illegible visually and unfocussed in content, and I dislike Lasn's assumption that government regulation is wrong. Not to mention that any magazine that wants me to boycott sexist crap like penthouse because of *cigarette ads* has missed something. However, Adbusters does have a point that advertising is pervasive and problematic in our society, particularly when it targets children, and one cannot effectively lobby to change policies (ie advertising policies) as the authors suggest unless government perceives that you have public support. How does one win public support. Well...with education campaigns. Ah. Well there you go--we need activist campaigns to gain public support on issues before we can successfully lobby for government change. Further, Naomi Klein's book is not responsible for the non-voting youth. I find this claim bizarre. That is a very old problem, not just since publication! And her book actually is describing a wave of activism that was already well underway long before she wrote her book. I work in a youth based activist organization and I think she accurately captures the movement. And yes, she motivates on behalf of much of it... why? because it *is* great to see young people out in the streets and talking about what matters to them, be it opposing the WTO or creating local gardens. Yes, it would be great to see them vote, too. Not just vote, but lobby. And lobby using the power that those big demonstrations show. Refusing to buy chocolate grown by child slave labour is a good thing. It won't change much on its own, but it is one step in a long struggle. And a large campaign that causes financial stress to a company does send a message--we only need to see how Shell responds to campaigns for the Ogoni that targetted them with intimidating letters to activists to know we are getting somewhere. Does it overthrow capitalism? No. Is capitalism the root problem? One of them. But is pressuring Shell worth it? I'd say so. As a movement we need to do it all--demonstrate, educate, sit in, vote, campaign, lobby, pressure companies, pressure MPs, run for election. But as individuals we can't ALL do it all. We can do better at making the activist street campaigns lead to successful legal change. But to do that we need to respect the contributions every part of the movement is making.

Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter were in Vancouver promoting their book last week at one of UBC's downtown Talk of the Town lecture series. I have not read the book, so will respond to the Tyee story and the Q&A session at UBC, moderated by Hal Wake. It's certainly a provocative topic that riled a lot of lefties in the crowd at Robson Square. I don't dismiss entirely their premise that the counterculture (and their defintion of counterculture is very narrow to say the least: pot-smoking hippies qualify, but Martin Luther King doesn't) has lost it's way. Their solution (the status quo, lobby politicians, vote), however, leaves a lot to be desired. By their definition the 40,000 Vancouver protesters (and the millions around the world) who voiced their displeasure with the US going into Iraq was a waste of time. Yes, Bush still went in, but unprecedented demonstrations showed governments from virtually the rest of the world that people were generally against an illegal war. More disappointing than their narrow, academic perspective, however, was some of their glib answers to the questions that were lobbed their way. One young man (by young, I would say about 19) came to the mike and asked earnestly of Potter and Heath what they would recommend he do with his energy if not activism. They dismissed him with a one liner and chuckled to themselves. When another questioner took them to task on dismissing the previous question, they said the young man "should study a lot, read a lot of books and do a lot of thinking." In response to another question, they answered that no one person can really do any good, implying that only governments were capable of effecting change. I left Robson Square that evening with the impression that Potter and Heath weren't really interested in moving forward the progressive agenda as stated, but rather only in displaying their semantic superiority to the great unwashed gortex-clad crowd. And selling a few books

Funny thing for someone who suppoposedly doesn't like political action, Naomi Klein did a film on the Argentine worker collectives. This book, is like others have said, more staw man stuff. And as far as decentralization goes it has nothing to do with Harper. Hasn't the author ever heard of anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism? The whole attack sounds rather llike the smears the leninists used to make about the libertarian socialist left. I though we had left this crap behind...

There is some very good analysis here of the trendoise: "I'm a better person because I can afford to buy a brand new Prius and buy only certified organic free range eggs, aren't I special and oh so superior..." Champagne Socialism has been with us for decades. Look at federal NDP leader Jack Layton born into wealth and now preaching the gospel of the nanny state to all us proles who may do foolish things like consume trans fatty acids. Well unlike Jack I wasn't raised by a nanny and I sure as hell don't want one imposed on me by the State.

Well said Stacy C. As far as freedom being the solution it is not going to solve the wounded state of the individuals who has been living under represive regimes. We need to consider this woundedness in our selves and heal it for example most of us have gone through the destructive athouritarian structure of public education(private schools are no better)in north america (which is an uncaring factory model of learning called education), what is being taught is sit down and shut up, and people wonder why the young don't vote! For information to consider on healing I encourage you to read http://www.empoweringpeople.net

I personally have not read of Naomi Klein's NO LOGO yet. I have heard of it and read parts of it, yet not the whole book. It is a thought provoking article. I'll look further into it. One question that pops up in my mind is where the money for NoSweat products go aside from making it break even for the materials and production cost.

