Barber's ethics clearly do not embrace contemporary commercialism, and it is also clear that he'd rather not see society enthralled in a continuous cycle of working endlessly in order to support a consumerist appetite for goods that contain no tangible value. His premise is that such an economic system is a sort of quiet tyranny, a despotic commercialism. I can agree in principle to an extent, but what is it that this commercialism has replaced? A subsistence, hand to mouth lifestyle. Yes, many "McWorld"ers live paycheck to paycheck in an enormous amount of debt, but rather than work to subsist in the way that previous generations did, they're working to subsist in a world in which the latest gadget such as the iPhone is seen as a necessity. Barber talks as though he's giving the authoritative word on the subject, but I tend to believe that it is a question of personal values as to which sort of system of subsistence living is preferable to the other. That being the case, I honestly believe that if a poll were conducted of the world's six billion inhabitants a decided majority would vote for the superfluous life of "McWorld," a life in which they're worried about making enough to buy the latest C class or 3 series, as opposed to the one in which their driving concern is whether or not they are going to be able to eat dinner on a given evening. The fact the "need" for the latest gadget is contrived by marketing firms in New York rather than the yearning of our biology does not matter to me, and I would argue that it matters little to many others.

He talks about Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson as forces of "internal jihad" in America. I think Mr. Barber shares with them some of that conservative lust for a bygone era when times were simpler and life was easier. I still plan on reading Consumed. Hopefully the intervening ten years have given him a better perspective.

Barber's ethics clearly do not embrace contemporary commercialism, and it is also clear that he'd rather not see society enthralled in a continuous cycle of working endlessly in order to support a consumerist appetite for goods that contain no tangible value. His premise is that such an economic system is a sort of quiet tyranny, a despotic commercialism. I can agree in principle to an extent, but what is it that this commercialism has replaced? A subsistence, hand to mouth lifestyle. Yes, many "McWorld"ers live paycheck to paycheck in an enormous amount of debt, but rather than work to subsist in the way that previous generations did, they're working to subsist in a world in which the latest gadget such as the iPhone is seen as a necessity. Barber talks as though he's giving the authoritative word on the subject, but I tend to believe that it is a question of personal values as to which sort of system of subsistence living is preferable to the other. That being the case, I honestly believe that if a poll were conducted of the world's six billion inhabitants a decided majority would vote for the superfluous life of "McWorld," a life in which they're worried about making enough to buy the latest C class or 3 series, as opposed to the one in which their driving concern is whether or not they are going to be able to eat dinner on a given evening. The fact the "need" for the latest gadget is contrived by marketing firms in New York rather than the yearning of our biology does not matter to me, and I would argue that it matters little to many others.

He talks about Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson as forces of "internal jihad" in America. I think Mr. Barber shares with them some of that conservative lust for a bygone era when times were simpler and life was easier. I still plan on reading Consumed. Hopefully the intervening ten years have given him a better perspective.

First of all, the cover art has been changed. Originally, it was a relatively prosaic cover, full of logos of religious symbols, corporate logos, and military equipment. The picture of the burka-clad lady sipping a Pepsi was undoubtedbly added after 9/11, to capitalize on world events. But the text has not been changed or revised, as far as I can tell....

On to the content. Almost half of the book is taken up by a description of "McWorld" (i.e. the multinational, comsumerist culture that would have us all drinking a Coke, going to McDonalds, wearing Nikes, etc., possibly to the detriment of local culture). Nothing I haven't really heard or read before.

Next, the author tries to describe "Jihad". (As an aside, although I am not a Muslim, I do know that Jihad is a specific Islamic term roughly meaning "struggle", but actually meaning different kinds of struggles, of which the violence that we hear about in the West is only one). In the book, the term "Jihad" is used to mean any opposition to "McWorld", or perhaps modernity or other cultures in general. I'm not sure that's appropriate; maybe another term, such as "neotribalism" (which actually is used in a few places in the book) might be more useful? Only a relatively short chapter talks about religion at all; it mostly tries to compare the Christian right (and far-right) in the US with the Islamic extremists.

A couple of chapters go over the "failure" of post-Communist Russia and East Germany; another describes the effects of "McWorld" on China and Japan. Also described in several places is the intersection of "McWorld" and "Jihad"; as "Jihadists" use the products and technologies of "McWorld" ,not only to propagate their ideas, but also as products for everyday living. (Maybe the new cover with the burka-wearing woman enjoying a Pepsi is more appropriate than I thought at first!)

According to the book, neither "McWorld" nor "Jihad" is a replacement for democracy. There are a number of social goals that are not met by either. Further, the current system of nation-states is no match for the power of the multinational companies; some sort of supra-national, global, democratic institution with power comparable to that of multinational capitalism. (Actually getting to that point, however, would require imposing democratic ideals on countries and communities that are now decidedly anti-democratic--this is not a task done overnight).

