queerbychoice | I Wish This Were an Onion Article, But It Isn't

I am convinced that this is an elaborate prank. "This" "will" "be" "the" "death" "of" "irony" "yet".

I want to be convinced that it's a prank, but can't find any evidence that would enable me to reassure myself. I'm hoping that someone here will find some and point it out to me.

I heard about their shoes awhile back but I had no idea they were appropriating the same labor practices as Nike. Perhaps they're trying to apply all that detournement that Kalle Lasn loves so much to sweatshops? If so, I ain't buying it.

What. The. Hell?!

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I hadn't been visiting the Adbusters site as much lately, as it feels like the group has made some change I'm not quite comfortable with.

You know what will happen though... lots of people will be going out and buying those shoes and think that they are supporting some good cause. This is why I think that self-critique for leftists/progressives should never stop. When some big name leftist icon pulls stupid shit, people should call them on it instead of rushing to their defense.

OK, but does anyone in the Western world really need another pair of shoes?

"Yes, I think they do," Lasn replies. "We're selling real, authentic empowerment. If you wear the blackSpot sneaker, you're helping to demolish a big, bad corporation that has done dirty deeds in the Third World.

"I'm all in favour of just having one pair of shoes," adds Lasn. "People who own 10 pairs of shoes are people who have already been mind-fucked… and have bought into the corporate philosophy and are getting their self-esteem from buying things."

So who, then, is the target market?

"We haven't really thought very much about that."

blackSpot, just do it!

I'm finding this story hard to believe. I think they're just trying to confuse people and call it irony.

They did it with the Cyborg Project before.

They did, however, have Buy Nothing Day t-shirts you could buy a long time ago.

I would be thrilled if someone would come up with some actual evidence that this story is untrue, but until someone does come up with any such evidence, I'm not comfortable just declaring it untrue on the sole basis that I want it to be untrue.

I just screamed out loud. But this has got to be a joke - the shoes are identical to ALL Stars.

-ink

Hmm. It looks to me like they're just supposed to resemble All Stars to the same degree that any shoes from competing companies usually resemble each other in everything but brand name.

I love how much of my web-based news education comes from friends' links.

I've thought something was fishy with Adbusters for quite some time, and the cynic in me really wants this to be a true story just so I can laugh in my progressive leftist friends' faces for blindly signing up for a cause. But then the rest of me gets a little depressed at seeing how easily a pillar of anti-consumerism can be toppled...

Weak.

Well, identical to lo-top chuck taylors more precisely -- All Stars are suede.

I don't understand at all what's supposed to be so radical about these sneakers. They're just another brand to compete with Nike, there's absolutely nothing about them that's more "radical" than Adidas or any other of Nike's competitors.

-ink

...

hmmm... I'm confused...

thanks... I'm going to post this in my journal too.

yoink!

I think we are jumping to conclusions if we say they will appropriate the same labour practices as Nike. Just because they are making the shoes in the same country, does not mean it will be in the same KIND of factory.

Also from the article:

What about producing the shoes in the developing world? Lasn tells me that he wants the blackSpot manfactured overseas so that he can promote worker's rights worldwide and because he thinks people in other countries need jobs just as much as we do here.

It's been pointed out elsewhere that Lasn's line about helping workers in poor countries who are "yearning to work" is exactly what Nike president Knight has been preaching for years. But Lasn assures me that Adbusters is "going to go there and find the very best factory."

Make sure you question it all first, they aren't planning to make the shoes in the same TYPE of factory.

I have never thought of Adbusters as being ANTI-consumerism, just ANTI-mindless-consumerism. They have always sold things from their website, and it is literally impossible not to consume at all.

In this case, with Adbusters, from what I understand, they will be employing the same strategy as No Sweat! Apparel (http://www.nosweatapparel.com) in that they will be using union or "worker friendly" factories... thus they are in the same country as Nike, but not the same factories. Within the article, the Adbusters representative does state that he feels China needs the jobs more than the US. I can see this being true. I think we have to hold off on judgement until we know all the details, especially what KIND of factory they will be contracting.

Ack. I am not trying to say they are perfect, but I think that your post only shows one part of the issue, so the people who read it... they see it and then place judgement on Adbusters without reading in between the lines.

We really have to know what KIND of factory they plan to outsource their products from. If they can get the people who would normally by Nike to buy Adbusters, I think that is a step in the right direction, especially if they are hiring union Chinese workers.

I, on the other hand, will buy the shoes from No Sweat! (http://www.nosweatapparel.com) or before that, buy used ones.

I'm not comfortable just declaring it untrue on the sole basis that I want it to be untrue.

My kind of gal.

Sorry to post so much.

Read this article: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/000493.html

It mentions that they want to use unionized factories in S.Korea.

Surprisingly, I have good reading comprehension and have read other articles about this.

"We don't want to buckle under to these union people in the First World," he says.

