The myth of a dichotomised world: the power of the consumer

In fact the world is much more complex than the anti-branders' world view allows for. There is no neat divide between them and us. Who has made the brands what they are today? It is the individual choices of millions of consumers. Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Nike have not become powerful brands due to some sinister conspiracy. These brands are what they are, because millions of consumers enjoy consuming their products, and prefer their products to those of their competitors.

The anti-branders are, of course, aware of this and seeking to overcome this obstacle is in many ways the raison d'?tre of the anti-branding argument. It is the reason for the endless desire by anti-corporate activists to somehow show that the consumers' choices do not reflect their true desires, their true interests. The anti-branders regard the modern high street, with its preponderance of branded shops and large impersonal chain stores as malign. They cannot bear the notion that this type of high street has arisen because of consumer choice, that consumers as a group have shown their preference for McDonald's and Sainsbury's over the pie and mash shop or the local green grocer. The anti-branders thus construct an argument that shifts blame back from the consumer to the corporations, from the many to the few.

The ownership base of major corporations has become very broad

The second complication is that the ownership of the corporations is no longer the reserve of a select, privileged few. At the end of 2000, institutional investors owned 47.1 per cent of UK shares, with a combined value of £855 billion.55 The largest constituents within this category were insurance companies, with holdings of £380.9 billion, or 21 per cent of UK shares, and pension funds, with £321.2 billion, or 17.7 per cent.56 These holdings represent the collective savings of tens of millions; they will help pay for more comfortable retirements for tens of millions. Furthermore, non-UK investors owned 32.4 per cent of British shares.57 Much of these overseas-owned equities represent the holdings of foreign - European, American, Japanese - pension funds and other collective investments that are not represented in the figures for UK institutional ownership and are in addition to them. In other words, the major corporations are in general today not owned by the few, but for the benefit of the many.

This represents a vast shift, and massive broadening, of corporate ownership: in 1963 institutional investors represented 29 per cent of UK shares, with pension funds representing only 6.4 per cent. Individuals then represented 54 per cent of shareholdings, now they represent 16 per cent.58 Within the category of individual shareholders there has also been a huge broadening of ownership. Today there are an estimated 16 million private investors in the UK.59 In the USA, 45 million people, or half the full-time private workforce, have 401K accounts. These enable workers tax efficiently to invest a percentage of their salary in the stock market.60 These figures paint an altogether different picture from the activists' vision of a dichotomised world.

There is a third complication. Although it cannot be said to be as socially significant as the broadening of wealth and ownership has been, it is perhaps even more subversive of the anti-branders' perceptions to examine who supports and funds their anti-corporate, anti-branding campaigns.

The funding of anti-capitalism by capitalists - anti-branding funded by brand-created wealth

What if the campaigns the anti-branders are themselves engaged in are funded by the exploiting few of their own imagination? What if they are funded not just by any exploiting few, but by those who suggest, much to the fury of the anti-branders, that you can make the world a better place by shopping, indeed that corporations, specifically their corporations, are your friend? Here one is not considering support for those 'domesticated' issues and campaigns that the activists argue have been stolen from them by corporations in order to sell this year's trainers, etc. Nor is one talking of such somewhat cheeky, oh so daring, stunts as the anarchist band Chumbawamba donating the £70,000 fee they received for one of their songs to be used in a General Motors advertisement to the radical anti-branding, anti-corporate organisations, CorpWatch and IndyMedia.61 The fact is that radical, indubitably undomesticated, anti-corporate activist groups, with a similar outlook to the organisations Chumbawamba gave money to, are the recipients of intentional funding by some brands, by individuals who have become extremely wealthy via brands, and by foundations endowed by those individuals. Such funding even extends to organisations whose sole purpose is to push forward the whole anti-branding agenda. Should this not make the activists question at least some of their assumptions? At the very least they should abandon their belief that any organisation that has ever received any funding from a corporation somehow becomes little more than a corporate stooge.