What I didn't like is that the book overestimates the power of "McWorld", portraying the multinational corporations worrying that some third-world kid is drinking tea rather than a Coke. Like all stereotypes, there is a kernel of truth in it, but that doesn't make it any less of a stereotype. The author plays favorites; the word "jihad" appears nowhere in the several pages on Hollywood domination of the movie industry in France; yet, right-wing American evangelicals, (rightly or wrongly) questioning changing societal values get dumped on the "Jihad" heap with the neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists. The FCC gets dinged for not forcing a radio station for keeping its classical format (although setting formats wasn't, and isn't, a function of the FCC to begin with). And so on.

Then there's the out-and-out fingerwagging; the aside on (American) slavery seems to lacks any real tie-in to the theme of "McWorld and Jihad", but more like the author coming out and telling us how we should think. This is true to a lesser extent of the "Bowling Alone"-type material in the "Global Democracy" chapter. (It's a big step from leaving one's comfortable suburban home and joining a bowling league with one's fellow suburbanites, and forming a global government with people halfway around the world who believe in who-knows-what!)

There are also a number of lists; media mergers and top films (relevant, since it shows the domination of multinational over local media) and energy use per country (less so, since equality of energy usage could theoretically be imposed by a non-democratic global system as well as by a democratic one).

To his credit, the author doesn't present "McWorld" as an evil conspiracy, but more like a natural market force that really ought to be checked by some theoretical one-world government. The "Jihad" side, however, is more of a minefield of the author's personal biases and "Things-That-Must-Be-Defended/Derided-At-All Costs".

First of all, the cover art has been changed. Originally, it was a relatively prosaic cover, full of logos of religious symbols, corporate logos, and military equipment. The picture of the burka-clad lady sipping a Pepsi was undoubtedbly added after 9/11, to capitalize on world events. But the text has not been changed or revised, as far as I can tell....

On to the content. Almost half of the book is taken up by a description of "McWorld" (i.e. the multinational, comsumerist culture that would have us all drinking a Coke, going to McDonalds, wearing Nikes, etc., possibly to the detriment of local culture). Nothing I haven't really heard or read before.

Next, the author tries to describe "Jihad". (As an aside, although I am not a Muslim, I do know that Jihad is a specific Islamic term roughly meaning "struggle", but actually meaning different kinds of struggles, of which the violence that we hear about in the West is only one). In the book, the term "Jihad" is used to mean any opposition to "McWorld", or perhaps modernity or other cultures in general. I'm not sure that's appropriate; maybe another term, such as "neotribalism" (which actually is used in a few places in the book) might be more useful? Only a relatively short chapter talks about religion at all; it mostly tries to compare the Christian right (and far-right) in the US with the Islamic extremists.

A couple of chapters go over the "failure" of post-Communist Russia and East Germany; another describes the effects of "McWorld" on China and Japan. Also described in several places is the intersection of "McWorld" and "Jihad"; as "Jihadists" use the products and technologies of "McWorld" ,not only to propagate their ideas, but also as products for everyday living. (Maybe the new cover with the burka-wearing woman enjoying a Pepsi is more appropriate than I thought at first!)

According to the book, neither "McWorld" nor "Jihad" is a replacement for democracy. There are a number of social goals that are not met by either. Further, the current system of nation-states is no match for the power of the multinational companies; some sort of supra-national, global, democratic institution with power comparable to that of multinational capitalism. (Actually getting to that point, however, would require imposing democratic ideals on countries and communities that are now decidedly anti-democratic--this is not a task done overnight).

What I didn't like is that the book overestimates the power of "McWorld", portraying the multinational corporations worrying that some third-world kid is drinking tea rather than a Coke. Like all stereotypes, there is a kernel of truth in it, but that doesn't make it any less of a stereotype. The author plays favorites; the word "jihad" appears nowhere in the several pages on Hollywood domination of the movie industry in France; yet, right-wing American evangelicals, (rightly or wrongly) questioning changing societal values get dumped on the "Jihad" heap with the neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists. The FCC gets dinged for not forcing a radio station for keeping its classical format (although setting formats wasn't, and isn't, a function of the FCC to begin with). And so on.

Then there's the out-and-out fingerwagging; the aside on (American) slavery seems to lacks any real tie-in to the theme of "McWorld and Jihad", but more like the author coming out and telling us how we should think. This is true to a lesser extent of the "Bowling Alone"-type material in the "Global Democracy" chapter. (It's a big step from leaving one's comfortable suburban home and joining a bowling league with one's fellow suburbanites, and forming a global government with people halfway around the world who believe in who-knows-what!)

There are also a number of lists; media mergers and top films (relevant, since it shows the domination of multinational over local media) and energy use per country (less so, since equality of energy usage could theoretically be imposed by a non-democratic global system as well as by a democratic one).

To his credit, the author doesn't present "McWorld" as an evil conspiracy, but more like a natural market force that really ought to be checked by some theoretical one-world government. The "Jihad" side, however, is more of a minefield of the author's personal biases and "Things-That-Must-Be-Defended/Derided-At-All Costs".

