{"id":743,"date":"2019-03-05T13:13:37","date_gmt":"2019-03-05T13:13:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=743"},"modified":"2019-10-20T11:59:40","modified_gmt":"2019-10-20T10:59:40","slug":"no-logo","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/no-logo\/","title":{"rendered":"No Logo"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
March 2001, U.K.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\nNaomi Klein’s book ‘No Logo’ (Flamingo 2000) has been widely proclaimed \nas a manifesto for the anti-capitalist movement. Klein herself disclaims\n any notion that she has written a manifesto, but the book is still well\n worth examining. It deals with the development of  enormous global \ncorporations and some of the resistance to this; the\ntitle reflects a general anti-corporate attitude. There’s a review of it\n in the December 2000 Socialist Standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
   It is common to observe that all high streets look very much the \nsame nowadays, with Next, Virgin, Pizza Hut and McDonalds being found \nmore or less\neverywhere. This illustrates the rise of the brand or superbrand, which \nis constituted by an image or a logo much more than just a range of \nproducts. Marketing gurus see the brand as crucial — companies should \ncreate a brand, not just sell a\nproduct. For instance, John Grant’s ‘The New Marketing Manifesto’ \n(Texere 1999) argues that a brand is ‘a popular idea or set of ideas \nthat people live by’. Brands ‘add value to people’s lives’, and are the \nnew traditions (now that older traditions such as a sense of community \nhave decayed). This kind of celebration of brands shows an uncritical \nacceptance of capitalism’s values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In contrast, Klein looks behind the logo and the label to expose the \ndarker side of branding. The logo has expanded in size and importance, \nwith items of clothing just being empty carriers for the brand. She \nquotes the boss of Nike:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“For years we thought of ourselves as a production-oriented company, \nmeaning we put all our emphasis on designing and manufacturing the \nproduct. But now we understand that the most important thing we do is \nmarket the product. We’ve come around to saying that Nike is a \nmarketing-oriented company, and the product is our most important \nmarketing tool.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Companies such as Nike, Gap, McDonalds, Disney and Starbucks are not \nsimply multinational corporations (which would mean they have different \nbrands and products in different countries), but are truly global \ncorporations (with the same brands and marketing wherever they operate).\n Nike in particular has emerged as a real superbrand: its swoosh logo is\n an immensely popular tattoo in the US, among both customers and \nworkers. Imagine flaunting your status as a wage slave by having your \nemployer’s logo tattooed on your leg! Some American teenagers are quoted\n as saying that Nike is more important to them than their girlfriend is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One theme of ‘No Logo’ is the way in which advertising, sponsorship \nand the market have expanded into areas of life which were previously \nfree of them, thus resulting in the loss of what Klein calls ‘unmarketed\n space’. A blatant instance of this is in schools, where companies \nsponsor lessons and TV programmes and all manner of equipment. \nSponsorship of sporting and cultural events is now far wider than it has\n ever been.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But perhaps the biggest effect of the growth of the top brands is on \nemployment. Increasingly, such companies are moving production to \ndeveloping countries, especially in East and South-East Asia, in pursuit\n of cheap labour.  Countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam, China and the \nPhillippines have been happy to provide so-called free-trade zones or \nexport-processing zones, with tax breaks for companies and no\nright to union organization for workers, as a means of attracting the \nglobal corporations. Sub-contractors are used, so that, when questioned \nabout wages and working conditions, Nike, Reebok and so on can reply \nthat they do not actually employ anyone in Indonesia or wherever. Their \nproduction becomes far more flexible, as they don’t need to own land or \nfactories, and can respond more easily to fluctuations in demand. They \nwill also happily move production from one developing country to another\n in pursuit of a cheaper and more docile workforce. Young workers are \noften drawn into these zones with promises of good pay, only to find \nappalling wages, long hours, dangerous conditions, and tyrannical \nbosses, who may lock workers up if they refuse to do overtime. Some of \nthe descriptions are reminiscent of nothing so much as Engels’ accounts \nin ‘Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844’ — the sweatshop \nconditions have just been exported to the ‘Third World’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
   (Another example of such globalization of work can be found in call centres\n(The Guardian, London, U.K.,<\/em> 9 March 2001). Companies such as \nBritish Airways and Debenhams have relocated much of their call centre \nwork to India, where wages are a fifth of the UK level. The workers are \ngiven crash courses in British culture, everything from soaps to \nfootball, so they can chat knowledgeably with the callers, who don’t \nsuspect that they\nare speaking to someone in Delhi or Bombay.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, while workers in Indonesia or Vietnam can make clothes, \nshoes or whatever, they cannot sell them in North America or Western \nEurope. Here, the global corporations have led the way in the notorious \nMcJobs — part-time or temporary work, often on near-minimum wages. In \ncoffee bars such as Starbucks, workers may have to work two or three \nshifts a day, to coincide with the busy periods. This gives the company \nthe flexibility to cope with fluctuations in business without having to \npay people to just stand around, but for staff it is, to say the least, \nextremely disruptive. In other companies, Microsoft for instance, jobs \nare contracted out to agencies who (surprise!) pay far lower wages. \nAgain, this boosts flexibility and the ability to respond to booms and \nslumps in demand, avoiding such problems as redundancy pay. Many \n‘permatemps’ have been employed in this way for years, without gaining \nproper employee rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This, then, is the picture that Klein presents, of a world \nincreasingly dominated by global corporations and their cultural and \neconomic impact, where workers slave away in sweatshops for a pittance \nwith little ability to fight back, and where temporary jobs hold sway. \nProfits soar, while the workers suffer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The final section of ‘No Logo’ deals with various kinds of opposition\n and resistance to the superbrands and the kind of society they \nrepresent. This can range from the fun but ineffectual — such as \nparodying advertisements or throwing custard pies at Bill Gates \u2013 to the\n more substantive responses of Reclaim The Streets and the wider\n‘anti-capitalist’ movement. Such activity Klein describes as ‘laying the\n foundations for the first truly international people’s movement’. Here \nare some examples:<\/p>\n\n\n\n