Brand-created wealth supports the anti-corporate training camps of the Ruckus Society

The Ruckus Society is a US organisation which holds training camps for anti-corporate activists in non-violent direct action. On its web site, the Ruckus Society asks 'are you sick of a corporate global economy that puts profits ahead of the environment, democracy, workers, human rights, justice and local communities?'62 It is described by the radical Anglo-American journalist Alexander Cockburn as one of 'the true heroes of the Battle of Seattle',63 ie, the demonstrations in Seattle against the World Trade Organization's summit there in late November and early December 1999 which have become one of the defining moments of the new anti-corporate movement.

Alexander Cockburn contrasts the boisterous militants of the Ruckus Society, his heroes, with the liberal demonstrators such as those from the trade unions, mainstream environmental groups or those who might believe in 'ethical consumerism'. He denigrates the latter for being feeble, and too circumscribed in their actions by what Cockburn regards as a somewhat quaint desire not to upset people and to cultivate a responsible 'mainstream' image. This is something the Ruckus Society can never be accused of. During US universities' spring break it organises a Ruckus Society Spank the Bank Action Camp to train student radicals to 'confront the world's most destructive financial institution - the Citigroup'.64 As the Society puts it, 'Ruckus trains and assists activists to use direct action to stop industries' relentless assault on the planet'.65 To sum up, the Ruckus Society is not an organisation which seeks to change this or that corporate practice or ameliorate one or other aspect of capitalism as it is found today. It seeks the radical transformation of society along fundamentally different principles.

How might an organisation such as this be funded? The Ruckus Society has taken on board one of the favourite fund raising tools for myriad arts, conservationist and development causes. Many such organisations offer those who are so inclined the chance to sponsor a seat in the opera, a tree in an old forest, or a child in the South. The Ruckus Society offers the opportunity of sponsoring an activist. If you feel guilty about your corporate job, but do not feel like throwing it in to join the direct action brigade yourself, you can sponsor an activist to go to a Ruckus training camp for $400 and enjoy the pleasures of activism vicariously.

But, just as in the case of more mainstream organisations, this only raises a certain amount of money. Arts, conservation and development charities raise larger amounts of money via substantial donations from the extremely wealthy and the foundations which the extremely wealthy have established, and also from corporate support, often via corporate foundations. The Ruckus Society has also learnt from this and engages in such methods of fund-raising. Billionaire media mogul Ted Turner's foundation gave a $50,000 grant to the Ruckus Society in 1999, along with donations to myriad other progressive causes.66

Anita Roddick, who stepped down from a day-to-day role in The Body Shop in 2002 but remains a non-executive Director and 'creative consultant'67, is listed as a Director of the Ruckus Society.68 The Body Shop Foundation gave the Ruckus Society a $40,000 grant in 2000 towards its training camps.69 The Ruckus Society, along with Naomi Klein, has contributed to a book edited by Anita Roddick, Take It Personally - How Globalization Affects You and How to Fight Back.70 It is a glossy, coffee table guide, full of arresting images and pictures, aimed at the uninitiated on how to get involved in the burgeoning protest movement, and why you should. Those buying this book can rest assured that proceeds 'are going to support visionaries, grassroots groups, and non-governmental organisations who are debunking the myths created by the World Trade Organization.'71 Anita Roddick and her husband, Gordon Roddick, are so committed to these campaigns that they have pledged to leave all their money to The Body Shop Foundation to fund progressive causes, not leaving their children 'anything beyond a trust fund and the houses we own'.72