It's amazing how despite all the tragedies and wars, big business elitists are able to cash in on the damage while religious fundamentalists never get caught, much less held accountable. The idiots who show their hate of this book are from terrorist nations that have a knack of socializing poverty and terrorism while at the same time privatizing wealth. Despite all the big talk about winning the so-called war on terrorism, the ugly truth is wars have not taught us anything. If it weren't for Big Business funding Hitler, Hitler would have had a harder time killing the Jews. Sadly though, even after World War II ended, the Big Business elites that funded and continue to fund dictatorships like Hitler, Stalin, and the modern ones are not only not held accountable but often end up walking away as "heroes". If we're really going to win the war on terrorism and/or poverty, we're going to have to stop supporting big business elite and stop allowing our uber-corrupt politicians from exploiting peoples fears on terrorism even while maximizing poverty.

Barber's analysis ignores important facts in order to prove his thesis about how the primary battle in the world being between the free market and religious fundamentalism. It works, somewhat, but fails to take into account numerous instances where this tension is called into question. Not every zealot in the world is an enemy of technology, as the War in Iraq has shown us.

Barber's trenchant jargon updates slogans for class-warfare and utopian proletarian dictatorships. The rhetoric relies on emotion to bridge logical leaps, hides a distain for cause and effect relationships and sidesteps questions about human nature. Instead, Barber carelessly brews a mix of hip buzzwords and mass marketing cliché. If you read this tome, be prepared for endless repetition of 'the capitalist is dangerous, but united the people cannot be defeated': Repeat the following 5 or 10 times and you have the book in a nutshell: "Jihad pursues a bloody politics of identity, McWorld a bloodless economics of profit. Belonging by default to McWorld, everyone is a consumer; seeking a repository for identity everyone belongs to some tribe. But no one is a citizen. Without citizens, how can there be ..." {fill in the blank with any utopian quality: justice, happiness, equality, etc.}

The central problem for 21st century Marxists is updating the logic of class struggle. In the first half of the 19th century Marx taught a strict evolutionary progression from noble-savage to slavery, from slavery to feudalism, and from feudalism to capitalism. Within a few years, Marx predicted, capitalism would collapse and the unavoidable socialist utopia would emerge. Of course, the collapse didn't happen and Marxist have been rationalizing ever since. Lenin had to add the Imperialist phase. 21st century Marxist need to show imperialism mutating into global consumerism.

Towards this end, Barbour argues:
1. Capitalists have shed their 'nationalist' identity, finding it easier to enslave the proletariat via media manipulation.
2. Media manipulation (global consumerism) seeks to replace indigenous cultural identities with slavish loyalty to global products.
3. 'Wild Capitalism' promoting global products causes criminal damage to indigenous communities, and threatens environmental catastrophe.
4. Protecting these indigenous communities (victims) will require violence (socialist revolution).

Hidden beneath this victim-oppressor dualism lies the traditional Marxist faith in central planning or 'government by intellectuals.' Democracy can be dismissed because the 'means of communication' are held by the multinational capitalist elite. And, Marxist don't need an elections, as intellectuals they already know what is best for everyone else. Thus, Barber spends the second half of the book describing the failures of democracy. Barber asserts that "the epoch on whose threshold we stand -- post communist, postindustrial, post national, yet sectarian, fearful, and bigoted -- is likely also to be terminally post democratic."

Time has not been kind to Barber. His 1995 predictions of post-democratic cultures has failed to materialize. The 90s were not a decade of American decline. Despite his attempts to be hip and techno-savvy, he entirely misses the dot com craze and blogosphere. Further, failed to address the rise of Islamofascism. He calls commercialism all sham, but relies entirely upon its rhetoric. Consider the cover photo, why is the girl wearing so much makeup behind a chador? How is she getting the Pepsi through the chador to here lips? The book has nothing to do with Islam, it is just a marketing sham about marketing shams. In the end, it sell 'Barber, the hip international intellectual' and little else.

In today's world, various forms of parochialism have a dialectical relationship with the homogenizing influences of globalizing consumer capitalism. These forms of parochialism may be ethnic, "cultural," religious, nationalistic, etc., depending on where you look. On one hand, ancient forms of identity continue to define in-groups and out-groups; on the other hand, multinational corporations elide these differences as they operate in a wider and wider worldwide marketplace.

Example: the Turks and the Armenians hate each other and even partly define themselves by this ancient conflict ("Jihad" is Barber's label for this); yet they see the same Pepsi ads and do the same kinds of work in their local Pepsi bottling plants ("McWorld" is Barber's label for this).

That's the book.

This might be a useful resource for writers of term papers who need to endnote something fairly obvious. Outside of that, it would take an observer from another planet to find this book's insights novel or pointed. If you're new to planet Earth, by all means pick up a copy. It will catch you up on a few useful truisms.

As others have pointed out, the "terrorism's challenge to democracy" subtitle seems intended to capitalize on 9/11, but doesn't accurately reflect the book's content. "Jihad" is deployed as a synecdoche in this book; Muslim extremism is just one of the book's many examples of parochialism.