I've always found much "culture jamming" quite self-aware of capitalism's genius in "co-opting rebellion"... that's a given, but at least there is a conversation occuring with folks like Lasn who sold their souls previously as ad-men and now redirect their energy to something different. Discourse is good! As others have said, why can't their be a multi-pronged approach to awakening the sheeple from their/our prolonged consumer dream/nightmare?

Here we go again. Thomas Frank's The Conquest of Cool and One Market Under God ought to shed a little light on the quaint 'niche marketing' aspects of 'rebellion'. Damn fine money in it. For some good, old fashioned ideas on courage and how some real activists have taken control of their lives (oddly enough, they've done so without being inclined to advertise their superiority to others), take a dip into Hal Niedviecki's Hello, I'm Special If every 'leftie' had the courage to take their minds and bodies out of the "system" permanently, instead of their pocketbooks for a day, I suspect something might actually change. Of course, I could be wrong. I guess till then, there's always posturing...

While I share the view that counter culture has and always will be co-opted and commodified, I do believe they missed the point of the culture jamming movement. People who are seen as anti-capitalist rarely identify themselves as such, as it is more of a media construct. The critique of Adbusters was particularly disappointing, because they are the ones who espouse the ideas that culture is so commodifiable. They never claim to be against capitalism, but rather seek to contain economic growth at the expense of the physical and mental environment. They declare the system flawed indeed, but promote systems for accountability such as the Genuine Progress Indicator, the Tobin Tax, and the end of corporate personhood. This is not to say that buying a pair of no sweat Blackspot sneakers is not a consumptive act, it is. However, in order to work within the confines of the system, it is necessary to choose those things that do the least harm. Yes, buying fair trade is still buying, but is that so bad given the options? Is it not better to steer the bull away from you rather than risk getting trampled?

People always confuse the idea that our choice of what and what not to purchase is going to affect the government. First, i don't think the government is the dominant institution of our time, i believe it is the corporation. Second, the act of challenging consumption is not a attack on our social institutions, but rather an introspection, a reprieve from the relentless onslaut of hyper capitalism. Oliver James writes that “advanced capitalism maintains itself by fostering spurious individualism, pressuring us to define ourselves through our purchases, with ever more precisely marketed products that create a fetishistic concern to have ‘this’ rather than ‘that’, even when there is no significant practical or aesthetic difference”. You can't possibly think that i have not made an impact in my life by limiting what i consume; from TV, magazines, meat, alchohol, cigarettes, pot, leather, coffee, brand name clothes, fast food, candy etc. One can argue however, that not only am i making a positive impact on my life, but also, by not contributing to the system of endless routine and consumption, i am making an impact on the industries that are trying to sell me all those things. I participate by not participating. I am a human being, not a consumer.

I was buying some of the arguments - though either purposefully or erroneously misconstrued about the whole the "consceintious consumer" movement for change - until I came across Heath's assessment of the Bush Admnistration in Iraq: “One of the reasons why the Bush administration did not do much post-war planning in Iraq was because neocons believe that real democracy is just the expression of individual freedom. Rumsfeld and Bush believed that if you set people free and get rid of coercive, tyrannical dictatorships, then all of a sudden “poof!” democracy will emerge as the expression of individual liberty.” Is he implying he BELIEVES it was for "liberating" the Iraqi people that the U.S. invaded Iraq? You've got to be kidding - or else he may be sniffing at the ESSO gas station again. If organizations such as Adbusters do nothing more than to break the herd mentality fueling our consumerism gluttony that is literally choking the life out of us - then they have succeeded in providing some organic victuals for thought. Using your purchasing power is one of many ways you make your will count in society - it can be nearly as powerful as your vote and lobbying and your purchasing of "ethical funds" over the other less sustainable corporate investments - since who you give your money and business to directly affects the amount of influence the big corporations lobbying your government have in the state of the world you reside in. Being counter-culture and an empowered consumer means you drive by the Shell and Esso stations (because of their horrendous environmental record) and fill up at Mohawk (if ditching the vehicle all together is an unrealistic option). You certainly don't need to be wealthy to avoid adding more bucks to the corporations that use child labour for cheap goods sold at WalMart - shop consignment or thrift stores and it is a win win situation for all. Perhaps thinking outside the box is a fearful thought for those who want to tell you how to think.

