Adbusters: A Toohey's Dream

[Elle]

Raising awareness of branding (which clearly works on a large segment of the American population) is in fact a promotion of rationality.

How is raising awareness of branding a promotion of rationality; especially in the context of Adbusters - which is anti-corporation and pro-environmentalism?

In fact "branding" as a phenomenon is beginning to dominate what passes for political discourse in America.  As this last election showed, presidential politics is increasingly about selling the "Republican" or "Democrat" brands to the people with very little actual content being discussed.  A rational population that doesn't fall for branding might actually force the parties to start discussing issues in some sort of depth again.

The "Republican" and "Democrat" bundling of brands and whatnot is nothing new and regardless of that context, ads rarely focus on content and most commonly focus on their target market through emotionalism, sensationalism, and propaganda.

If one is going to write off a large segment of the American population as "weak minded" then one had better be prepared to say that they want America to remain the irrational morass it is today.

Or do you prefer that America stay that way?

This is a ridiculous statement. The fact is that a large segment of the American population is "weak minded", if by that you mean that they do not have a rational code of values, do not align their beliefs and actions and are not aware of the ways in which they contribute to bad ideas and destruction of the good. However, I am by no means prepared to say that I want America to remain as it is. Explain, how does one statement follow the other? If anything, writing off the "weak minded" segment of the population is crucial in identifying the people who are evil (conciously destroying value) and those who are apathetic dead weight, as opposed to those who are aware of the world, ideas, and the actions that appropriately follow when one understands reality and wants to live.

[Inspector]

Raising awareness of branding (which clearly works on a large segment of the American population) is in fact a promotion of rationality.

That must have taken a monumental effort of rationalization. The fact is that Adbusters and Buy Nothing Day are direct attacks against Capitalism.

[punk]

It doesn't take much to separate the wheat from the chaff if you only try. The critique of advertising is something to take in. Quite a bit of money goes into branding because it is an effective technique.

Personally speaking if someone is investing vast sums of money to influence my decisions, I take a great interest in it.

The goal of branding is to make people make purchasing decisions for emotional reasons. Capitalism functions rightly when people make purchasing decisions for rational reasons. For that reason alone branding is at odds with capitalism. But it must be viewed as an unavoidable evil as speech should not be regulated

As for "buy nothing day"... What is the problem? If a bunch of people choose not to buy anything on a particular day, they are well within their rights. Capitalism is about personal freedom.

[Inspector]

Capitalism functions rightly when people make purchasing decisions for rational reasons.  For that reason alone branding is at odds with capitalism.

Capitalism functions rightly when individual rights are respected and enforced. Nothing more and nothing less. Branding, or any other irrational behavior that does not violate any right, is perfectly within the borders of Capitalism.

As for "buy nothing day"... What is the problem? If a bunch of people choose not to buy anything on a particular day, they are well within their rights. Capitalism is about personal freedom.

Its stated goal is anti-materialism, which is anti-life. How can you not see that?

[punk]

Lets draw a distinction between capitalism and consumerism.

Capitalism is a system of government designed to maximize freedom by minimizing government intervention. Notice there is no mention here of business or the promotion of business.

Consumerism is a view of life where-by a person tries to find value in life through material things.

I am absolutely in favor of capitalism. I believe in freedom. Personally I abhor consumerism. I buy what little I need as I am free to do in a free "capitalist" (I use the scare quotes because america has rather a ways to go to really be capitalist) society. I am under no obligation to belittle my life to make the economy go 'round. My life is my own.

Personally I advocate the same for others. I would never force them, nor would I ever consider making the government legislate such a thing. I think AdBusters and "No Logo" in making people look closely at consumerism are doing a good thing.

[stephen_speicher]

Capitalism is a system of government designed to maximize freedom by minimizing government intervention.

Stated thusly, then anarchism would be preferable to capitalism because you could "maximize freedom" by being totally free to act, and you could be "minimizing government intervention" by having no government at all. I prefer Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism in her essay "What is Capitalism?" found in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal."

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

The way to "maximize freedom" is to establish a government whose purpose is the protection of individual rights, and then people are free to act in way they please, as long as they do not violate the rights of others.

[punk]

I agree. You are right, I stated it too tersely.

But still there is no explicit mention of business. Capitalism is neither pro-business nor anti-business. Business is free to do what it wants (within the bounds of what was required by capitalism), and we are all free to ignore business.

[stephen_speicher]

I agree.  You are right, I stated it too tersely.

But still there is no explicit mention of business.  Capitalism is neither pro-business nor anti-business.  Business is free to do what it wants (within the bounds of what was required by capitalism), and we are all free to ignore business.

To this latter, yes, of course, you are free to ignore business. But capitalism is implicitly "pro-business" in the sense that it provides the only social system that properly provides the environment for business to be nurtured and grow.

p.s. For the purpose of clarity it would be helpful if you provided some context from the post to which you are responding.

[BurgessLau]

Its stated goal is anti-materialism, which is anti-life.

What do you mean by "materialism" here?

Isn't that commonly the term used to name one side of a false dichotomy, the spiritualism vs. materialism dichotomy, which is really the mind-body dichotomy? (For the latter: Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It, pp. 228-230, especially in its political manifestations.)

