I’m always going on about how Internet recommendations aren’t that hot, but I did find out about Annie Innis Dagg’s “Love of Shopping is Not a Gene” from a review by Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing, and I’m thoroughly enjoying it.
Love of Shopping is Not a Gene: exposing junk science and ideology in Darwinian Psychology – Boing Boing
My better half had some suggestions to improve this essay, so I’m taking a second pass at it here because I liked the original myself and I don't do this kind of writing often so I might as well get it right. The style and content are much the same, it just gets going more quickly.
The lives of many idealistic left-wing youth become enmeshed in compromise as they get older and stoke the fires of capitalism during the day while trying to throw a little water on those same fires at night well I understand how this happens because like many middle-aged people I wrestle with these contradictions myself and admire tremendously those who have stuck to their principles even at a real cost to their careers and personal lives which is why the few people who really piss me off and whom I actively scorn and who get my blood boiling are those like The Pirate’s Dilemma author Matt Mason who dons the mantle of rebellion and anti-corporate politics while consulting for Disney and Pepsi and P&G and who babbles about the benefits of sharing because "it's not all about the money any more" while giving presentations to the people who brought you McDonald's "I'm Loving It" campaign and who praises vitamin water company Glacéau for "keeping it real" in its advertising campaigns with 50 Cent before telling us it was sold to Coca Cola for $4.1 billion and who praises Procter & Gamble for its viral video campaign and who is entranced by the way that Nike's Air Force One sneaker owes its success to the remix and who places himself on the romantic anti-establishment side of the battle between graffiti and advertising in "a turf war that has raged for centuries between the establishment and a secretive, loose-knit network that doesn't like the top-down, one-way flow of information in public spaces" only to approvingly quote advertising agency Droga5 on creating "a dialogue between advertising and graffiti" which really means using graffiti for commercial ends and making a buck and if that's not selling out to the man then what the fuck is really? because the punk spirit Mason loves so much and claims to identify with has nothing to do with business models or change agents or entrepreneurial spirit or brand-building no the spirit he writes of was defiantly and nihilistically anti-corporate and Matt Mason lives in a corporate world however much he'd like to think otherwise so when he claims that pirates are those who are "pushing back against authority, decentralizing monopolies, and promoting the rule of the people: the very nature of democracy itself" well I see what he means but when he goes on to claim that the anti-authoritarian ideals of youth culture are becoming a new more extreme, invigorated, and equitable strain of the free market–the decentralized future of capitalism well I just want to shake him by the neck and shout at him that you're obviously not stupid Matt Mason so why don't you do what you know you should do and FOLLOW THE FUCKING MONEY before making pronouncements about the benefits of sharing when it's still the case that money is not shared I mean if I share and you get the money then I'm not being altruistic I'm just being a sucker and you're not promoting community you're exploiting the good intentions of those who are spending their time and talent on your venture so if you want to impress me with the subversive role of DVD bootlegging DON’T JUST DON’T quote billionaire Mark Cuban and Disney co-chair Anne Sweeney and billionaire Steve Jobs at me because if they have found a way to co-exist with piracy it doesn't mean that they and their companies stand for a more democratic and equitable form of capitalism it just means they've found ways of using or living with piracy in a way that promotes their own interests over those of their rivals its meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss-but-with-edgier-clothing time so as you can tell I end up not taking him seriously which is unfortunate because he has many entertaining stories of hip-hop bands and pirate radio stations and punk culture although I don’t know whether to trust them because where the book overlaps with things that I do know anything about he is often ludicrously wrong like when he repeatedly refers to Linux as a company or when he damns record companies for figuring out it's more profitable to control the distribution system than it is to nurture artists while completely failing to notice that big chunks of the Web 2.0 world he loves so much work on exactly the same model by owning the spot where the money is which is the platform that gives control of the distribution system or when he gives us a canned history of Wikipedia which is derived from one interview with Jimmy Wales so it's no surprise that it gets several key facts wrong or when he identifies Steve Jobs with openness and sharing and claims that the notoriously secretive and proprietary Apple won the music wars because it truly understood sharing when the fact is that Apple wants to share the music they don't own but wants to keep the technology they do own all to themselves you can ask Palm about that who can't sync their own phones with iTunes or you can ask the developers who have left the iPhone App Store over Apple's arbitrary and opaque approval process so after reading this book Matt Mason takes a place for me with people from an earlier generation like Kevin Kelly who claims to be a maverick while working for Conde Nast or Chris Anderson who claims to be on the side of small and scrappy businesses against big companies while promoting Amazon at $40,000 an appearance or Stewart Brand and John Perry Barlow who strive to combine activities like consulting for senior management at large corporations with statements like "I'm an anti-company man" if you can believe it I mean DO YOU HAVE ANY SELF_AWARENESS AT ALL do you have any sense of modesty and this matters because these people have been successful in leading young idealistic people with good intentions up the garden path in the belief that they are taking part in something progressive and politically anti-establishment but which ends up just feeding money into the pockets of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and the lucky guys who get to sell their startups to Google for a nice billion or so as if that's a triumph of the little guy give me a break.
