No-Pro-No-Logo? Pro-No-Pro-Logo!

[nfotxn]

A while ago I listened to the debate [listen] Pro Logo vs. No Logo in which the activist super-star Naomi Klein shot down the Economist Business Correspondent Sameena Ahmad. Well at least in my opinion. Naomi quoted only the Economist to refute Ahmad's claims that her stance on globalization and present capitalist markets were childish and without real world perspective.

Now it seems Sameena Ahmad has written an article entitled "Why Naomi Klein needs to grow up" anonymously in the Economist! It's pretty ironically titled considering the two of them are kinda naïve when you look at. However if there's a side to be taken I'm with Naomi. She seems to be a lot more researched on present-day goings-on while Ahmad simply spits out economical theory of how capitalist markets are supposed to work.

The problem nobody addresses clearly is that the system as-is has to work.. as-is. Capitalist markets aren't really ones to look backwards and fix their mistakes. Nope, they're like bacteria. They colonize until they fail and get eradicated except for the mutants that happen to have the right adaptations. I am highly opposed Ahmad's position that everything is hunky-dory and brands are our best frends. It's not like the exploitation of the third-world and waste of natural resources can go on forever. Resources will become more expensive and people will demand better rights for themselves, as they have throughout history.

At least, here's hoping.

Comments

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

Bah.

Naomi Klein is an effective debater with an patchwork philosophy full of holes. There is no consistent theme in her argument; she resonates on an emotional level with people that feel overeducated and underpaid, but does not have an effective ideas for moving into her post-capitalist utopia.

She does need to grow up and stop whining, and instead of posturing on talk shows, make something happen if she's truly going to have a lasting impact.

[haenck.livejournal.com]

I am no fan of shrill anti-globalists, but then I tire of The Economists incessant drumbeat of "free markets solve all problems". [Although it is worth noting even The Economist believes in more restraints on capitalism than our own government. Example: anti-trust enforcement.]

We should have listened more to Hamilton and Jefferson- the two of our Founding Fathers who did not think that corporations deserved our undying trust.

[folkyboy.livejournal.com]

you are so hot!

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

I have to admit that I haven't read Naomi Klein. But I've spoken with a number of her followers. And I wish they would shut the fuck up.

Globalisation is a good thing. How else is money going to reach the people in third-world countries who need it?

Anti-globalisation advocates seem to think that globalisation is inherently linked with the violation of human rights. It's not. But do you know what does lead to a violation of human rights? The lawlessness, anarchy, and corruption which exists in poor countries.

I had one guy telling me that "Right now, some woman working in a factory is being beaten by a factory supervisor to the point where she has a miscarriage, because of globalisation." My reply to that is, what's to stop that supervisor from beating that woman, even if there wasn't globalisation? The powerful always try to dominate and exploit the weak. What that woman needs is a good government which can effectively police and enforce the law. And that takes money.

And the only way that country is going to get money is to sell its labour to the global market.

(If you want to help that hypothetical woman, write to Nike and tell them that you'd be willing to pay $5 extra for shoes if they hire some independent security guards for their factories.)

I've had some anti-globalisation advocates tell me, "But all the money goes into the pockets of the factory owners." That betrays a misunderstanding of economics. The money doesn't just sit in the pockets of the factory owners. It's no good to them that way -- it just becomes pretty-coloured paper. It's only useful to them if they spend it or invest it, which puts the money back in circulation, so more of it can reach the pockets of the labourers.

There is a downside (or what you could perceive as a downside) to globalisation: Richer countries are going to lose jobs to poorer countries. But when anti-globalisation advocates complain about that, they're just being selfish. The economists are the ones more concerned with the fair distribution of wealth. (Distribution of wealth is a measure of a good economy.)

I'm sorry if this is coming across as more virulent than your post deserves. I've been meaning to say something about this for ages. I had to listen to this No Logo stuff from my roommate in Booval, and it drove me nuts. (Yes, the world is about to be held ransom to private corporations because Disney built some stupid gated community which no one wants to move to anyway.)

I guess I should have posted this in my own journal, but, let's face it, more people will see it if it's a comment in your journal than if it's an entry in mine.

Logos.

[(Anonymous)]

Gimme a break man, you think Nike or anyone is listening?

If you don't think there's a problem with the way wealth is distributed in this world you've got to be either blind or stupid. And yes I'm talking about real wealth, what people own, now a number in thier bank account.

The system aggregates real wealth inherrenlty. That's why in ancient isreal it was againt jewish law to buy into an investment at a fixed return rate - you got so much of whatever it made.

You're argument that globalisation works to distribute wealth better is a flawed one. It moves wealth to differant, poorer works yes. But at the same time why'd they move the plant to mexico? So they can pay them less, so much less in fact that the consumers can sill be here and the profit is still more (shipping is expensive remember). But the ones making the profit are still the rich, and now they're making more money and spending less of it on the working class. Stop thinking in terms of nationalisms.