I agree with Shirin. I resent anyone telling me how to spend my money, and I take huge offense at people taking on the "holier than thou" attitude because they spend mega-bucks on "morally superior" products. They are just fueling they excessive consumerism society they think they are mocking. REcycling of products and buying on consignment and second hand does make a lot more sense than "being the first on the block to have the latest shade-grown, $30 a bag , fairly traded, organic coffee". Will all this upscale morally superior consumerism really help? Go back to the "square" style..get involved and give a damn about your community...

i think it's ironic that shirin mentions so-called "ethical funds" since my one thought when i read about potter and heath is: when are they going to talk about the myth of alternative investment. "ethical" funds are the biggest hoax perpetrated on the comsumer revolutionsary. it may surprise you to know that shell and exxon are both included in many ethical funds. enviro funds, too. many enviro funds merely require that a company have coroporate recycling to qualify. ethical funds that i have investigated have included the gap, notorious for its use of sweatshop labour. jim stanford of the caw has been talking about this issue for years. here is a corporate magazine summarizing his points: http://www.corporateknights.ca/sri/new_bottom_line.asp

I have read Naomi Klein's book No Logo and highly recommend it, I have also seen the movie The Take about Argentina.( a must see now playing at Tinseltown , Vancouver, its cheaper to Go in the afternoon) I have also read books by Michael Parenti and Michael Moore along with seeing MM's movies etc. Although I feel these people are remarkable and deserve our praise and Support, I never thought for a second that they alone would save me or change the world. Folks , no government , no political party and no individual celebrity figure is going to come to the rescue. Martin Luther king was only as strong as the people who supported him and showed up at His rallies, You could say he was a spokesperson for the common man. How popular would Michael Moore's ideas be if no one showed up and his movies bombed. Any government is only as Strong as its supporters, we are the government and we can control the agenda. The biggest fear of government is losing power, mass protest kept us out of Iraq, The old Soviet Union, the 2nd largest nuclear power in the world collapsed non violently because the people stopped believing. So , in a Capitalist society by definition capital needs to always grow and find new markets, with our blind consumption and the help of the media and military this is possible. WE are in the Belly of the beast, Global Change starts with us, without us feeding the system it will not grow, In a Capitalist system money and market growth are the determining moral factors in decision making , 90% of corn grown in Canada and the US is fed to cattle so rich north Americans Can have steak, if we only reduced our meat consumption by 10-15% we could feed the world. So the things we do day to day affect the entire system, why do you think we get spammed every Day by 1000's of ads, your alive to shop , eat sleep and shop more in this society. It starts With you making the right choices and not living like a hypocrite, people will do what you do and not what you say. But like previous posts suggest, people shop for the best deals and can not Afford luxury so that’s why Wal-Mart and others stay busy, But we must NOT be critical unless we have alternatives for them. SO what I do is talk with people about how I save money and shop smartly and live cheaply and still enjoy my life the same. Give people the information they need to make the right choices, lead by example. I tell others that no , oh course I don't drive the car of the year, who needs all the payments on something that is depreciating everyday and will be worthless 2-3 years from now, I drive a small fuel efficient car that has been paid for years now, my friend is a mechanic who keeps it in good shape very cheaply for me, I am going to drive this car for maybe 15-16 yrs, when one motor dies I can have another put in very cheaply. When someone says , wow that’s a nice outfit where did you get it. I say oh Salvation Army or Union Gospel Mission, why pay $ 90 to 100 bucks for a sweater like at Sears, who can afford that. I also tell folks yea, I paid one dollar more than Wal-Mart for my dog food but I did not have to wait in a half hour line up either, my time is worth more than that. You get the idea. And if we see folks trying to do be active and taking risks don't eat them alive, its okay To be successful , support for change must come from all sectors and all people . Stop playing politics it comes across as insincere. Okay Mike***** Champagne Socialism has been with us for decades. Look at federal NDP leader Jack Layton born into wealth and now preaching the gospel of the nanny***Who gives a shit if Jack Layton had a Nanny, he is against war and missile defense , he is pro worker, who cares about his Nanny and his wealth. It’s a catch 22 that the left has, If you’re a nobody , nobody can hear your message, if your someone successful you get put down By the people you need support from. In short, we're in the belly and we need to scratch and give the beast a stomach ache, positive Change has always come from the bottom up. We need to support independent media and not be critical, Adbusters is just one medium and is just there is motivate us, NO folks we cannot all quit our jobs and protest and not pay our mortgage payments, BUT we can all do our little bit and not put so much on top of the few that are active. Start a anti imperialist league is your city, small action groups that lobby city council, if your computer savvy host a website . Volunteer in a local group that is active, start a community garden, talk to your neighbors and co workers, be a example of social change and not be a whiner, support or start your own local media, In short , many others think like you do so lets work together and have fun doing it....

