So you want an effective critique of Adbusters (and related mindsets) that doesn't rely on straw caricatures of activist types or simplistic reductions of left-wing thought? Then you want jebni, that's who you want (you ought to be checking Antipopper on a near daily basis anyway). Listen:

I think it's a given that people who protest and engage in direct action against exploitation (whether they're white students in Seattle or workers of colour in Vietnam) have little choice but to wear the products of that exploitation, whether it be Nikes or something more affordable. (Yes, Nikes seem to be designed for only those that can afford them, but that's actually never been true in a strict sense - people who can't afford Nikes are often the ones buying them, and those who simply sneer at this fact, I wager, are the ones who can, uh, afford to. "Stupid working class sheep - why can't they be bicycle-riding vegans like us enlightened souls?") So, to stoop to either half-assed, entrepreneurial competition with Nike or to collapse into a neurotically misplaced, phobic disavowal of brands is to refuse an engagement with these conditions. Funnily enough, Adbusters now does both.

Not for the first time, I'm convinced that a misinterpretation of the idea of false consciousness can be blamed for the rise in ethical consumerism as a lifestyle choice for the privileged. It probably won't surprise anyone to learn that I think pop music is a key battleground here.

Unrelated: hey Eppy, if you still need a band name, Amusement Arcade is free.