Your thoughts on "No Logo"?

[source]

Has anyone read this book and can you tell me if the ideas in it are objectivistic or at least approximately so? I only had the book in my hands once when I was in a bookstore. I was buying something else, but thought I might just have a glance. I read the first page and I was actually getting an impression that this may be a good book. Since I wouldn't want to rush into buying it before I know exactly whether the book is anti-advertising or pro-advertising or something else, I'd like your oppinions on it (if you've read it).

Thanks.

[BurgessLau]

Has anyone read this book and can you tell me if the ideas in it are objectivistic or at least approximately so?

What do you mean by "objectivistic"?

[source]

What do you mean by "objectivistic"?

Sorry. That ought to have been "objective" or "consistent with the philosophy of objectivism."

[A.West]

I have not read the book but have come across Ms. Klein's articles. She is competing to be a leading voice in the protest against capitalism, free trade, corporations, etc., and sympathizes with muslim terrorists. Sounds like the New New Left. Here is the best summary I've seen of Ms. Klein, submitted by Christopher Hitchens in response to an extra irrational essay of hers:

Another small but interesting development has occurred among my former comrades at The Nation magazine. In its "GOP Convention Issue" dated Sept. 13, the editors decided to run a piece by Naomi Klein titled "Bring Najaf to New York." If you think this sounds suspiciously like an endorsement of Muqtada Sadr and his black-masked clerical bandits, you are not mistaken. The article, indeed, went somewhat further, and lower, than the headline did. Ms. Klein is known as a salient figure in the so-called antiglobalization movement, and for a book proclaiming her hostility to logos and other forms of oppression: She's not marginal to what remains of the left. Her nasty, stupid article has evoked two excellent blog responses from two pillars of the Nation family: Marc Cooper in Los Angeles and Doug Ireland in New York. What gives, they want to know, with a supposed socialist-feminist offering swooning support to theocratic fascists? It's a good question, and I understand that it's ignited quite a debate among the magazine's staff and periphery.

When I quit writing my column for The Nation a couple of years ago, I wrote semi-sarcastically that it had become an echo chamber for those who were more afraid of John Ashcroft than Osama Bin Laden. I honestly did not then expect to find it publishing actual endorsements of jihad. But, as Marxism taught me, the logic of history and politics is a pitiless one. The antiwar isolationist "left" started by being merely "status quo": opposing regime change and hinting at moral equivalence between Bush's "terrorism" and the other sort. This conservative position didn't take very long to metastasize into a flat-out reactionary one, with Michael Moore saying that the Iraqi "resistance" was the equivalent of the Revolutionary Minutemen, Tariq Ali calling for solidarity with the "insurgents," and now Ms. Klein, among many others, wanting to bring the war home because any kind of anti-Americanism is better than none at all. These fellow-travelers with fascism are also changing ships on a falling tide: Their applause for the holy warriors comes at a time when wide swathes of the Arab and Muslim world are sickening of the mindless blasphemy and the sectarian bigotry. It took an effort for American pseudo-radicals to be outflanked on the left by Ayatollah Sistani, but they managed it somehow.

[BurgessLau]

Sorry. That ought to have been "objective" or "consistent with the philosophy of objectivism."

What do you mean by "the philosophy of objectivism"?

The philosophy Ayn Rand created and named is "Objectivism."

What is the philosophy of "objectivism"?

P. S. -- One of the quickest-to-access sources for reviews of books is Amazon.com. I look up the book by title and then concentrate on the positive reviews. If, for example, a reviewer praises an author's "courage" and "perception" in attacking international corporations, I have an idea of its value. A check of the author's preface and introduction is also a gold mine usually for the author's orientation (that is, philosophy).

[A.West]

I'd be shocked if there was even one longish paragraph in this book that Objectivists would not find in error. Unless one is looking for "horror file" material.

[Inspector]

What do you mean by "the philosophy of objectivism"?

The philosophy Ayn Rand created and named is "Objectivism."

What is the philosophy of "objectivism"?

You know, not everybody who uses a small "o" to spell objectivism is doing so on purpose and merits such an answer. It could be a typo for all you know. I just love how a lot of the folks here assume that every time they see the word "objectivism" that someone is using it on purpose and that they are using it to mean something other than Objectivism.