I personally do not share the view that the counter-culture will always be commodified. Certainly there will always be pressures from late capitalism to co-opt it, but through critical thinking and culture-jamming I think the corporate beast can be held at bay, and even potentially detourned (eventually). There are lots of examples out there where we are witnessing these battles, but one that strikes me as being particularly noteworthy is the battle for the Fringe. For those of you who don't know, the word "fringe" was actually trademarked in Toronto in 1998, and has become a corporate brand in its own right. This last year disillusioned artists and activists created an alternative called the infringement festival (see infringementfestival.com). I don't think the issue is about refusing to engage with government, but rather about presenting better alternatives, which the government must then come to recognize and accept. If anything the jammers play the role of the cultural shock troops, bringing to our attention the need to work at reforming all sorts of misguided or oppressive systems, including the government.

Great topic and discussion. I tend to agree partially with the two authors. Tackling consumerism, by offering alternative consumer products is like a wine sipper breaking that habit by turning to beer. You're still drinking and the higher goal you've set yourself is an illusion, just like the need for yet another winter coat because your last year model is out of style. Alternative consumerism is, in itself, a laudable goal, but it still buys into a more-is-better philosophy as it tries to compete with the Nikes and the Walmarts of the world. Consumerism is often seen as the zenith in capitalist culture, You want something, anything, you can get it if you're a "winner" and the only way to be a "winner" is to spend, spend and spend and then brag about the great deals you got. In reality we are doomed by this madness, most of us know it can't continue, but few are willing to give it up as the ads keep doing what they were designed for. A more telling reality was presented to me several years ago when I was involved in public hearings in an effort to keep big-box stores out of various communities. Municipal politicians, who are supposed to be looking after the best interests of its citizens suddenly became champions of consumer choice. That's right, their constituents, at least the ones that didn't bother to show up for the hearing, had morphed into consumers. How could 300 or 400 citizens who came to object to the big-box store because of its impact on existing retailers, their workforce and the community's economy in general, have the nerve to try to stop those precious consumers from buying cheap underwear, the politicians replied, before rubber stamping the store's approval process. Despite the above, I am still left wondering what we can do to counter this scary situation, but am still lacking the wisdom to offer any better solutions. That leads me to see adbusters and No Logo as at least honest, if naive attempts at changing the system. In the end the entire issue comes down to politics and both adbusters and No Logo do provide some fodder for activists to keep trying. ***One final point: We often think of places like Valu-Village and similar used-products outlets as alternatives to the glitzy higher end locations, but in many cases rather than being an alternative to the mindless demand for new, new new, they are the only affordable option available. Janine W. summed it up best at the end of her post above.

I think it's obvious this topic hit a nerve. How about some more, and more detailed articles on the subject. My two cents worth. I still think any movement on multiple fronts to change destructive production practices, work place conditions, or consumption patterns are worth trying, discussing, and generally being conscious about.

***** Alternative consumerism is, in itself, a laudable goal, but it still buys into a more-is-better philosophy ***** I disagree, Wal-Mart and others offer cheap non stop shopping and convenience to a money, time strapped culture, We all need to consume to live , Families need transportation, warm clothing , shoes, food etc. To consume is human and normal, most people I know shop at these huge multinationals like Wal-Mart Out of pure habit and perceived lack of alternatives, So we need to teach people how to consume and how to benefit shopping in another way, most people want the benefits laid out to them, for example the locally owned video store is closer than Rogers and you never have a hard time finding parking and the prices are the same etc. Or the local produce store has locally grown fresh produce and the owner is so happy to get your business etc, We need to give alternatives while we still have them, most of these huge multinationals are so unethical and destructive to local and small business, if you refuse to buy new and do not support these huge firms and encourage others not to by giving alternatives then you are affecting the system, the system needs new fresh money and needs to grow, We need to teach others first to find alternatives and build new habits, 2nd to show people new ways to live and be healthy (physically and mentally) 3) Engage people to build and effect change on local levels, 4) link to other groups and fight the same enemy, Globalization, militarism and the neo conservative agenda.

Naomi Klein was the one who proudly declared that she did not vote. Too cool for that or something. Progressive politics cannot afford to turn its back on democracy. The Christian-Right got their people out and re-elected Bush, and Naomi Klein is telling people on the left not to bother. Dont be surprised when the right wins again.