The TV stations of Turner and the skin care products and lotions of the Roddicks are, of course, themselves identified by the anti-branders with all the alleged sins of branding. They are, in fact, seen as especially heinous offenders by some: the mainstream media represented by Ted Turner is seen as the engine behind the construction of the branded world and Anita Roddick is the champion of what they see as the blind alley of 'ethical consumerism'. Hence, The Body Shop was a prominent target on the web-based hit list of corporations to be subject to 'anti-capitalist actions on Tuesday 1st May 2001'.73 These actions were planned as part of a global day of anti-corporate protest of which the Ruckus Society was very much an element. In the end no actual actions took place against The Body Shop due to robust policing and the shops in the vicinity of the main anti-capitalist march taking extensive precautions such as boarding up their windows etc. In the cases of Ted Turner and The Body Shop, however, the support given to the Ruckus Society is not via their corporations, although The Body Shop Foundation is manifestly and intimately identified with The Body Shop, and is given much exposure on The Body Shop web site.

Patagonia, a brand of hiking and sports clothing, makes much of its environmental ideals. As part of this commitment it gives 10 per cent of its pre-tax profits to 'grass root environmental organisations'. One of the organisations Patagonia boasts of supporting on its web site, with a grant of $30,000, is the Ruckus Society.74 Furthermore, Patagonia offers to post bail for Ruckus protesters arrested for non-violent direct action.75

Unilever's indirect donations to anti-corporate organisations

Ben & Jerry ice-cream is another famous 'ethical' brand. Its founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, committed the company to donate 7.5 per cent of its pre-tax profits to not-for-profit organisations, partly to 'grassroots organisations throughout the United States which facilitate progressive social change' via the Ben & Jerry Foundation.76 When the founders sold out to global consumer brand conglomerate Unilever for $326 million in 2000, Unilever committed itself to continue supporting the Ben & Jerry Foundation to the tune of at least $1.1 million per year for at least 10 years,77 and on top of this gave the foundation a one-off $5 million at the time of the take-over.78 In 2001, ie, after the take-over by Unilever, the Ben & Jerry Foundation, amongst donations to other progressive organisations, gave $100,000 to the Ruckus Society,79 a $15,000 grant to Sweatshop Watch to further its work and a $10,000 to the Institute for Social Ecology for its work in organising and educating networks of anti-biotech activists.80

Sweatshop Watch is at the forefront of targeting clothing brands for their, and their sub-contractors, employment practices. A favourite device it employs is comparing the lowly pay received by those producing goods in the South with high executive pay in the North. Ironically, the Chief Executive of Unilever, Niall Fitzgerald is not only one of the most vocal defenders of globalisation in corporate Britain81 but is also one of the highest paid 'bosses' in the UK, being paid £1.3 million in 2000.82

The Institute for Social Ecology is one of green anarchist Murray Bookchin's organisations.83 He is a leading anti-capitalist thinker, and a guru for many of the more radical of today's protesters, including London Greenpeace and the McLibel Two. Bookchin is the founder of the credo of social ecology and a prolific author both of books postulating a green anarchist society and tracts excoriating other greens and assorted radicals for what he perceives as the errors of their analysis and their compromises. His books include 'Post-Scarcity Anarchism', 'Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left', 'Which Way for the Ecology Movement' and the three volume 'The Third Revolution'. Bookchin's notion of social ecology differentiates itself from other radical green thought by seeing itself as part of a left-wing revolutionary tradition, seeing environmentalism as only one part of a wider anti-capitalist message, and exclusively blaming capitalism in general and corporations in particular for environmental degradation (as opposed to human activity as a whole).84 Murray Bookchin is admired among the anti-branders for the purity of his vision and his complete unwillingness to make any compromises with capitalism. For many of today's anti-branders Bookchin's ideas are the theoretical underpinning for their actions. They see Bookchin as offering a truly revolutionary, virulently anti-capitalist ideology, untainted by the failures of Marxism. Yet as this funding shows, however indirectly, even Bookchin has received financial support from a multi-national, indeed from one of the major global purveyors of branded goods.

