-
I may disagree, but this is a fun and valuable book Oct 25, 2001 (201 of 217 found this helpful)
WHile I worried that this was a simple ideological diatribe, I was very happily surprized at the intelligence and substance of Klein's book. It is a tough, well-reasoned manifesto for the anti-consumerism left of "Gen X." If you are wondering what was driving many of those protesters at the WTO and other summit meetings - most notoriously Seattle in late 1999 - then this book is the best place I know. It is part cultural critique, part economics and social policy, and partly a call to arms. Reading it has helped me to make sense of so much that I thought was simple, nihilistic anarchism. I was humbled to learn that there is far far more behind the movement than I had granted it.
In a nutshell, Klein argues that the "superbrands" - the huge corporations such as Disney and Nike - are progressively taking over virtually all "public spaces," including school curricula, neighborhoods, and all-encompassing infotainment malls like Virgin Megastores. THey are doing this in an attempt enter our minds as consumers in the most intimate ways, which Klein and others find unbearably intrusive. Moreover, she argues, as they subcontract overseas, the superbrands are leaving first-world workers behind while they exploit those in the developing world under horible conditions. It all adds up, she asserts, into a kind of emerging global worker solidarity that is developing new means (via internet exposes, protest campaigns, etc.) to push the superbrands to adopt more just policies and practices.
What was so amazing and useful for me, as a business writer looking at the same issues, is that Klein so often hones in on the underside of what I think are good and effective business practices: the development of brand values, globalisation of the production/value chain to lower prices, and the like. Often I may disagree with her take on things, but she makes too many insightful points to dismiss her and those whom she speaks for. I came to genuinely respect her as a thinker and writer.
Nonetheless, there were numerous omissions, some of which I must point out. First, while condemning exploitive labor practices in third-world sweat shops (which I do not deny exist), Klein fails to explore what the available alternatives are for these workers. Well, I went to Pakistan to examine one of the cases she addresses - children soccerball sewers - and I can say that their alternatives were all too often brick kilns or leather tanneries, both of which were far more dangerous and beyond the reach of international activists because the superbrands have nothing to do with them. Second, Klein tended to dismiss the efforts of MNCs out of hand, as weak sops designed more for PR purposes than to effect change. This is true for some groups, but again, while in Vietnam, I witnessed what I regarded as real social progress that came from the actions of a superbrand: upon hearing the demands and suggestions of a worker-safety inspector paid by adidas, Taiwanese sewing-machine manufacturers were approaching him for detailed design specifications to enhance their safety (driver-belt covers to protect against hand and hair injuries) and he had lots more ideas. However modest, that is real and concrete progress in my opinion.
Moreover, I believe that many of Klein's assertions are inaccurate or unproven. Is there really a mass movement growing out there? Is the clever defacing of huge advertisement boards really impacting pubic consciousness? Does everyone perceive the thrust of the brands as intrusive and poisonous? Is the World Trade Organization set up in a way that works in favor of the first world and against the third world? These are complex and very difficult questions. Finally, as a passionate activist, Klein rhetoric can get a bit overheated. At one point she says that IBM "otherwise impaled itself"; at another that Milton Friedman is a "architect of the global corporate takeover." What do these things mean? I may regard Friedman
-
Highly Disturbing Oct 20, 2003 (41 of 44 found this helpful)
I found this book to be very interesting, and disturbing. Klein is certainly a Leftist, and generally as a conservative I would dispute much of her world-view but with the first half of her book she is on to something. I believe that the second half is less successful, and I do not share her idealization of graffiti artists and anti-global activists, but overall her book is a provacative and important one. Read and beware.
I would like to respond to an earlier reviewer's comments, which many of my friends have directed me to when I told them of the book. Tristan from Australia finds fault with a graph in her book (not indexed for inflation) and then sets to beaking her over the head with it. I think he misses much of the point of her book - even if her graph is off.
There is no question based on anecdotal evidence alone that advertising and the pervasiveness of "branded" space has increased. Look at modern sports stadiums, say the NFL - they're all named after corporations. The athletes at "FedEx Field" are all wearing brands that the team has negotiated (and been paid large sums to wear) - and they can be fined if they aren't wearing a "Starter brand" cap when they sit on the bench, etc. They then sit down and drink a Gatorade, while they watch the Coca-cola sponsored half-time show featuring Michael Jackson, Britney Spears or whoever the company believes they can best get to flog their product. The highlights from the first half will be then shown on the X-brand half-time show, and then recreated using graphics from EA Sports John Madden game. You could avoid all this and go to a movie, but first you'll have to sit through advertisements before the movie - and not just for upcoming movies anymore. First you'll be shushed by Halley Epsenberger while she's cramming Pepsi down your throat - all this after you spent $9.50 to be a captive audience for commercials - at least when you watch basic TV the excuse that the advertising is paying for the programs make sense, but this? And then you can be clever and see how many products have been placed in the movie. If it's James Bond you can see him wearing X-brand watch, drive his BMW, and polish it off with some Tanqueray Gin - not because smooth sophisticates drink it, but because Tanqueray paid the most for it.