Yea voting is okay, I guess we should vote, I always vote . But as far as the bigger picture voting is Mainly theatre, what we seen in the US for example was a joke. If you wait and hope a political party will save us and that all of a sudden Canadians will make the right choice than things will never change. The vast majority goes no further than the mainstream newspaper or TV news for all their information, you want to see how people vote just follow the news stories ramping up to the next election. The parties have what they call war rooms that spread rumors, leak info and basically manipulate people as much as possible. I ask some co workers how they will Vote in the next BC election and they tell me, OH BC Liberals for sure, the economy is good, we have a good credit rating now, you see their just zombies reading the paper and making a decision. I think that Naomi Klein's point is that taking a vote every 4 years is hardly democracy, it hardly makes a difference, Democracy is the decisions you make everyday and what Your doing, in what small way can you make a difference, we abandon people and their struggles and then hope they support us and vote the right way, we need to connect to people on a local level and start caring about our communities again, basically governments will turn into whatever we want them to if we are a active population, positive change has never come as a gift of government, if comes threw struggle and active citizens. In short people will vote if they see a reason to vote, if large numbers of Canadians see a different system playing out on the streets and they feel they have something to lose they will vote and seek out candidates that support this new system.

Perhaps someone more educated than myself could make a short list of the acheivements of political activism (i.e. ending slavery, women's suffrage, shorter work week, etc.) vs. things won through electoral politics and lobbying (uhh... I dunno... does "The New Deal" count? Was Tommy Douglas voted into office by promising public health care?) vs. what has been won by consumer movements (uhh... I think I'll need some help on this one...).

I can't say for sure, but I'll wager that the most significant changes have been engineered through non-electoral activism (which sometimes filters its way up into the electoral sphere), followed by voting for candidates and hoping they'll do what they say, and in a distant third, people altering their consumption (to be fair, it's a relatively new "movement").

I would go further though and say that the electoral successes would probably have been impossible without the committed work of social movements whose primary area of activity has been non-electoral--more of a direct action type activity. Even the authors' example of Martin Luther King could be used as an example of this. Sure, he lobbied (why not?), but he was becoming increasingly radical towards the end of his life. Possibly because he saw how futile pursuing an electoral strategy had been. And let's not forget the contributions of Malcolm X, without whom MLK would surely have been less effective.

The authors, like most liberals, don't seem to understand the difference between a radical (a real leftist, I mean) and a liberal. Naomi Klein is a radical. Her take on electoral politics is informed by a leftist philosophy, possibly like the one I described above. That they don't understand this shows, I think, that the authors can't be taken seriously.

I agree that the Adbusters philosophy is essentially incorrect, though (as a long term strategy--as an educational product their magazine has some use). So on that front, good for them. Kalle Lasn is a joke, and deserves to be a taken down a few pegs.

A Test.... Thanks for the good comments, the most powerful nations have fallen and the most significant changes for the vast majority have not been given , they has been fought for and taken by the people . Howard Zinn writes allot about the peoples history of United States, a account of the majority and their struggles and not the fiction we see in most history books. We should note that Naomi Klein is an important Radical, she knows once people see the truth and just do their little part the game is over, Look at the G8 summits and anti war protest etc, there is a huge effort to censure the masses and control meaning in our society. We need radicals, moderates , liberals , conservatives and everyone in between to realize that they are not alone , everyone has a important part and collectively has complete power. The message needs to get out....together we Are strong...I will leave you with this quote.. "One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change." David Barsamian, The Daily Texan, June 25, 1998

Stuart's last quote from Barsamian would have been very apt at the Ethics in Leadership Dialogue event I attended the other day since it embodies the very phenomenon that I was trying to articulate to those "ethical" business people who don't think that gov't should interfere with the ethical policies of businesses and that the simple scrutiny of the public as to their affairs would not only keep them in check but ensure that they voluntarily seek to do good in their community. Wouldn't that be nice? hmm... funny thing was the business that was cited as a prime example was BC Hydro (I didn't want to burst the speakers bubble by pointing out the fact it is a Crown Corporation - so not exactly a prime candidate of less gov't involvement paired with a successful ethical perspective in business). Anyhow, it became apparent after one fellow asked whether the question should not rather be: "why should we tolerate ANY breach of ethics in businees conduct in our society?" - since it was implied that it a norm rather than the exception of the rule for big profiteers. They were unwilling to recognize the answer to that query is because we are uncontrollably addicted to our consumer drug - and we "profit" (taking profit in terms of a blessing from the consumer god) from corrupt industries such as ESSO - since many of our RRSPs and gov't pockets are lined with their addictive allure. We tolerate unsustainable and unethical business because our senses are dulled by our unsatiable craving for "things" that we have made the reasoning for living. We built our grave and we can either choose to lie in it - or get so sick that we have to admit that we have a problem and hopefully make our way through withdrawal and a very hard 12 step program.

