Abe and Az, I’d reiterate my initial preface to my BlackSpot critique: that “on its own terms [as antibranding], the biggest problem with BlackSpot is…” — I was deliberately not looking at the bigger picture. But I don’t think the bottom line of the matter is that we “progressive” types need to offer alternative commodities to appear viable as a social movement (eh?), nor that we need cheaper sneakers (although the latter would be nice).
Abe, I really don’t think that “anticorporate movements” are undercut by the fact that everything out there is produced under various dodgy conditions of exploitation. Global capitalism is kinda defined by having totalised the world in the logic of exploitation — just because “friendly flavours of capitalism” don’t seem to be winning any points in the taste tests is no reason for anticorporate movements to seem either hypocritical, impractical or full of wishful thinking. That’s kinda the point: this universal state of exploitation is what we live in, and one to which we must create real alternatives through the power of labour — the captive subject that actually makes everything happen — by creating mutant social spaces where labour is no longer subject to the demands of capitalist work, either virtually, momentarily or on a sustained basis. It’s clear that Adbusters’ Kalle Lasn is against this: he has explicitly stated that although the idea of BlackSpot production is to pay lip service to organised labour, they wanted to go “offshore” to avoid having to “buckle under the unions” in the “First World”, thus locating production in areas where I guess people are used to being more “flexible”. His idea of competing with Phil Knight is more a reactive form of whacky corporate ressentiment than anybody engaging in collective, liberatory practices. Occupying oneself in petty competition with another bosses while getting down with the real business of setting sustainable horizons for exploitation just sounds like a variation of business as usual.
Incidentally: given that I’ve only got a couple of days left as a corporate whore, I guess I should publicly tell the story of how Nike (yes, they’re a client) sent over a couple of damage control PR goons to our office to give us “the line”. After showing us a corporate video about how they’re now responsibly managing exploitation in Vietnam (the video actually opened with the immortal words, “No communist ideology here…”), they came up with some great obfuscation of the economic terrain in terms of reified geopolitical theatres, like how they were “able” to achieve such “humanely” sustainable exploitation in Vietnam because it was “so stable”, unlike in other “horrible” countries like Indonesia, where of course anything goes. (Unspoken, but inferred: the “instability” of having a Western-backed junta in power means that “we” naturally shift gears to get away with, uh, murder). Amazing. So the price of this “stability” in Vietnam? Oh, they get paid 20c an hour there. “Now we wouldn’t want to get paid that little, of course,” the goon said. “That’s why we should all be thankful that we live in a country like Australia.” Amazing!
But here’s the best bit: they got onto talking about those horrible protestors who are blockading their Niketown stores. “When it comes down to it, you can’t actually argue with these people,” one of them said. “I mean, you either believe in capitalist globlisation, or you don’t.” And you know, he was absolutely right — much more right than Kalle Lasn. These structural issues are what it’s all about. I think it’s a given that people who protest and engage in direct action against exploitation (whether they’re white students in Seattle or workers of colour in Vietnam) have little choice but to wear the products of that exploitation, whether it be Nikes or something more affordable. (Yes, Nikes seem to be designed for only those that can afford them, but that’s actually never been true in a strict sense — people who can’t afford Nikes are often the ones buying them, and those who simply sneer at this fact, I wager, are the ones who can, uh, afford to. “Stupid working class sheep — why can’t they be bicycle-riding vegans like us enlightened souls?”) So, to stoop to either half-assed, entrepeneurial competition with Nike or to collapse into a neurotically misplaced, phobic disavowal of brands is to refuse an engagement with these conditions. Funnily enough, Adbusters now does both.
hmmm, good stuff, I have a couple questions and and a couple points.
First off sorry I missed that “on its own terms” bit. Need to add that I can’t conceive of any situation where anything Adbusters could actually produce could succeed “on its own terms”… They make a glossy expensive anti advertising magazine for christ’s sake… That plus I’m a pragmatist, I generally don’t care whether things work on their own terms or not, like humans, organizations and movements are rife with internal contradictions, its part of the beauty of life, no?
I’m really interested in how we create “create real alternatives through the power of labour” and more importantly, will any of these alternatives be able to scale. There are plenty of localized and/or temporary instances, but I’ve yet to encounter a real alternative that comes to grip with the fact that their are 6 billion people in this world and that number is only going up. So what alternatives do you propose?