[Shinier and better version here.]
In The Pirate's Dilemma Matt Mason claims to speak from the perspective of rebellious and subversive youth culture while he promotes the worst kind of corporate astroturfing which is too bad because his message that many new ideas emerge from outside the mainstream and from outside the market is important and his message that pirates who skirt the edges of the law to bring culture to new audiences have done much to improve our society also matters, but when an author wants us to believe he is anti-establishment while he praises the vitamin water company Glacéau for "keeping it real" in its advertising campaigns with 50 Cent while telling us that it was sold to Coca Cola for $4.1 billion in 2007, praises Procter & Gamble for its viral video campaign, is entranced by the way that Nike's Air Force One sneaker owes its success to the "remix" well where do you start? Mason loves the idea that youth culture, existing in spaces outside the mainstream and outside the commercial world, has had a huge impact on our modern world and I am with him 100% but the lives of many idealistic, left-wing youth become enmeshed in compromise as we get older and we stoke the fires of capitalism during the day while trying to throw a little water on those same fires in the evening and I understand how this happens because like many middle-aged people I wrestle with the contradictions and compromises involved, and I admire those few who have stuck to their principles, often at a real cost to their careers and personal lives, which is why the few people who really piss me off, whom I actively scorn and who get my blood boiling, are those like Matt Mason who don the mantle of rebellion and anti-corporate politics while consulting for Disney, Pepsi, and P&G and who claim that selling YouTube to Google for $1.65 billion is a form of rebellion and who babble about the benefits of sharing because "it's not all about the money any more" while giving presentations to the people who brought you McDonald's "I'm Loving It" campaign and who place themselves on the romantic side of the battle between graffiti and advertising in "a turf war that has raged for centuries between the establishment and a secretive, loose-knit network that doesn't like the top-down, one-way flow of information in public spaces" [103] only to step slickly into approvingly quoting advertising agency Droga5 on creating "a dialogue between advertising and graffiti" which really means using graffiti for commercial ends and making a buck and if that's not selling out to the man then what the fuck is really? because the punk spirit Mason loves so much has nothing to do with business models or change agents or entrepreneurial spirit or building a brand or even combining altruism with self-interest because the spirit he writes of was defiantly and nihilistically anti-corporate and Matt Mason lives in a corporate world however much he'd like to think otherwise and when he claims that pirates are those who are "pushing back against authority, decentralizing monopolies, and promoting the rule of the people: the very nature of democracy itself" well I see what he means but then when he goes on to claim that the anti-authoritarian ideals of youth culture are becoming … a new more extreme, invigorated, and equitable strain of the free market–the decentralized future of capitalism [171] then I just want to shake him by the neck and shout at him that you're obviously not stupid Matt Mason so why don't you do what you know you should do and follow the fucking money before making pronouncements about sharing and decentralization when it's still the case that money is not shared and money is not decentralized because sharing is one thing but if I share and you get the money then I'm not being altruistic I'm just being a sucker and you're not promoting community you're exploiting the good intentions of those who are spending their time and talent on your venture and if you want to impress me with the subversive role of DVD bootlegging don't quote billionaire Mark Cuban and Disney co-chair Anne Sweeney and billionaire Steve Jobs at me because if they have found a way to co-exist with piracy it doesn't mean that these companies stand for a more democratic and equitable form of capitalism it just means they've found ways of using or co-existing with piracy in a way that promotes their own interests over those of their rivals and I end up not taking him seriously at all which is unfortunate because he has many entertaining stories of hip-hop, pirate, and punk culture although I end up not knowing whether to trust them because where the book overlaps with things that I know anything about he is often ludicrously wrong like when he repeatedly refers to Linux as a company [148, 150, 238] or when he quotes Courtney Love saying that record companies "figured out that it's a lot more profitable to control the distribution system than it is to nurture artists… They own the plantation" while completely failing to notice that big chunks of the Web 2.0 world he loves work on exactly the same model, that owning the platform gives control of the distribution system and that's where the money is or when he gives us a canned history of Wikipedia [149-150] which is derived from one interview with Jimmy Wales so it's no surprise that it gets several key facts wrong or when he identifies Steve Jobs with openness and sharing [145] and claims that the notoriously secretive and proprietary Apple won the music wars because it "truly understood sharing" [158] when the fact is that the only thing Apple really wants to share is the music they don't own and not the technology that they do own you can ask Palm about that who can't sync their own phones with iTunes or you can ask the developers who have left the iPhone App Store over Apple's arbitrary and opaque approval process, so Matt Mason in the end sits for me with people from an earlier generation like Kevin Kelly who claims to be a maverick while working for Conde Nast or Chris Anderson who claims to be on the side of small and scrappy businesses against big companies while promoting Amazon or Stewart Brand or John Perry Barlow who strive to combine activities like consulting for senior management at large corporations with statements like "I'm an anti-company man" if you can believe it I mean do you have any self-awareness at all? I want to ask them I think it's the ego that gets to me and the fact that they have been successful in leading people and particularly young idealistic people with good intentions into activities that they think are progressive and politically anti-establishment but which end up just feeding money into the pockets of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and the lucky guys who get to sell their startups to Google for a nice billion or so as if that's a triumph of the little guy give me a break.