That little speech of yours is not the best way to introduce yourself as (most likely) the first Objectivist this person has ever spoken (typed?) with.

A better thing to say to the guy would be:

"Just so you know, Objectivism is spelled with a capital 'o.' "

And save your smar-alec attitude for if he actually says something that merits its use.

[BlackSabbath]

The book ,which I have not read, is written by an anti-capitalist, anti-globalist feminist who I have never known to be in favour of anything and who can reasonably be considered a nihilist.

Do not waste your money.

[redfarmer]

You know, not everybody who uses a small "o" to spell objectivism is doing so on purpose and merits such an answer. It could be a typo for all you know. I just love how a lot of the folks here assume that every time they see the word "objectivism" that someone is using it on purpose and that they are using it to mean something other than Objectivism.

That little speech of yours is not the best way to introduce yourself as (most likely) the first Objectivist this person has ever spoken (typed?) with.

A better thing to say to the guy would be:

"Just so you know, Objectivism is spelled with a capital 'o.' "

And save your smar-alec attitude for if he actually says something that merits its use.

It's funny: after reading his response, I was thinking the exact same thing.

[BondShirley]

You know, not everybody who uses a small "o" to spell objectivism is doing so on purpose and merits such an answer. It could be a typo for all you know. I just love how a lot of the folks here assume that every time they see the word "objectivism" that someone is using it on purpose and that they are using it to mean something other than Objectivism.

That little speech of yours is not the best way to introduce yourself as (most likely) the first Objectivist this person has ever spoken (typed?) with.

A better thing to say to the guy would be:

"Just so you know, Objectivism is spelled with a capital 'o.' "

And save your smar-alec attitude for if he actually says something that merits its use.

I agree with your suggestion -- "Just so you know, Objectivism is spelled with a capital 'o.' " would probably be better than asking a rhetorical question (especially in light of the response to Burgess's first post, which suggests honest unawareness of the small "o"/big "O" issue).

But are you certain Burgess's response betrayed a smart-alec attitude? Are you sure it was meant to be the type of answer you read it as being (especially in light of the Amazon comment, which is not the type of postscript one adds to a smart-alec response)?

I found your tone a little too biting for what may be an unintentional error or perhaps even just a difference of style. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, I just wanted to point out that your post seems to be making the same mistake you were criticizing Burgess for -- automatically assuming bad motivation in a post that could just as easily be sincere.

[Thoyd Loki]

You know, not everybody who uses a small "o" to spell objectivism is doing so on purpose and merits such an answer. It could be a typo for all you know. I just love how a lot of the folks here assume that every time they see the word "objectivism" that someone is using it on purpose and that they are using it to mean something other than Objectivism.

That little speech of yours is not the best way to introduce yourself as (most likely) the first Objectivist this person has ever spoken (typed?) with.

A better thing to say to the guy would be:

"Just so you know, Objectivism is spelled with a capital 'o.' "

And save your smar-alec attitude for if he actually says something that merits its use.

Actually, Inspector, you should have checked your facts in this case first. Source has been here since April. He has over 250 posts. He has made this mistake before. I believe Mr. Lau has called him on it before. Source has been known to put his foot in his mouth from time to time.

Being a writer myself, I find the typo explanation to be the least excusable of all. How hard is it to proofread real quick?

[Thoyd Loki]

I'd like to add that it is incorrect as well to write; marxism, kantian, aristotelian, etc.

Those are merely errors in capitalization necessitated by the fact that they come from proper names of actual people. No error of identity is committed.

Objectivism is not the name of a person. The "objectivism" found in the dictionary is not the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. It is a term of generic (and very loose) usage that is in the dictionary. So, when you type the word objectivism, and you mean Objectivism, you are making an error that changes the referent of your concept.

And Mr. Lau bringing that up to whomever commits it is a service to those that are newbies, and a check on those that are not meticulous enough in checking their finished product.

It is a valid point, and I for one don't want him to stop doing it.

[Concerto of Atlantis]

Naomi Klein is one of those writers who thinks that if they oppose something extensively using a rational-sounding tone, that *somehow* someone will think that she actually stands for something. She doesn't. Read it if you want to get an insight into the populist view of anti-globalisation, but otherwise, it is a waste of time and money.

[source]

Thanks everyone for the tips.

