Come back “false needs,” all is forgiven…

This morning was taking the tetrapaks to the recycling centre (presumably they are then incinerated or landfilled, but I’ve Done My Bit^TM), and listening to a podcast.

Oh My. Oh My Oh My Oh MY.

All the liberal handwringing. All the refusal to think about what would happen if you mashed up (as you should) Max Weber, Bob Michels and Tony Gramsci and poured the sauce over your current understanding of bureaucracies/organisations. All the lieberal handwringing and refusal to see organisational cultures shape (and mash) the Good People who try to climb the ladder. What, you think the Post Office is an anomaly? FFS, grow a pair (of eyes). And grow a pair of “balls” to use that pair of eyes (1).

Obligatory Lindqvist quote: It is not knowledge we lack. What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions.

And then this stuff about an essential fixed (acquisitive) human nature. If we’re all so greedy, then why do we need this enormous ‘advertising’ (i.e. propaganda) industry to keep us on the (an)hedonic treadmill?

I get that the 1970s are now deeply unfashionable (2), and I wouldn’t want to see bell-bottoms back. And I get that the word “false” (as in “needs” or “consciousness”) is a dick move, even more egregious than slapping “deep” in front of whatever half-baked “theory” or “framework” you happen to be peddling in search of tenure or a professorship. And I get that using the term false needs opens up cans of worms about Real Needs and who decides which is which, but can we not at least accept that what has been going on of late, around compulsory mass consumption is not “normal” or healthy. The Midas Plague etc etc.

SPOILER: No, we cannot, because to do that, now, would to mark us out as a malcontent, and Not Serious. Not “practical” etc.

I may be done with this podcast series, because I can’t hear the pearls of wisdom (sic) over the sound of me grinding my teeth. So it goes.

Footnotes

(1) Of course, elite “intellectuals” are enjoying the large crumbs falling from the table, and the prestige (sic) that comes with gobbling them. Seeing would be awkward. We need sumptuary laws for idea-mongers, perhaps? Dunno, just spitballing.

(2) And, as Simone Weil pointed out, scientists follow fashions and fads.