From John Gray's "Straw Dogs" (p28):
Man is like other animals, wants food and success and women.
My review of The Price of a Bargain: The Quest for Cheap and the Death of Globalization, by journalist Gordon Laird, is now out in the Literary Review of Canada. LRC makes some of its essays available online, but not all. Mine is not available, but some of the other contributions to the November 2009 issue are here.
I strongly recommend the lead essay by Charles Wright, Too Much Health Care; Janice Gross Stein is always worth reading whether you agree with her or not, even when she’s writing out of her usual field, and her take on the financial crisis (Between Euphoria and Fear) is a useful overview of a lot of points of view. Personally I’m not that interested in Pierre Trudeau, but apparently a lot of other people are, and Paul Wells of Macleans reviews the latest biography by John English called We’re Still Watching and there’s a lot more. I feel pretty good at being in that company.
One of the nice things about LRC is that you get over 2000 words, so you can do an essay not just a summary of the book’s contents. Here are some excerpts from the first few paragraphs to give a sense of where it goes:
The global supply chain digs shale from the hostile terrain of Northern Alberta, refines it, ships it half way round the world and back again, and in the process turns it into thousands of distinct consumer items, from dollar store plastic sharks to laptop computers.
Some see this continual transformation of the world’s raw materials into things that consumers can use as a Hayekian cornucopia…Others see something more sinister at work…Both pictures have some truth. Nothing can be this massive without having multiple faces, but Gordon Laird definitely leans towards the “sinister” camp. While he does note that “the supply chain has brought us many gifts”, he is more concerned that it has done so with “a global legacy of unresolved problems”: environmental horrors in the backwaters of rural Asia, unregulated emissions of shipping fleets in the world’s oceans, conflict and oppression of the labour force in China, global warming.But, argues Laird, the era of the global supply chain is almost over. We have gone on our spending binge, and now we must face the hangover. As the environmental consequences of lax standards come home to roost, as sources of cheap energy, cheap credit, and even cheap labour threaten to dry up, we are nearing the death of globalization. “The golden age of affordable consumerism was short. We will very likely never shop this hard again”. … “Our bargain-addicted consumer economy is dangerously leveraged on a series of innovations and inventions not built to last. Specifically, the fundamentals of growth – cheap credit, offshore labour, affordable energy, and transport – will be depleted or become unavailable during the twenty-first century”. He is not alone: ex-CIBC economist Jeff Rubin and John Ralston Saul both broadly share his opinion about the future of global trade, which is that there will be less of it, and that it will leave many difficult problems in its wake.Gordon Laird … starts by browsing with us through piles of cheap consumer goods at Las Vegas trade shows for discount stores, then takes us to Shenzen in China where many of the goods are made, shows us around the port of Los Angeles where a never-ending stream of standardized containers flows off the ships and onto trucks, and flies us back to the very beginning of the chain, to the muskeg of northern Alberta where the largest industrial project on the planet is run with Wal-Mart-like precision to extract oil from tar sands. He also ventures to the Mexico-US border to track the migration of workers driven by the shifting labour patterns of globalization. He supplements this field work with wide reading (his list of sources is 25 pages long and contains about 400 items) and a good selection of interviews. The Price of a Bargain is a valuable contribution to the continuing debate on global trade, its impact, and its future.But while Laird’s willingness to travel and read is obvious, the book would be better if he had sat longer, alone and quiet, to distil the complexity he presents into a coherent picture. As it is, his portrayal is confusing and sometimes contradictory. The book is strong on data, weak on synthesis.
…
