Human's material disire could never be fully satisfied?

[RedPaladin]

It is said that the communist society can satisfied all human's needs instead of the disire.
Do you think that human's material disire could never be fully satisfied?
What about the needs?

[ZeroNowhere]

'Human desire' is an abstraction. At any given time, humans may desire different things, and different amounts of them. So, really, the only answer to this question is, 'It depends on what humans desire.' If, by 'needs', you mean things necessary for survival, I don't see why not.

[RedPaladin]

Anyone can survive if thier physical requirement is meet even if they live like a wild animal. What about needs it is not only things necessary for survival?

[leftace53]

I feel that human material desire can be fully satisfied in a sense that human material desire, is constantly changing, so in a sense if I get a PS3 when I only want a PS3, I am completely satisfied. When I desire something else, then it is sort of like a new desire, to be fulfilled. Do I think that human desire all together can be satisfied? Probably not, one thing I like about the human race is that we constantly change, our desires change and grow. Regardless of political affiliation, we tend to strive for the best - in material objects, and in ourselves, since what is considered "the best" is also constantly changing, I don't think we could be fully satisfied on a whole.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Marxist concept of "post-scarcity" under communism is a precise kind of "post-scarcity".

It does not imply "post-scarcity" in the natural sense of humans having infinite resources and absolute control over nature.

It does not imply "post-sacrcity" in the liberal sense of everyone being able to get whatever they want all the time.

It means that the rational basic needs of every human being in society can always be materially satisfied.

Marxist materialism does not like to deal with any kind of idealistic absolutes. As far as Marxism is concerned, it is non-sensical to either say that human wants are infinite or that there exists an absolute upper limit to how much humans can possibly want. A socialist society is not a feudal society, it's not a stagnant society, there would be continued development of productivity and technique under socialism. So human want could potentially increase in the future as technology improves. But it is meaningless to say that "human wants are 'infinite'" in any abstract sense.

[Hit The North]

NOTE: Feudalism was not a stagnant society.

[Queercommie Girl]

NOTE: Feudalism was not a stagnant society.

Not completely, but it was relatively stagnant compared with capitalism and socialism. Otherwise Marx would not have praised the liberation of the productive forces when capitalism emerged.

[Hit The North]

Not completely, but it was relatively stagnant compared with capitalism and socialism. Otherwise Marx would not have praised the liberation of the productive forces when capitalism emerged.

Of course, but it still developed the forces of production. Otherwise, capitalism would not have been able to grow in its womb.

[Queercommie Girl]

Of course, but it still developed the forces of production. Otherwise, capitalism would not have been able to grow in its womb.

Nothing can be "completely" stagnant in a metaphysical sense. Even the slave-lord state of China's Shang dynasty with its prevalent human sacrifice developed the forces of production in some ways - look at all the Shang-era bronzeware, otherwise Chinese feudalism could not have developed in its "womb".

[We Shall Rise Again]

There is a diffrenece between human need and the 'materialistic want' that alot of people would cnfuse as a need.

A communist society would be organised to meet the needs of the people.

[Queercommie Girl]

"Human need" is not an idealistic metaphysical concept. It is neither "infinite" nor have an "absolute upper limit". It's a historical concept that changes with time.

"Human need" is indeed fundamentally materialistic, not idealistic. People need to feed and clothe themselves first before they can engage in art and philosophy.

[Vanguard1917]

It is said that the communist society can satisfied all human's needs instead of the disire.
Do you think that human's material disire could never be fully satisfied?
What about the needs?

A person's desires and his needs are not entirely distinct from one another. And the term 'fully satisfied' is not very useful since it implies that there is no room left for further improvement and progress, that everything's perfect as it is. But society is not static and is always changing, and human needs and desires change along with it (as ZeroNowhere points out).

For example, you did not 'need' a campus-wide IT network with internet and email in order to receive a decent education fifty years ago, simply because society had not yet reached a stage where such things were available. But once they became available and were incorporated into the educational framework, they became more and more essential. If the computers went down for a month in a Western university today, things would come to a near standstill. Of course, this reliance is in some part due to the increasingly bureaucratised nature of modern universities, but it is also because computer technology has become so indispensable as an educational tool in many fields. It has become a need, where once it wasn't. Whether something is a need is therefore determined by historical change (a key feature of which being technological advancement).

Can all of humanity's needs and desires be 'fully statisfied' in a future socialist society? I don't think so. But that's not because of any objective or absolute lack of resources (as bourgeois ideologues will claim), but because, as suggested above, human needs and desires will always be evolving and social production at any given time will as a result always lag behind. The aim of socialist production will be to bring the latter as closely in sync with the former as possible -- something which we will be far more capable of doing in a society in which production is consciously planned by producers rather than directed spontaneously according to the requirements of capital -- but there will always exist a gap.

So, that needs and desires cannot be 'fully satisfied' in socialist society is in fact a 'good thing'. Dissatisfaction with what already exists will drive society further forward.

[Obzervi]

The Marxist concept of "post-scarcity" under communism is a precise kind of "post-scarcity".

It does not imply "post-scarcity" in the natural sense of humans having infinite resources and absolute control over nature.

It does not imply "post-sacrcity" in the liberal sense of everyone being able to get whatever they want all the time.

It means that the rational basic needs of every human being in society can always be materially satisfied.


I disagree, with technology and exponentially more productivity due to the elimination of capitalists stealing surplus value from laborers it will be possible to achieve a system where everyone's desires are fully satisfied. This does not just include necessities for survival. Technology is the key here. People won't even have to work that much, there will be a constant replenishing of the supply so it won't matter if someone takes more than they "need", it will just be resupplied the next day. You are just trying to deride the true meaning of a post-revolutionary society with your pessimistic bickering. Needs and "wants" are indistinguishable.

[Mac2468]

Humans desire for material possessions isn't instinct it's put there by society.