And finally is it essential that someone like Adbusters get it 100% right on the first go? Or are they allowed to experiment? To explore imperfect alternatives as a path towards slightly more perfect positions?
so its either vegan shoes or nikes?! come on, what a crock ben - this is the same old bullshit simplistic working class culture vs middle class culture line, which it would be pointless to explore again as its complete shit (i would say middle class shit, as ive only ever heard this line from middle class kids, but that might also be a little tired). im willing to bet most of the ppl who buy nikes are actualy rich brats pretending to be poor. I certainly dont remember many ppl having kick arse trainers where i grew up (and for the record, one of my happest days as a 14yr old was when i got a new pair of (immitation) reboks - my one and only. all i could say was thank god for relatives who go to singapore). most of the poorer kids i knew had dunlops, and shit like that (and most of the ones who had brand name sneakers had immitations). sure, most kids would want some nikes, but how is that the same thing (most of them wanted ferraris as well, but like they are going to ever have one)? nikes are designed for rich kids - always have, and always will. thats why they retail for so much. evidence in point is the fact nike gives them away free to black kids in US ghettos - reaping in the authenticity all the better to sell to white kids in the burbs. but im sure the easiest way to solve this one is to pull their sales and marketing data…
Um, dude, note that I said that “Nikes or something more affordable” (i.e. the choice is not between Nikes and vegan shoes — I was habitually making a point about a line of identitarian lifestyle thinking with the vegan dig), and that “[the rich kid target market] has never been true in a strict sense”. I’m not saying that rich kids don’t buy Nikes, or that they’re not expensive, or that they are not indeed too expensive for someone living on $2 a day. I’m trying to make the point that unlike organic food (which despite our very interesting conversation about the agricultural economy, I still believe to be, in local market terms, largely a neurotic middle class alterna thing), the market for various prestige clothing items is not simply rich people.
I have no idea where you grew up, Nik, but there are heaps of migrant working class people who live in Bankstown (south west Sydney), with otherwise next to no possessions in their homes, but who wear incredibly expensive shoes. I don’t see how this observation is simplistic stuff that “could only come from middle class people”. Unless I’ve totally missed the boat on the hidden luxuries that underline the righteous terrain of alternaculture, I take it as a given that the “rational” assumption that you simply wear rags when you’re poor actually stems from the thrifty, grey, belt-tightening aspects of “middle class” Protestant culture. Indeed, your stupid student wanker types, unable to escape the assumptions of their cultural roots, have always glamourised the “poor and dirty” look, which is kinda the weird mirror of your “rich Nike wearers are lamely slumming it for ghetto cred” observation (which, I agree, undoubtedly also happens).
Look at the history of the post-war “working class culture” in western industrialised nations. Were Mods, who wore expensive Italian suits, ties and shiny shoes, simply stupid rich kids who were aping a mirage of “working class” culture that was simply invented by corporations? Um, no. While there were undoubtedly rich hangers on, the core experience that shaped this cultural phenomenon was working class kids who had newly entered the white-collar workforce as office shitkickers, etc — Negri’s transition from the “mass worker” to the “social worker” — who refused the tired, cloth-cap identity of “the working class”, which had always been an ill-fitting corporatist mechanism of control anyway. Hence the emphasis on cleanliness, sharpness, “modernity” and strangely expensive clothes. Now while I have no illusions that Nike’s all-encompassing marketing schemas are in any way comparable to the generative aspects of spontaneous working class subcultures, the point is that often, people without much money don’t want to look poor, and will make all sorts of sacrifices to do this.
Kill all hippies!
This reminds me, I’ve been meaning to ask - I need a new pair of trainers, does anyone know where, in Sydney, I can get a decently stylish pair that are non-sweatshop? Are there even half-stylish shoes made by union labour?
Sorry to ignore all important points.
ah, my bad, apols.
From newie mate – he he he. Yeh, I agree with the organic vegie thing. I do think that its increasingly murky ground though. In England and Europe perhaps more than here, but increasingly I seem all sorts buying up organic, which I tend to think comes from a basic general ‘avoid the pollutants’ line – not a bad thing at all. And I agree its crap that the market prices are expensive.. on the tangental trip though, coles has pretty cheap organic products now. Not super cheap, but cheapish (like $1.90 for a packet of pasta, etc) – this is in Brunswick, so it could either reflect the growing demographic changes (more yuppies) or just a growth in demand generally, or a bit of both.