That includes grammar issues as well. As the matter of fact, me typing "objectivism" instead of "Objectivism" is not me making a typo. It is in fact me applying grammar rules of my language to the things I type. Names of philosophies in correct croatian grammar are not written with a capital letter. Not even marxism (or Marxism, whichever is correct). Only names of people, of places and institutions are written with a capital letter. And that is only my basic summary. Croatian grammar is too complex even in such a simple matter as capitalizing letters, and I am not going to explain it all here. I know, this is english language (should that have been capitalized?) but some habits are hard to get rid of.

In any case, since I have great respect for Objectivism (and you may have noticed that several times I DID violate the grammar rules of my language), I'm going to type it with a capital 'O' from now on.

Still, perhaps in light of recent events this becoming an issue is justified, but BurgessLau, if I recall correctly, has the same approach to everyone, not just me. I don't exactly remember where I last saw him asking the same question and I don't know who it was posed to; he could as well have asked me, but the question seemed too silly to be addressed seriously.

[Inspector]

Actually, Inspector, you should have checked your facts in this case first. Source has been here since April. He has over 250 posts. He has made this mistake before. I believe Mr. Lau has called him on it before. Source has been known to put his foot in his mouth from time to time.

Being a writer myself, I find the typo explanation to be the least excusable of all. How hard is it to proofread real quick?

Ah, so they have a history... Well, I didn't mean to step into a personal conflict then. *steps back*

[Inspector]

I just wanted to point out that your post seems to be making the same mistake you were criticizing Burgess for -- automatically assuming bad motivation in a post that could just as easily be sincere.

Well, I was a bit biting, and it was intentional. I did evaluate that the tone of the original post was biting, so I bit back, as it were. So you're right about that. You're also right that I should have taken the high ground, instead of lowering myself into that.

[Inspector]

Objectivism is not the name of a person. The "objectivism" found in the dictionary is not the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. It is a term of generic (and very loose) usage that is in the dictionary. So, when you type the word objectivism, and you mean Objectivism, you are making an error that changes the referent of your concept.

I agree completely and never meant to suggest that it was "okay" to use the lower case intentionally. (Which I don't think you're suggesting, but I want to be clear)

[Poelse]

Thanks everyone for the tips.

That includes grammar issues as well. As the matter of fact, me typing "objectivism" instead of "Objectivism" is not me making a typo. It is in fact me applying grammar rules of my language to the things I type. Names of philosophies in correct croatian grammar are not written with a capital letter. Not even marxism (or Marxism, whichever is correct). Only names of people, of places and institutions are written with a capital letter. And that is only my basic summary. Croatian grammar is too complex even in such a simple matter as capitalizing letters, and I am not going to explain it all here.

But the grammar rules (and orthographic rules, for that matter) of Croatian are irrelevant when using English (you seem to only sort of acknowledge this).

As an aside:

There are many competing views among speakers of your language as to what the language is, which writing system should be used, which grammatical variations should be standard, etc. -- as many competing views as they are competing tribes, I'm sure (the one is so often merely the effect of the other).

If you are familiar with Objectivism, you have probably contemplated individualism as a broad solution to your country's history of tribalism and warfare. I wonder, have you considered English as one particular solution to this problem of linguistic bickering?

I hope you'll study English further, and won't be discouraged by mistakes. (By the way, some advice for learning English spelling rules is simply to pay attention to how they are used, when you read. And avoid the writings of E.E. Cummings!).

[source]

But the grammar rules (and orthographic rules, for that matter) of Croatian are irrelevant when using English (you seem to only sort of acknowledge this).

That is what I said. But as I also said, rules of Croatian language have become a sort of habit and I apply them in English too. I think about what I'm going to say rather than how I'm going to type it out. There are many ways how I can type a word and be understood by those who read my writing. I can make an unintentional typo and you'll understand what the word was supposed to be (even if the typo changed the meaning of the word - had I made a mispelling of "hypo" instead of "typo," you'd know it's a mispelled word, right?). Whether or not letters have been capitalized or not is an even smaller issue, because if it is spelled right (other than capitalization of the first letter), the meaning is clear (except perhaps in some cases if somebody's name was also a name for some object, but that can be realized from context).