I wasn't trying to insult your reading comprehension. I'm not entirely sure what that sentence means, even in its full context within the article. They didn't put it in its context, and one should be suspicious of one sentence exerpts I find. Paragraph quotations represent what the speak was trying to say much more clearly. But again, I am not trying to insult you, I am just concerned that people aren't researching the issue deep enough before harboring negative feelings towards Adbusters.

From the same head of Adbusters:

I traveled around the poorest countries of the world for three years when I was young, and I know that some of these factories aren’t sweatshops, and some of them are the best factories in those countries. I know that we can find a factory that we can be absolutely proud of in Indonesia or in China or god knows wherever we decide to go. I don’t like the idea that every factory in China is dubbed a sweatshop. That’s not right. This is a big mistake the activist community has made. It’s more driven by the trade union people than it is by the activists. The activists are making a big mistake.

http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/000493.html

No, but the fact that the reason he gave for putting his facory there was specifically to avoid the unions in the U.S. does imply that he's planning to exploit his workers to some greater degree than would be possible here.

Yes, but surely the fact that they also specifically stated that they don't want to put their factories in the U.S. because they don't want to put up with the unions here indicates pretty clearly that they're picking the South Korean unions in order to be able to claim to be using "union labor" while still not paying as much as the unions in the U.S. would ever be willing to put up with?

I find that it's also important to bear in mind that all people tend to slant all their sentences to try to make themselves look good.

Yes, and journalists take one sentence out of paragraphs to make their point look good. I think that the sentences coming out of the horse's mouth is more valid than that article.

First of all, it was one sentence, I would have to see it in context.

Second of all, I worked for a union, they WERE ridiculous. I am not saying that all are... but I don't see anything wrong with them paying less (compared to US prices but more compared to Chinese prices) for labour. If the workers are well supported, I don't see it as wrong. If it costs more here for whatever reason (not treatment of workers but min. wage), then outsourcing is a viable solution. I don't see it as wrong that Nike moved production to other countries, what I think is wrong is what they pay them and how they treat them in the factories that Nike contracts with.

I don't think you can say that. First of all, many unions in NA have high overhead, like the one I used to work for... and did nothing of large importance.

We can't say directly that that one statement means he wants to exploit the workers there more than here. We have to compare the factories themselves. His comment about unions should be explained by him and perhaps is in the full transcript... dunno.

I just think we are jumping to conclusions about Adbusters as a whole, something that will leave lasting impressions, without making sure we understand what he means by that ONE sentence.

Well there's also the fact that the cost of living in South Korea and China is way way lower than the cost of living here. Giving union workers a living wage will therefore be a hell of a lot more cost-effective- it's not that unions are necesarily weaker there, it's that it's just way easier to live on a lower salary. This is due to a lot of fucked-up world economic policies (the number of insanely-rich people in America raises the cost of living for everyone around them, for one thing, and we have really really cost-ineffective, resource-wasting practices), but in any case it's true.

I'm not necessarily opposed to having factories in developing countries, mainly because I don't consider that to be the main reason that those countries have low costs of living in the first place- much like the fact that the rich employ full-time assistants to do things for them is not really the reason behind the growing gap between the lower and upper classes.

That's exactly what i was going to say, but i guess you beat me to it. I mean unions are just as much subject to internal corruption as corporations, true, but his statement is so loaded in so many ways that suggest he'd rather not deal with Third World laborers who aren't formally organized enough to "resist" his new operation.

Yeah, I see your point and am willing to play devil's advocate by stating that I too am worried and hoping that this may or may not just be intentional phrasing on the journalists part for the purpose of conveying a negative message.

But just the concept of the anti-brand being a brand itself just seems ludicrous, seeing as it is bestowing non-conformity with an "official" symbol as well.

I'm hoping that only half of Mr. Lasn's intentions are f-ed up.

I have never thought of Adbusters as being ANTI-consumerism, just ANTI-mindless-consumerism. They have always sold things from their website, and it is literally impossible not to consume at all.

Wow! That's an excellent point. Felt the same way as well, especially when you realize that much of their rhetoric (as detailed in Culture Jam) revolves around coopting back what has been previously coopted, so it's no surprise that they're merely doing a corporate detournement. *snicker*

Besides, they've never been about SMASHING the status quo, just rearranging and recontextualizing.

Well they produce a magazine for goodness sakes, and a glossy one at that. We don't need another magazine. If anything, they should sell something that is necessary for survival, like food and then sell their message with that... use that money for whatever their purpose is.

I guess I just don't see them as anti-brand. Each individual is a brand, it's not so avoidable. I see what they are doing as being completely in line with what they are.

I don't support it only because I don't support needless consumption, and that is what all of their products are, needless. But if they happen to tap a market that supports needless consumption, go them. I think that the shoe will be more ethical than 98% of them.

I Wish This Were an Onion Article, But It Isn't

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

no subject