Flibbertigibbet

Freedom Makes You... Unfree?

I was just over at MySpace where an ad for a book caught my eye. I read the review and it sounds utterly ridiculous:

Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole
by Benjamin R. Barber

In Consumed, political theorist Benjamin R. Barber argues that where free-market capitalism once bolstered our democracy, it is now in danger of destroying it. According to Barber, big business traditionally produced goods (like oil, grain, and steel) that met people’s actual needs, a business model that allowed companies to make money and help others. Now the businesses with the biggest profits are those that manufacture a “relatively useless cornucopia of games, gadgets, and myriad consumer goods for which there is no discernable ‘need market’ other than the one created by capitalism’s own frantic need to sell.” In order to sell, and sell some more, capitalism’s frantic marketers encourage children to grow up prematurely [....] and turn adults into overgrown kids who seek the instant gratification of unchallenging, endlessly replaceable consumer goods.

[...]

Unfortunately, when Barber offers solutions to get our off-the-rails democracy back on track, their inadequacy is almost as depressing as the problem itself. Still, if Barber can’t solve our problems—or avoid making some minor factual mistakes—he skillfully makes an important point: the freedom to buy what we want is making us less free, and that is a problem for anyone who values democracy.

This is book is guaranteed to be trash.

"The freedom to buy what we want is making us less free, and that is a problem for anyone who values democracy." That's the theme? Allow me to restate this in paraphrase. "Being free makes us less free and people who think it's important for people to be able to express their individuality will see freedom as a problem."

It's gibberish even in the review. The book itself can't be any better; I'm sure it's worse.

I find this bit of the review to be particularly egregious:

According to Barber, big business traditionally produced goods (like oil, grain, and steel) that met people’s actual needs, a business model that allowed companies to make money and help others. Now the businesses with the biggest profits are those that manufacture a “relatively useless cornucopia of games, gadgets, and myriad consumer goods for which there is no discernable ‘need market’ other than the one created by capitalism’s own frantic need to sell.”

Who defines "actual need?" How is it possible to distinguish between an actual and an imaginary need?

It would seem that if I had a sandwich for lunch, then I don't actually need another sandwich, but how do you know? If I were a farm laborer, I might actually need the extra calories. If I am a coma patient, then I probably don't need the calories.

Truly, people COULD survive as hunter-gatherers or living in caves, throwing rocks, so we should question whether or not any of this farming or steel production is an "actual need."

The reality is that it's none of your damn business what I need. That's the beauty of market systems. "Need" is defined by my willingness to pay. The more I'm willing to pay, the more you must assume that I need whatever it is I'm buying.

Further, everyone should be insulted by the presumption this man has to declare anything we purchase as useless.

The author of this book hates human beings. If he didn't, why would he dare imply that people have no business having a quality of life above basic subsistence?