The siren call of the mall, is an effort to give meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. Buying "no logo" is just another justification to continue shopping. If we all have that much disposable cash, why don't we just give it those who could use it more than we?

Nice quote Stuart. I think social change through consuming eventually drains the power and the meaning of the change itself and it turns into another commodity.

I agree with Paul, Deeby and Peggy. We need to apply pressure on the politicians for appropriate policies,legislation and regulations, and we need to make conscious choices about what (and how much) we buy. Purchasing fair trade coffee and locally-grown organic produce can have a tremendous influence, if enough of us do it. I am grateful for the people who buy the fair trade coffee and organic food, even though it costs more. And I don't condemn those who do not. If we continue to demand socially and environmentally responsible producers, we will get them, and when they become the norm, the availability will improve and the costs will often fall (think dolphin-friendly tuna).

Re: A test's request for a list of how things get changed, activism vs. politicians. A really good book to break out of this debate is "Doing Democracy: the Movement Action Plan model for organizing social movements" by Bill Moyer (not the journalist) which argues that the academy (he is sociologist, but the book isn't academic in style) has divided our idea of social change into two seperate camps--sociologists stufy mass movements--the demos, community meetings, "activism" and say--"weird, that movement just disappeared, and then for no apparent reason all these demands they made got passed into law"; meanwhile, poltical scientists study only the political process--elections, lobbying, presentations to govt bodies, laws being passed, and say "how strange out of nowhere this law arrived and got supported." Moyer argues that the whole process is one continuum, and that different types of activists do different parts of the work... and that we are better at it (ie. the mainstream lobby doesn't ask for less than the grassroots can mobilize support for) when the different parts of the mov't respect each other and the role played, be it briefing gov't bodies or stopping traffic with street theater. On this count, I think moyer's right and the authors of "rebel sell" are wrong. See link to book here: http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3694 Another point about the electoral process, and speaking of Tommy douglas. *National* health care was not brought in by the CCF--they've never been in power nationally! I think it was brought in by the Conservatives. And despite an intense lobby by doctors. Why did they bring it in? Probably a combination of political precedent (political) and public pressure (activist). So electing a particular party does not necessarily correlate with the results you might expect. Especially with minority governments. Not that I advocate voting for the Conservatives in order to improve health care. hahaha.

Good points, Stacy C.

Does ethical consumption challenge the current economic system that maintains class inequality and unsustainable living? I recall a statistic; if 10% of the North american population purchased local organic food, at least one mulinational food distributor would go bankrupt. bye bye Safeway! This begs the question, how long will it take for 10% to switch? and will it be soon enough to prevent further ecocidal atrocities? can we wait that long?? If the pace is too slow, what else is to be done? Many multinationals choose to appropriate the 'language of green ethics', often re-branding their products in order to stay in tune with the times/market. Today, 'Cool' is corporate, and, 'Green' is corporate too. And at times market reform becomes necassary in order to sustain market share/power. So today there are fewer dolphins in tuna. But the same multinational food companies rule the increasingly depleted ocean & land. This logic of reform also allows conservative electoral parties to embrace populist ideas like national health care. These hard fought victories in the 'social contract' become required compromises for 'Capital' to successfully reproduce itself. Now about the needed 'uncooling'. At the same time, that multi-national corps. appropriate populist values & 'language' to sell products, many artists, musicians & writers express new words, sounds & images of their times that provide communities with identities apart from the dominant culture. Today, small craft, local farming or 'boutique' economy may also provide an identity apart from the dominant culture/market. But these 'new' populist identities, and words & sounds are now being appropriated and perverted into the service of the market system at a quicker and faster pace, more so than ever before. I cannot say enough about the importance of MEDIA LITERACY in revealing the role played by the arts & entertainment industries in the current market economy. Furthermore, culture as a weapon for social change has NOT been effectively used by either trade unions, community groups, nor by electoral groups like Greens & NDP. There has been a failure of imagination by many left activist & politicians. 'Culture jamming' is but one attempt to add media awareness into the organizing mix for both activists and politicians.

