[lbo-talk] Re: one day "shopping" boycott

[Seth Ackerman]

From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>

> Perhaps this is wrong, but doesn't it hurt to have winking hipsterism, 
> which
> has always been a form of distinguishing oneself from the normal (i.e.
> working class) people, smothering the real information people could use
> about corporate salesmanship and the politics of product choice?  The way 
> I
> see it, Adbusters suggests that the only way to resist these evils is to 
> buy
> their nonbrand shoes and plan a billboard spray-athon.  And they paint 
> these
> hopeless, ordinary-person-repelling gestures as the cutting edge of
> radicalism.  In other words, they themselves are more package than 
> product.
>
> And they are also far less theoretically advanced than I suspect they 
> think
> they are.  What are we doing calling ourselves "consumers" in the first
> place?  Is _advertising_ or _capitalism_ the problem?  The first question
> has never occurred to them, even though they use people's supposed embrace
> of the "consumer" role as fuel for their thinly-disguised "alternative"
> snobbery.  The second question suggests that "Adbusting" is rather like
> scratching the surface.
>
> How many potential converts have looked at this publication and dropped it
> with nausea?  How much better could the decent energies Adbusters corrals
> and directs be spent?  Some and much, IMHO.

I agree with a lot of this. But one thing I like about Adbusters is their 
understanding of the importance of design and aesthetics. It's a nice 
magazine to look at.

Seth