There are many competing views among speakers of your language as to what the language is, which writing system should be used, which grammatical variations should be standard, etc. -- as many competing views as they are competing tribes, I'm sure (the one is so often merely the effect of the other).   

If you are familiar with Objectivism, you have probably contemplated individualism as a broad solution to your country's history of tribalism and warfare.  I wonder, have you considered English as one particular solution to this problem of linguistic bickering?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that I should study English, or that English should be a substitute for Croatian, or something else?

I hope you'll study English further, and won't be discouraged by mistakes.  (By the way, some advice for learning English spelling rules is simply to pay attention to how they are used, when you read.  And avoid the writings of E.E. Cummings!).

I do a lot of writing in English lately and I usually have MS Word correct my spelling errors. Usually it has to correct words such as "success" or "accessible," because I often write too many double c's (or s') or too few. Other than that are typos.

Anyway, what's wrong with E.E. Cummings' writings?

[Godless Capitalist]

E.E. Cummings wrote a lot of poems that used only lowercase letters.

It's understandable for someone who is learning English to mistakenly write "objectivism." But most of the time here it's just carelessness.

[stephen_speicher]

I don't exactly remember where I last saw him asking the same question and I don't know who it was posed to; he could as well have asked me, but the question seemed too silly to be addressed seriously.

There is nothing "silly" in the question that Burgess asked. It is a serious question and I suspect he asks it because he values Objectivism.

[prosez]

Back to the subject at hand: No Logo. I purchased this book at a used book store for .50 cents. It caught my eye because I am a designer, and always looking for new methods of branding and marketing.

Although I haven't read it yet, thumbing through it, it seems that Naomi Klein takes the stand for the consumer. That is that big corporations are bad, and the consumer/worker is being exploited.

From her introduction, "This is the village where Bill Gates lives, amassing a fortune of $55 billion while a third of his workers are classified as temporary workers, and where competitors are either incorporated into the Microsoft monolith or made obsolete by the latest feat in software bundling" (17).

This book might earn its place on the shelf, alongside, "When corporations rule the world." Meaning, I probably wont be able to finish reading it.

There is a considerable amount of information pertaining to corporate branding techniques and successful marketing campaigns. That information, in and of itself is interesting to read. I wouldn’t purchase this book for anymore than what I paid, .50 cents!

[nemethnm]

prosez,

If what you say is true, then she is another example of certain people that I am tired of because they spread bad ideas. Klein and a host of others (most notably Ralph Nader) all claim to be "consumer advocates" meaning that they claim to be fighting for the interests of consumers. They claim that the interests of businesses and consumers are opposed to one another. This idea is popular only because of the lack of a wide spread culture of reason as well as a lack of knowledge of economics. I have to agree: don't spend more than $0.50 on this book.

[Toolboxnj]

Naomi Klein is also a force behind the anti-corparate rag AdBusters, which is celebrated by those in the New Left (there is a thread about AdBusters somewhere on the forum, I think in the Ethics section).

What writers forget is that the consumer and the worker are one in the same. Without production, there is no consumption. So, by attack business you are, in essence, attacking the consumer because someone has to manfacture the product or provide the service in the first place.

[punk]

The book "No Logo" (as I recall it) is primarily about the phenomen of "branding".

This comes down to two basic (and interesting) issues:

1. The goal of branding is to have the brand itself replace the product where the brand becomes a "life style", "philosophy of life", "statement of personal identity", and a person buys into the brand itself more than the particular products sold under the brand name. This is basically an issue of advertising (and propaganda, as arguably political propaganda is a form of "branding" as above).

2. The post-modern brand company whose sole purpose is to maintain the viability of the brand itself, but doesn't actually produce anything (instead buying things from other companies and doing no more than stamping the brand to it). So Nike (for example) exists to maintain the power of the Nike brand through constant maintenance through advertising but purchases the actual shoes it sells from other companies.

Of course we all know now that of the money a consumer spends on Nike sneaker, after removing profit, much much more goes to paying for the brand advertising for Nike sneakers than goes to the raw materials and labor which produced it.

I think though a clearer statement of point 1 above could be gotten from Jaques Ellul's book "Propaganda", and remembering that what we call "propaganda" was nothing more than the application of advertising techniques to political discourse beginning in WWI.

Point 2 is interesting if you want to go out and create and exploit your own brand and you want some idea what that means and how it should work.