The Foundation for Deep Ecology: brand-created wealth funds anti-corporate, anti-branding groups such as Adbusters

Perhaps the most well established anti-branding organisation is the Canadian-based Adbusters Foundation, which has made an international name for itself. This is well-deserved because, whatever one may think of the validity of their explicitly anti-consumerist message, they produce many genuinely witty and clever parodies of real advertisements and carry out amusing stunts. These are disseminated via the Internet and also through their well-produced glossy magazine, Adbusters - The Journal of the Mental Environment. Where one would expect to find advertisements in such a magazine, one finds parodies of advertisements.

Adbusters is so renowned for the cleverness of its advertisment parodies that they even offer, via something called the Powershift Advocacy Agency, their skills 'in helping other organisations deliver the messages the world needs to hear... if your communications are not-for-profit, consider Powershift when you call agencies. We're a full-service shop, ready to create your next campaign - if the cause is right.' 85 Adbusters also try to buy TV time for their anti-consumerist advertisements, which the networks usually refuse.86 Obviously the networks' refusal to air these advertisements gives Adbusters a propaganda coup.

The founder of Adbusters, Kalle Lasn is the author of another, more specifically American, best-selling manifesto and history of the anti-branding movement, Culture Jam - How to Reverse America's Suicidal Consumer Binge - And Why We Must.87. Yet Adbusters have received funding from wealth created through American consumer brands during America's alleged 'consumer binge'.

Adbusters' publications have received support from the $170 million Foundation for Deep Ecology.88 This foundation, which has awarded grants of over $50 million to 'the boldest, most visionary [activist] groups working to ... fight megatechnology and industrial globalization'89 between 1990 and 2001, was established by Doug Tompkins, when he sold Esprit, the hugely successful clothing brand he had founded. Alongside the Foundation for Deep Ecology, he founded a wholly separate foundation to buy up and protect wilderness in South America. The foundation has bought up 800,000 acres of temperate rainforest in Chile, at a cost of $10 million, to establish the Pumalin Park nature reserve, and a foundation set up by Doug Tomkins' wife, Kris McDivitt - the founder of aforementioned Patagonia clothing brand - has bought up a further 260,000 acres of Argentina. In total this couple and their foundations' own more than 2 million acres of Chile and Argentina.90

These efforts have been heavily criticised in South America for restricting development in these areas. Since restrictions on development are the point of such nature reserves, this must be regarded as a success within their own remit. Ironically, considering the Foundation for Deep Ecology's support for anti-capitalist organisations, these foundations are an excellent example of the effectiveness of private property rights based conservation efforts. It shows how wilderness, habitats, or whatever else a given group of people hold dear, can be protected from development within the framework of capitalism.

Founding Esprit would be a serious enough offence in the anti-branders eyes, but Doug Tompkins is a recidivist. He founded not just Esprit, but an equally successful, youth-oriented consumer brand in the shape of the trendy outdoor clothing label, The North Face. Esprit and The North Face are exactly the kind of brands most attacked by the anti-branders. According to their detractors, they sought a progressive, rebellious, friendly image whilst behaving just like any other large corporation. Indeed Naomi Klein apparently first discovered the evils of brands and global corporations when she was sacked, aged 17, from a part-time job in Esprit for displaying a 'bad attitude' while being told that Esprit was her 'good friend'.91

Alexander Cockburn ridicules Doug Tompkins as 'the former czar of sweatshop-made sports clothing who funds the [highly anti-globalisation, for its alleged worsening of labour conditions and impact upon the environment] International Forum on Globalization.'92 For Cockburn, Tompkins and his ilk are not the true face of protest; they are not radical enough for Cockburn's tastes and are perceived by him to be somewhat hypocritical. Yet their munificence is no small part of the reason for why the radical anti-corporate, anti-branding movement favoured by Cockburn has become what it is today.