As for her other points - she goes into great depth about how we're becoming fungible goods as workers. An example I remember from the book is that Microsoft has a core of permanent employees and true they do make good money, but half of their work is done by temps. And to ensure that temps don't try and claim anything as basic as health coverage (what would they be thinking?) they're required to be laid off for a 30 day period every year so that no one classifies them as full time workers. Walmart does get to keep prices low as the Australian writer suggested, but unlike prior employers who believed they had a responsibility to take care of their workers - e.g. Ford wanted every worker to be able to afford a Ford - Walmart doesn't care whether it's employees can afford to shop their or not. As I know from having done some work for them they're all about keeping employees employed at under 28 hours a week - again so they can keep from having to pay any benefits. Great you say - get another job, but others such as Starbucks have caught on to that and screw their employees similarly. Sure you work 30 hours a week, but the schedule is such that you can't realistically get a job to fill in the time you're not working for them, plus you get to be on unpaid call (I guess for a coffee emergency), and in typical fashion they've even done computerized studies on each employee's productivity. They know each stores peak hours, how many customers x-employee typically serves, etc. - so they can schedule the employees only for the most cost-effective time. On one hand this sounds fair, but on the other - it's completely shafting the employee - especially those
-
An important book, make your teenagers read it, too! Mar 8, 2001 (72 of 81 found this helpful)
With a 16 year old son in our house, I've not only been fighting the "brand name bullies" outside our home but the teenaged one INSIDE our home as well. So it was a no-brainer for me to buy and read this book. I won't say it was an easy read. But the information contained within it was worth the time spent. More importantly, I left the book lying in a spot where my son was sure to see it and was gratified when he picked it up and read parts of it. Now he has loosened his rigid stance on having only the "coolest" clothes with the "best" logos on them and started to realize that his individuality was being manipulated to some degree by advertisers. He's started talking to his friend about the book too. Having said that, I don't want ANYONE to think this book doesn't have its flaws. There is repetition of some subjects that have already been discussed ad nauseum in the media already - advertising in the public schools via educational channels and other subjects. But there is also plenty of new information and Klein makes her case with solid, clear arguments.
-
Inspiring! Handbook for the new anti-globalization movement May 8, 2000 (46 of 53 found this helpful)
Naomi Klein has written a well-researched, comprehensive overview of the New World Order, dominated by brands like Nike, Starbucks and McDonalds. Backed by detailed statistics as well as onsite reporting, she captures the essence of the pervasive brand-building pushed globally by the transnationals, including the very real human and environmental costs. What I really appreciated was her extensive coverage of the growing resistance to the "brand bullies" in so many different forms. I read most of this while in Washington DC recently protesting the IMF and World Bank (A16). As a long-time activist as well as historian, I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in educating themselves about globalization-related issues.
-
Big Brother vs The Mommy State Feb 18, 2002 (36 of 41 found this helpful)
This book is certainly a fascinating read, provocative, and stimulating. Those factors in and of themselves make it worth reading, because in the least, it will challenge the reader (as it did with me) to re-evaluate his or her positions on a whole range of issues. This is true even if the reader ultimately rejects some, or all, of the author's arguments.
However, I did find Klein's ability to trip over herself in an attempt to be politically correct, as well as her incessant middle-class, white guilt to be a bit much at times, and she presented a very one-sided argument.
Klein paints a stark picture of the way consumerism runs, and if not for the last few chapters, it would be easy to come away from this book completely depressed and disillusioned with the human situation. Ultimately though, I still came away from this book with discomfort. I think this stemmed not from the corporate activity. I actually found Phil Knight to be the real Machiavellian hero of this book due to his deep and amusing understanding of human nature. My discomfort came from the glaring contradiction in Klein's philosophical and political ideologies.
In the most basic form, Klein seems to dislike globalisation because it essentially impinges on the democratic freedoms of individuals. I agree to that extent (although it also does a lot of good for people). Personally, I think the form of globalisation portrayed in her book is an abomination. The situations described at all stages of the retail industry do seem cripple and stifle individual liberties, although in certain stages, people do have more of an avenue out. Also, not to be discussed here, but Klein cleverly side steps the entire issue that the plight of the third world may not be entirely the fault of colonialism and neo-colonialism, but based on anachronistic and stagnant cultural, religious and philosophical ideals and the tacit acceptance in these and corrupt political systems. That aside though, I'm not justifying the ugly face of globalisation.
It is from here that we disagree though. Firstly, her continuous trumpeting of representative democracy seems to miss a couple of things. Firstly, representative democracy is like three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner (or perhaps even three sheep and a wolf). By definition, it must be about the sacrifice of individual liberties to the will of the majority. I'm neither a wolf nor a sheep, so it certainly isn't to my benefit. That aside though, there is a parallel between this and the economics she describes. Those with less wealth have less economic representation than those with more, in much the same way as three wolves have more say as to the menu than one sheep.
If Klein is to talk about true freedom, then she shouldn't dismiss corporations, yet advocate states. She loves the idea of government though (so long as it's "nice"). From my reading of her book, Klein seems to hate the intrusive and draconian arm of the multi-nationals, yet has no problem with the intrusive and draconian arm of governments in a whole range of areas ranging from political correctness, labour laws, protectionism, taxation, social security, and a whole grab bag of perennial libertarian favourite annoyances. After all, whether a corporation or a government dictates my life, if the decisions are not mine, what is the difference? The difference, of course, is that Klein (and the left generally) doesn't see socialistic governments as intrusive or draconian. They're moral of course!
That is the whole point though- it's all about personal responsibility, and choice (ironically). I'm certainly no fan of Orwellian corporations and I'm no walking billboard (although, there's a fair degree of hypocritical, middle-class existence involved by patronising some corporations on a daily basis). Legislation and the tyranny of the utilitarian majority are no alternatives though, at least not if freedom is the aim. If Klein does value every person as capable of ta