Hi all. Nice discussion. For those interested in knowing exactly what Andrew and I do and do not say on these issues, the high road would be to read the book. Alternately, some of the arguments can be found in our original THIS Magazine article, which is available online here: (http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2002/11/rebelsell.php) I can't resist drawing attention to the fact that, in his response to our argument, Kalle Lasn resorts to red-baiting, equating our call for increased emphasis on state action with something that only made sense "before the Soviet Union fell". This is precisely the attitude on the left that we are attacking. I see no difference between Lasn's rhetoric here and that of someone like Terence Corcoran (and I'm surprised that no one has drawn any attention to this). Anyhow, our goal is not to attack virtuous consumption, but rather to criticize the attitude on the left that sees virtuous consumerism as viable solution to various collective action problems, independent of any state intervention. I'm in the process of buying a Toyota hybrid, and it's costing me a lot of money (money that I will never recoup through decreased fuel costs). I'm doing it as a matter of principle, not because I have any illusions that it is going to improve air quality -- all it does it put off the day of reckoning, the day that air quality gets bad enough that we take serious legislative action. In the meantime, my hybrid just reduces the pollution load, allowing others to continue driving high-emission vehicles with impunity. So while I think driving a hybrid is the right thing to do, I don't think it represents a solution to any of our problems. Also, it is worth keeping in mind that these superlow emission vehicles wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for the California legislation that gave automakers the incentive to create them. Consumer demand alone would never have supplied an adequate incentive (partly because possible future demand is never concrete enough to justify the present R&D spending needed to produce that sort of technology).

I don't know folks its very easy, almost to easy to figure out. The top 5% in Canada and top 1 % in the US take in one of every 2 dollars made(verified by many independent bodies like Stats Can) The media and corporations are here to do one thing, sell , sell and sell you working stiffs more crap at any cost. The G8 Summits have shown one thing that Militarism , environmental destruction, the rising # of the worlds poor are all interrelated threw Globalization and the need to open new markets and extract cheap resources for our benefit . South And Central America, Africa and SE Asia have known this for years but the So called rich countries populations are just Realizing this. It is a fact that our spending has a direct ripple effect on the rest of the planet, so books like NO LOGO and others that expose our corrupt system are very important. 90% of corn grown in Canada and the US is fed to cattle so rich north Americans can eat their beef, if we for example reduced our beef intake by 10% the market would be flooded with cheap Corn to feed the hungry or the farmers would have to grow alternative crops. In fact large tracks or rain forest in South American are being cleared every day by companies like McDonalds and Burger King for North America Beef production. DON'T TELL ME YOUR SPENDING DOES NOT COUNT. There are many other examples, You will always get folks that basically want to talk forever And do nothing but fog the issue, either people feel powerless or just do not want any initiate to move forward. Comments that are disempowering others like, gee if we buy a book that changes our behavior does that not support consumerism, has anyone ever heard of a Library, used book store etc. Anything less of you folks doing something is a scapegoat. If everyone exerted a little courage and motivation this society would change overnight. We live in the belly of the beast , the rest of the world is hoping we have the courage to scratch. We can find our own Ways to effect change but changing your spending habits will have a huge impact.

Mr. Heath, I hate to break it to you, but your statement: "Consumer demand alone would never have supplied an adequate incentive (partly because possible future demand is never concrete enough to justify the present R&D spending needed to produce that sort of technology)." is the very basis of the life science/biotech research arena that I have a very intimate association - being one of the researchers investing time and money on R&D for possible future consumer demands. In fact, the new age of "drug customization" technology is based exactly on such an obtuse notion - and it is worthy to note it is one of the fastest growing industries in the world (though I should state I am on the opposing end on many of this rogue industries paradigms - but that is another story). Many of your broad statements also seem to contradict movements of the demand of consumers in the EU - which in turn have changed legislation of food production. Most introspective individuals would come to the conclusion themselves that any unsustainable business practise or industry will likely bring its own end and those partaking its in product - so your greatest profit by investing in the hybrid may be your own health and that of your communities (though it may be small consolation to you). Your action will result in greater industry investment for the production of more low emission vehicles at a cheaper cost until we produce an equivalent product that relies on renewable sources of energy. You may even be presently suprised to find that your vehicle does end up redeeming its value when the oil prices continue to soar as we find more of wells empty or when we come to realize that an ounce of oil is not worth another life - lost either in war or via consumption of pollutants - but then, that would be assuming we are an intelligent breed.

I'm not going to read the book. If the article above misrepresents you in some way, would you point out the inaccurate part?

And I'm curious, Mr. Heath, how you would respond to people (such as myself) who are saying that you don't appear to understand the left point of view? Is this just a distortion in the article? For example, do you really believe that "Naomi Klein’s call for ‘deep decentralized democracy’ is in a lot ways indistinguishable from what Stephen Harper says about radical decentralization of political power in Canada"? This is either disingenuous rhetoric, or sheer ignorance.

Or perhaps, you've been misquoted.