Re: prestige, I agree – there is always going to be a bit of both. Its always going to be a two way trip. I wasn’t meaning to imply that its either rags or riches, but I do think that not everyone is going to have the ability to buy expensive shoes even if they want them, and that there will always be more people with money buying the shoes than without. I wasn’t disputing the desire to own, though I think this is far from a uniform desire, or ever the desire of the (aggregate) majority –again, it depends on the exact locality. for instance, I have know idea what bankstown is like, but in newcastle your choice of footwear really depended on where you lived – down by the beach, amongst the surfies (who were mostly from poorer families in many ways), sneakers, like nikes, where pretty much non-existent (while I was there those weird black school shoe things were the in-thing), whilst out in broadmeadows (a ‘western’ suburb I guess where I mostly grew up) generic sneakers were the norm (imitations the rule). Things like nike’s et al were usually the preserve of richer kids. So perhaps what I should of said was prestige economies work in lots of different ways, and that while in some places the flow is rich trying to look poor (‘authentic mate!’), and poor trying to look rich, it doesn’t always work this way (lots of mechanics that I know via my brothers all make a point of dressing from best and less, wearing ‘good’ work footwear, etc, for example, but then lots of artists also were work shoes, and ferals, and leftisist student wankers… in fact, lots of the people I hung out with made a point of being ‘proudly poor’, a whole sort of ‘fuck you, ive got no money and I steal from vinnies’ thing). I mean, bogan is a great example of a counter to the mod – vollies, flannie and jeans – simple and not ‘branded’ in the expensive sense of the word. A counter to this is the whole bankstown deal… another is the whole convergence of the jean and short sleave shirt brigade every Friday night on newcastles streets (from best and less – actually probably the most popular brand), an example of a style built around not getting too ‘up yourself’ and poncy… there could be an endless sense of back and forth on this one.
But yeh, I should have been more careful in my words etc. I do think the relation of masculinity to prestige spending is pretty interesting though, as is the way nike mobilises prestige spending and identity construction (and the desires to escape capitalism, et al)
Long live hippies!
Shane, you could always buy some BlackSpots :)…
I specified at least half-stylish, though. I don’t think they’re making the grade.
I’m also in the market for a beanie. Does anyone know where I can get a decent beanie?
“simply sneer at this fact, I wager, are the ones who can, uh, afford to. “Stupid working class sheep — why can’t they be bicycle-riding vegans like us enlightened souls?”) “
simply sneering is deeply unpleasant, I agree, as it usually ends is crass generalisations. And I do agree on yr point about there being a huge class/snob element in these judgements.
But your assumption that ethical consumption and/or veggie/organic-ness=wealthy annoying liberal is a load of crap. There are plenty of people who want to eat organic/consume ethically that don’t fit yr stereotypes.
Oh, and I would shop organic/ethically, but I can rarely afford to.
Think that has alot more to do with why it’s only wealthy people that tend do.
Shane, on the beanie: learn to knit. Ethical as it gets and cheap.
I’m a veggie-shoe-wearing-hippy as well. :p
Okay, okay, you’re right — I’ve thought about it a bit more and realise that I did say that “unlike organic food… the market for various prestige clothing items is not simply rich people”. I was exaggerating. What I meant to say was that there’s more likelihood of people who can’t afford expensive sneakers actually buying them than people who can’t afford organic food actually buying that, and that people who find this “foolish” can afford to. But besides talking about how people wearing expensive clothes can be a challenging thing, I never said why there’s a fundamental difference in the first place. I do think there’s a reason, and I think it’s connected to psychoanalysis and regimens of mainaining the self, and controlling the ingestion of things into the body versus flagrant displays of sacrificial consumption. But that’s for another time. Sorry. :)
Ben, I agree that it’s a far more complex issue than just getting ‘shoes one can afford’, and I’m well aware of the logic that makes people with very little income buy really expensive shoes. I don’t buy expensive shoes but I like expensive icecream and it’s precisely the same logic: if I have nothing to lose, I may as well spend the cash on something I’ll enjoy (or, in another sense, on something that will accrue cred.)
Anyhow, I was just responding to Abe’s suggestion that providing market alternatives is the way to go. Personally, I have no respect for brand boycotts, and I don’t think they’re particularly good anticapitalist strategy. Precisely because the response is to talk about ‘reforming’ the sweatshops, and Nike et al develop one factory with well-paid workers to show off to the NGO’s, but the whole framework isn’t tampered with at all.