Materialism, as I use the term, names this idea: finding value only or primarily in material goods. People who are materialists are mystics of muscle (to use Ayn Rand's phrase). In this meaning of the term, I reject materialism -- just as I reject spiritualism. I am as anti-materialist as I am anti-spiritualist. But those are only negatives. What I advocate is integration of material and spiritial values.

It is an error to take a side defined by politically reprehensible people. If the Left denounces materialism, Objectivists should not rush to defend materialism but should advocate the integration of mind and matter.

If the Religious Right denounces the promiscuity of the Left and offers abstinence as the false alternative, Objectivists shouldn't side with abstinence, but should choose the objective solution: use of one's mind to make sexual decisions based on objective values.

Objectivists have the difficult job of explaining false dichotomies created by conservatives and leftists, and then offering an objective solution. That approach takes time and reason.

[Inspector]

What do you mean by "materialism" here?

Isn't that commonly the term used to name one side of a false dichotomy, the spiritualism vs. materialism dichotomy, which is really the mind-body dichotomy?

That's a good point. The Adbusters are indeed Spiritualists. They attack the straw man of capitalism in which material prosperity is a substitute for values, and then they denounce material prosperity as such.

I was using the word in the other sense, in the sense of material prosperity as such. You are correct in pointing out that the other side of that dichotomy (Materialism) is also just as bad.

Punk, I see that you are railing against the Materialists. Good for you. But I think you're a little overzealous. The Adbusters are Spiritualists and are just as bad. Don't throw your lot in with them.

[redfarmer]

Punk, I see that you are railing against the Materialists. Good for you. But I think you're a little overzealous. The Adbusters are Spiritualists and are just as bad. Don't throw your lot in with them.

I think so many people fall for leftist philosophy like this when they're young because they are dissatisfied with the world as they see it and want to do something to change it. The remedy, as with me, is to get them to read a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

[punk]

"Leftist" and "Rightist" and their counterparts have become next to meaningless in political discourse. They are the sort of terms politicians use to gather support without actually commiting to anything. A better example of this sort of thing is "Family Values". A politician can come out and say they support "Family Values" without actually specifying what that actually means. This leaves voters able to each assume that "Family Values" means just what they think it does and that their views agree with the politician's. Politicians due this since they know that if the commit to anything specific they will alienate some group of voters.

I usually assume "leftist" to mean some advocacy of state intervention in the economy regulating business and providing popular welfare. I don't see how being anti-consumerist falls under that.

The question in consumerism is whether people find their own self-worth within themselves, or outside of themselves in terms of what they consume.

I believe you would agree with me that there is something repugnant about a person finding their own worth in consuming things. No?

[Capitalism Forever]

I believe you would agree with me that there is something repugnant about a person finding their own worth in consuming things.  No?

Not if he has produced enough to be able to afford what he is going to consume.

[jlew]

I agree with you, punk...but only to a certain extent.

If a communist came up to me and said that people were working in unsafe conditions in a factory, I would agree that something should be done. But if his answer to these unsafe conditions is that the proletariat should own the means of production and smash the bougeoise...then I'd have to part ways with him.

Adbusters is no different.

They rail against advertising's effects on consumers...but their solution is to get rid of advertising, consumers, and ultimately the producers.

This is sort of like those elementary schools who have deemed competition's effects on the losers to be a bad thing. So, instead of teaching people to be good winners and losers...they ban all competition.

Like I said, I do agree that "branding" is a strange phenomenon of dubious merit. You are right to say that, "the question in consumerism is whether people find their own self-worth within themselves, or outside of themselves in terms of what they consume." But siding with Adbusters isn't going to solve anything. To paraphrase The Bard: The problems of "branding" lie not with the product, but with ourselves.

[punk]

Like I said, I do agree that "branding" is a strange phenomenon of dubious merit. You are right to say that, "the question in consumerism is whether people find their own self-worth within themselves, or outside of themselves in terms of what they consume." But siding with Adbusters isn't going to solve anything. To paraphrase The Bard: The problems of "branding" lie not with the product, but with ourselves.

To be fair, in my inital post on this subject I did disavow most of what AdBusters does beyond its philosophical critique of branding. So, at no point have I supported them whole-heartedly.

It would be very nice to see more philosophical critiques of things like branding from a pro-capitalist perspective, but to my knowledge they do not exist (please correct me here, I'd like to see some).

I agree that the problem is with ourselves. The problem, however, will not be corrected without effort to publicly raise awareness and criticize the phenomenon so that people will be more savvy of it. AdBusters is doing this and no one else is right now.

[Inspector]

I agree that the problem is with ourselves.  The problem, however, will not be corrected without effort to publicly raise awareness and criticize the phenomenon so that people will be more savvy of it.  AdBusters is doing this and no one else is right now.

Since branding does not violate rights, there are many things that are higher up on my list of things to get mad at. Honestly, you'd have to be an IDIOT to fall for it and I don't have any pity left for idiots, since I am forced to support them by the government.