Distribution is wealth may not be the sign of a good economy, but it is the sign of a good society. And the rich ARE getting richer, and the poor ARE getting poorer. I think there's some room for critisism.

-Aaron

Re: Logos.

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

Gimme a break man, you think Nike or anyone is listening?

They'll listen if you speak with your dollars.

If you don't think there's a problem with the way wealth is distributed in this world you've got to be either blind or stupid.

The way wealth is distributed today is far from utopic, but it's a lot better than it was in the past (think: lords and peasants), which seems to suggest that we're going in the right direction.

It moves wealth to differant, poorer works yes. But at the same time why'd they move the plant to mexico? So they can pay them less...

If wealth is moved to poorer workers, then that's a good thing. Who cares that the company is now making increased profits? The Mexican workers don't.

But the ones making the profit are still the rich, and now they're making more money and spending less of it on the working class. Stop thinking in terms of nationalisms.

It's a trick of good rhetoric to make you think that the working classes of the USA and the working classes of Mexico are somehow united in their struggle for wealth because they're both called "working class". The truth is that the worker in the USA is much richer than the worker in Mexico, and I bet the worker in Mexico would love to get the money currently going to the worker in the USA.

My sympathy is with the Mexican.

Distribution is wealth may not be the sign of a good economy, but it is the sign of a good society.

Good distribution of wealth is one of the signs of a good economy. You're not the first antiglobalisationist I've met to not understand that.

I think there's some room for critisism.

There's always room for criticism. Criticism is good. But Naomi Klein's followers are far more rabid then they have justification to be.

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

By the way. Notice that I don't actually have anything against Naomi Klein. She's doing her job as a journalist. She's writes well. My ex-boyfriend, Samash, had a degree in Economics from Yale, and he had read No Logo and said it was a good book worth reading.

And, let's face it, she's got a certain glamour about her, as a celebrity journalist. She's clever, witty and she's provocative. She's like a modern Germaine Greer.

And from what I've read, Naomi Klein herself is not opposed to globalisation, though she thinks governments should work cooperatively to address some of its problems.

But her legion of followers, in classic herd-mentality style, have decided that because globalisation has some problems, IT MUST BE ABOLISHED AT ALL COST!!!

(And I had to live with one of them.)

What the working class deserves.

[(Anonymous)]

Alright, so what's being said here is that we basically have three economic strata. Those rich enough to invest in the factories, those working class in the USA, and the working class in Mexico.

You're arguement is because the mexican worker has less, then he should get the job, regardless of this resulting in a greater profit margin for the investor. This is such a great thing because it's spreading *some* wealth to those that need it more. A trick of sympathy at best.

Meanwhile, the american worker, with his employment insurance, dental plan, and wages that are good enough to supply his family with a high standard of living. This is too much. Let's move the factory in mexico and pay the workers peanuts, because it's peanuts more than they had before. Meanwhile the rich get richer, and this is no big deal? Aggregation of resources is exactly what we're trying to avoid here! So don't even suggest the the rich getting richer is just ok while the the poorest are used at the expence of the working class.

No, I still disagree. If you're going to invest in making the widget, you should have to shell out enough to protect your workers, provide a reasonable standard of living and working. Should we side with the american worker, who has more, over the mexican worker that doesn't? YES!

The american worker lives in a country with compartive political stability. A place where his rights have afforded him the right to unionize, and the opertunity to provide his employer with a reasonable standard of living. Political stablity that's lacking from these poorer countries making legelation of workers rights, wages, saftey impossible. It's on the back of these hardships that companies move south.

Yes, capital must flow into poorer nations somehow, but letting multinationals dictate what is and isn't accetable behavoir on thier bahalf is absolutely ludicrous. The fact is for our standard of living, there just arn't enough resouces for everyone. We'd need another three earths. The markets are remaining in the first world, regardless of where the products are being made, for the most part, this is where they are being sold. Free base globalism will only work to construct a world of slavery, where the poorest have just enough to survive, and industry moves its good to the richest countries. The rich get richer. You can't just say infant mortality is down, the average Mexican is going to be driving a minivan in no time. That's not the world this system will build. The rich ARE getting richer, it has begun already.

One thing that I agree with is if you say you have met several rabit followers of Naomi Klein. I disagree of idolitry because it discourages critisism. Although at the same time, I must point out that I have seen hundreds of thousands more that seem to be idoliters on the other side of the issue. Teenagers so tottaly saturated in media and covered in logos. A trip to the mall these days and I always walk out grinding me teeth. Guys my age buying replacement Honda badges for thier cars. Why? Because it's cool, because it looks good. These issues arn't even considered in a good 99.9% of these purchases. I'm not going to argue that people don't deserve or arn't entittled to these products, but if there is idolitry out there, I would argue this is where it can be found in mind boggling abundance.