It is ironic that the anti-corporate movement's financial fortunes are intimately tied up with the fortunes of the capitalist economy. The movement has relied on funding from foundations and others whose coffers swelled during the economic and share price boom; in a recession and with falling share prices their coffers shrink. James Harding of the Financial Times notes that, 'September 11th threatens to provide an ugly illustration of how tightly the movement has become tied to the mainstream economy ... activism prospered on the back of America's boom, the movement now promises to suffer financially as the West teeters towards recession.'93

The sources of funding for anti-corporate campaigns should make activists question their assumptions

The fact that the anti-corporate movement is reliant upon capitalist wealth to fund its campaigns undermines its vision of the world as neatly divided between the exploiting few and the exploited many. This caricatured view has perhaps found its apotheosis in the UK in the writings of anti-corporate author and Guardian columnist George Monbiot. As Independent journalist David Aaronovitch, himself once rather left-wing, puts it, 'Monbiot's view of life is underwritten by a Socialist Sunday School notion of how capitalism works... This is too simple, even for Harry Potter... What grates is his patronising and simplistic way of writing. Protesters are all poor ordinary folk...Their opponents are... "rotund" and "ponderous". So this becomes a bipolar, almost visual, fight between people and business - like Hollywood.'94

Not only are capitalists invariably up to all types of wickedness in his column, he is also permanently on the look out for greens and anti-corporate types in general who appear to have betrayed the true faith. Monbiot has strongly attacked the former head of Greenpeace UK (the British affiliate of Greenpeace International), Lord Peter Melchett, for taking a job with corporate PR company Burson Marsteller. In The Guardian, Monbiot accuses Lord Melchett of succumbing to his class interest, 'Rich and powerful greens must perpetually contest their class interest. Environmentalism, just as much as socialism, involves the restraint of wealth and power. Peter Melchett, like Tolstoy, Kropotkin, Engels, Orwell, and Tony Benn, was engaged in counter-identity politics.'95

What Monbiot is saying is that these people, from privileged backgrounds - and by implication Monbiot himself who also comes from a privileged background - were acting against what Monbiot perceives as their own class interest. This language seeks to reinforce the dichotomised world view so beloved of the radical activists. Such criticisms of Melchett, however, are easy for radical activists to make. They can hold on to their cosy assumptions and forget how reliant their campaigns are upon corporate and corporate-created wealth. This is not wealth which has been inherited through the generations, as in Monbiot's examples, but wealth directly created by the active corporate capitalism of the donors. Monbiot goes on to say: 'Environmentalism, like almost everything else, is in danger of being swallowed up by the corporate leviathan. If this happens, it will disappear without trace. No one threatens its survival as much as the greens who have taken the company shilling'.96

His prediction that taking corporate money will destroy the green movement is clearly wrong. The green movement is awash with corporate, and corporate-created, money, yet has certainly not disappeared. Anti-corporate, anti-consumerist activism does not lose its ferocity because it is the receipt of corporate funds. The statement says more about the wish of radical activists for a neatly dichotomised world than about the reality of the situation.

George Monbiot and his fellow activists should consider from where some of the money behind the anti-corporate, anti-consumerist campaigns originates. They should also consider how broad the ownership of the corporations, and thus those who profit from them, has become. They might then think twice before yet again reiterating their belief in the existence of a clear, unambiguous and universal divide between the 'us' of 'the people' and the protesters, and the 'them' of the corporations and the wealthy. Perhaps they then would begin to realise that the world is rather more complex, and perhaps more schizophrenic, than the projection they put upon it allows for. They would have to stop believing that the corporate world is somehow a monolith. They would also have to reconsider their belief in the growing menace of corporate censorship.

A media mogul in the shape of Ted Turner, the founder of one of the world's most influential news organisations CNN, giving money to this movement squares ill with their belief that the movement is excluded by the mainstream media. There is, however, no evidence that such a reconsideration is occurring among the protesters. The belief in a neatly dichotomised world is too comfortable and useful a construct for the protesters to discard even when the reality of their own campaigns so clearly shows up its vacuity.