[punk]

One aspect of "branding" is the promotion of a feeling of "entitlement" for the product. That is the mindset that one deserves the benefits that the product in question provides.

So in effect "branding" promotes the feeling of entitlement among the people you are complaining about supporting with your tax dollars.

[Capitalism Forever]

Honestly, you'd have to be an IDIOT to fall for it and I don't have any pity left for idiots

Amen to that!

[meganfiala]

"I agree that the problem is with ourselves. The problem, however, will not be corrected without effort to publicly raise awareness and criticize the phenomenon so that people will be more savvy of it. AdBusters is doing this and no one else is right now."

Punk, this is why forums like this one, and ARI, and other Objectivist groups and organizations exist. It is the only philosophy (correct me if I'm wrong) that promotes the use of one's mind in making rational decisions, instead of say, purchasing a new toothbrush because the commercial made you feel good. If you think that this is the serious issue that you make of it, then maybe the promotion of a rational philosophy would be better than the anti-consumerism, anti-everything, and basically anti-life promotions of Ad-busters. Without this philosophical basis, the revolutionary thought-emotion connection made by Ayn Rand, the pursuit is useless. How else are you to back up the claim that "branding" is wrong?

[punk]

Punk, this is why forums like this one, and ARI, and other Objectivist groups and organizations exist. It is the only philosophy (correct me if I'm wrong) that promotes the use of one's mind in making rational decisions, instead of say, purchasing a new toothbrush because the commercial made you feel good. If you think that this is the serious issue that you make of it, then maybe the promotion of a rational philosophy would be better than the anti-consumerism, anti-everything, and basically anti-life promotions of Ad-busters. Without this philosophical basis, the revolutionary thought-emotion connection made by Ayn Rand, the pursuit is useless. How else are you to back up the claim that "branding" is wrong?

I commend the existence of forums such as those you listed, and I hope they flourish.

A criticism of these forums though (and if you want to pursue this, aspect a new thread really should be created) is there is a tendency to a knee-jerk pro-business attitude.

Businesses today do engage in activities that violate the ideals of capitalism. These activities can and should be criticized by objectivists using Objectivist philosophy. However as this thread has shown such criticisms are treated as anti-capitalist by knee-jerk conservatives rather than pro-capitalism.

I do not believe Objectivist views will make much real headway so long as they do not incorporate a criticism of business violations of the Objectivist capitalist ideal.

Here is a more formal criticism of branding in philosophical terms:

1. All communication encompasses a set of philosophical premisses

2. Advertising is a form of communication

So advertising/branding is communicating philosophical ideas to consumers. I contend these ideas are inimical to rational thought. Objectivists will rant and rave about some academic philosopher or public interest group promoting irrationalism, but when businesses are promoting irrationalism the knee-jerk pro-business conservatives will keep their mouths hypocritically shut.

[Capitalism Forever]

knee-jerk pro-business conservatives

Since it appears that you think of Objectivists as "conservatives," may I ask you if you think of yourself as a liberal?

I agree that many of today's businesses deserve to be criticized. There is an excellent criticism of irrationality in businesses written by an Objectivist, though--it is called The Fountainhead.

[jlew]

Again, punk, I agree...but the main drift I get from Adbusters is not a pleasant little critique of "branding", but an all-out attack on production as such.

Sure, there are business practices that I don't like - advertising being one of them. But I don't find it evil...I just find it plain dumb. And anyone with even half a brain can see through it.

Adbusters, on the other hand, finds advertising an absolute evil. Therefore, they are anti-branding, anti-advertising, anti-consumption, anti-production - and anti-life. (Except, of course, for their little tennis shoe! Buy two pairs for the holidays!)

Objectivism won't be able to make "real headway" in the culture by linking themselves (however tenuously) with a magazine like Adbusters. Skulls being spraypainted over models' faces won't show people what's wrong with modern advertising - reason will.

[Inspector]

Jlew, I agree!

Punk, you need to learn that people like Adbusters are on the same level as PETA, ELF, ALF, and so forth. They are not against just "branding;" they are against production AS SUCH. They are terribly evil people that you would do well to distance yourself from.

And the level of concern/anger you have about "branding" is wholly inappropriate to the actual scope of the problem. By taking such complaints seriously, you are helping to downplay the REAL problems out there: like the fact that the government takes huge percentages of your income by force in order to support welfare schemes.

[redfarmer]

Punk, you need to learn that people like Adbusters are on the same level as PETA, ELF, ALF, and so forth. They are not against just "branding;" they are against production AS SUCH. They are terribly evil people that you would do well to distance yourself from.

Saying Adbusters is just a nice little critique of branding is like saying PETA is just a nice little group who loves animals: it's the understatement of the year.

[Bryan]

One aspect of "branding" is the promotion of a feeling of "entitlement" for the product.  That is the mindset that one deserves the benefits that the product in question provides.

So in effect "branding" promotes the feeling of entitlement among the people you are complaining about supporting with your tax dollars.

It is a HUGE stretch to try to link "branding" and government entitlement programs. If you purchase a product, you are entitled to enjoy it. I enjoy or at least derive a small benefit from every single purchase I make. How can you possibly bring this into the same realm as welfare programs??