Matt B makes an excellent point - counter-culture appeal is to a relatively thin minority: those with money who are also pro-environment, fair-trade and anti-corporation in their philosophy. I would add that the thin minority also includes those without children. I shop the Thrift Stores. I also shop at Walmart because often you can't find what you're looking for at the Thrift Shop. I shop these stores because they're inexpensive. I'm sorry, but I can't afford many of the "fair-trade" items. And I need to eat and I like coffee. (As an aside on the last point; be aware that much of organic agriculture is no more sustainable than conventional). An even bigger point I want to make - I belive that most human beings are good people who care about others but also have a natural strong desire to survive if not thrive. Corporations and other "baddies" do not purposefully seek to make life miserable for anyone associated with the making of a product. But that is how many people interpret them. The guy who works in the cubicle at Nike? The one who is (supposedly) just a cog? He's your neighbour, just trying to survive and be happy just as you are trying to.

Wow, what a great forum. I have not read the Heath and Potter book but, Mr. Heath I suppose you have read your Galbraith and do believe that governments are a necessity because they are the buyer of last resort. The guarantor of markets. But Galbraith continued and argued that eventualy governments would be co-opted to do the bidding of industrial corporations because (in layman's terms) governements need the tax dollars to survive. Indeed government and industrial corporations are very intertwined today. I will read your book once it's available in my local library and the cost of the book is shared amongst my community.

The issue of our times (I'm 29) should not be "distintion from prevalent culture" but a shift in prevalent culture. The belief that spontaneous harmony can be achieved, *poof* by setting people free (read anarchy) is, pardon me for saying, bunk. Liberal Democracy, the true cultural gift of Western Civilization (not pop music contrary to popular belief) took centuries to evolve and it cannot be dropped on any culture without the neccessary institutions in support. Believing so is a mistake that falls into the category of those who forget their history are doomed to repeat their mistakes. I spent two years teaching in a Republic of the former Soviet Union, watching them struggle to develop these institutions. Those who would quickly dismiss Liberal Democracy and Capitalism should first spend enough time in a country with a different system before they cast their stone. There is an evolution that must now take place in Western Civilization if humanity is to continue to thrive on this planet. Thankfully we have this system, built on the struggle, rallies, revolts and votes of our ancestors that allow us to make this change if we as a society work together.

Lastly, I have read No Logo and I know all of Adbuster's campaigns. 3rs states that governments are not responsible for social change and Old Lefty correctly points to a scenario where government was a necessary factor in social change for the better. Both are correct but in my opinion both fall short of the necessary conclusion. What is necessary is to acknowledge that government should be a reflection of it's citizens BUT for that to happen citizens must get involved in their government. That means becoming involved in the sometimes tedious meetings, reading books attending rallies, VOTTING and maybe even getting involved in politics yourself, to influence YOUR GOVERNMENT. Stuart is on the right track in my opinion. "Think Global and Act Local" is a good starting place.

spending does count, why not buy canadian made products? Why did the beef producers not pass on the lower farmgate prices paid for cattle? Huge profits were made and the consumer got very little reduction,typical of our mercantilism ,take all you can before you die,seems to be a motto somewhere coming. Do the B.C. liberals really count on voter sheep like behaviour? Yes they do, and correctly so, that is what politicans are good at. None the less lest i get off topic, has a boycott of say grapes ever worked? Or a boycott of say toys, cars etc. By reducing supply,the makers either cutback production or swamp markets,people seem to not be concerned by working conditions inchina ,vietnam ,indonesia,zambia or any where else. The great american pant co. evolved into the GAP be cause in the 1960's the rivera pant was not acceptable re working conditions/ pay to some buit the GAP exists still today. Almost as a leitmotif of how to union bust, the textile industry has disappeared from the sceneas we are advised that of course north americans would like to do that work. The hidden poor rarely buy the line that secondhand goods are not the answer, in droves the poor go to thrift shops daily. All i am saying is boycotts sometimes are not the answer to a problem.

I'll second New Guy's comments and add that a "he's right and she's wrong" debate is overly simplistic and not particularly helpful. Buying local organic food, for instance, does have a real measurable impact on many things, not the least of which is the well-being of local ecological systems. But market exchange has limitations: consumer activism will not create equal access to (relatively) impartial justice, guarantee access to clean water through watershed management, ensure the vulnerable have access to adequate health and home care, create affordable housing opportunities, ensure access to affordable and responsible utilities - and on, and on. We waste time demanding one idea solve everything. It seems more likely that consumer activism has its limits rather than it should be thrown out as a destructive tool. Same goes for government intervention. Surely, we're not advocating consumer choice as a means to guarantee accessible healthcare...

hello i live in seattle i am always looking for the newest and hottest sneakers around my cousin told me about this website called www.sneakercountry.com please let me know if anyone has shopped there and if s what did you think of there shoes and service email me at