A super dieend quick de-reading of Naomi Klein's (?) book entitled Lo Nogo in n episodes. First things first. "It was twenty years ago tonight". We, me and us never read it. Why? Because there is a premise in there as we and I know it - knew it beforehand. No incorporation

"rules". Conditions rule. And one can change these not as rules but as structural dynamics so to say. A "no logo please!" is behind Klein's theories. Give us a general commodity without being commodity it says. Let's be clean it says. Anticorp is dead now. It's ever been dead.
It was dead from the beginning. When culture surrenders it's been declared the core of the conditions. Clearly Klein follows a dictum reproducing it. The dictum of a loss in the civic space - whatever this is. Is it where there is no war, no wage work? Is it freedom, leisure,
free time? Capitalism is in-corporated in the hype of No Logo, no logo/lo nogo tells "capitalism=corporation". Such a news. In fact No Logo descripes a wish to be without the evil of brands aka incorporation(s). But marketing comes late as it is only the surface of competition.
Simply 20 years after the lo nogo hype it becomes clearer that there is no no-things production. Klein's attack attacked trade but did not attack property or its "core": production and value. Selling images to the masses seems to be close to the "integrated spectacle" one
knows from situationists and this "no" comes up with a sort of rejection, a black in black refusing false content, content based on the sameness of differance. And end to the lies of the story telling ware, a tacit. The brand the image, the image-based capitalism. Wasn't it
Walter Benjamin teaching that conditions could only be understood and realized by the surfaces? With lo nogo its the culture again as the battle ground of the world we are living in. The phenomena. Hm, I and we see Klein knows less about categories like surplus and
reproduction. She stuck in the consumerism. She sees Pepsi only where there is ("is" in terms of Verhältnisse) value realized, wealth expropriated, work force exploitated.
to be continued
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from World

1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...


2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see

3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result

4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...

5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...

You May Also Like