what determines economic need, from each according to ability, to each according to n

[campesino]

what is the definition of need? who creates need? how is it satisfied?

what made me ask these question was the thread about space colonization in communism. is space colonization a need? is sea colonization a need? if there are things which people agree are needs except the people who produce them. the people who want it produced, are forcing the produce to produce, is it possible that the producer will go on strike? which is weird under communism. lets say, the lobster fisherman of the world can meet their local needs working 3 hours a day, although there is a worldwide demand/need that would necessitate they work 6 hours a day. what is to be done?

this is just an example, the deeper questions I really want answered are a the top of the page.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Marx defines "need" as what is "socially necessary".

Whether needs are created by the necessities of the human organism, desires, culture, science or natural conditions, cannot be specified and are not objective, but can only be defined by the specific material conditions of societies.

So for instance, human basic, elementary needs for survival (which in capitalism are not constantly provided for the majority of human population, even i personally have experienced hunger as a kid) count as necessities. Human needs in capitalism, are multiplied and in fact socially created by advertisement, inequality etc. so that human needs can never be fulfilled for most people in capitalism as the social necessities are infinite as there is inequality first of all, and advertisement showing people happy because of their material possessions (i also of course have experienced this second category as i saw things that my parents could not afford, such as a new football jersey, and when i got it, i wanted to have my name engraved on it like my friend but couldn't etc.).

This is why Marx does not differentiate between "needs and wants" but simply defines need as "socially necessary". In Capitalism, just as there is an "artificial underdevelopment" tied on massively resource rich countries (which becomes a curse for them), the "socially necessary" needs are multiplied and human desires are artificially created by the social system of capitalism. Hence, socialism will see people "not care about your possessions!" as advertisement and inequality of capitalist society will be abolished and workers truly control their own surplus.

[Zav]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/450px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png
^That is need. 'Morality' is questionable, but the rest work.
Need is literally that which is necessary to result in specified conditions. Need is created by the material conditions and our biology. Hunger is satisfied by eating, horniness by sex/masturbation, exhaustion by rest, security by favorable material conditions, and so forth.

[28350]

need is socially-defined, and class-struggled over. from the logic of capital, the cost of labor (wages) is more or less what is necessary to reproduce labor as a commodity.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

So we know, that until we live in a society in which all of human needs are not yet fulfilled (for instance: workers desire to work less as they don't like their laborious job, but desire to consume more goods) we have not yet reached communist society "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", but are still in the transition to that egalitarian society, Socialism "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" in which there inevitably will still be unfulfilled "socially necessary" needs as automation of production has not yet been reached.

The Socialist productive forces have already been reached since quite some time, ever since Capitalism started requiring masses of wealth to throw into the black hole of the banking system , and now masses of "invented" wealth, debt to keep the market system of capital alive.

[Blake's Baby]

what is the definition of need? who creates need? how is it satisfied?

what made me ask these question was the thread about space colonization in communism. is space colonization a need? is sea colonization a need? if there are things which people agree are needs except the people who produce them. the people who want it produced, are forcing the produce to produce, is it possible that the producer will go on strike? which is weird under communism. lets say, the lobster fisherman of the world can meet their local needs working 3 hours a day, although there is a worldwide demand/need that would necessitate they work 6 hours a day. what is to be done?

this is just an example, the deeper questions I really want answered are a the top of the page.

If 'the world' wants lobster production to be 6 hours per day (so we get a million tonnes of lobsters) but the lobster fishermen only produce half a million tonnes, then presumably, they'd train some more people as lobster fishermen to make up the production shortfall.

Assuming, that is, that there's another half a million tonnes of unharvested lobsters under there.

[hatzel]

Not enough lobster? #firstworldproblems

By which I mean: anybody who says they can define and delimit needs as 'pre-social' or 'inherent' or anything like that is having you on...

[campesino]

another question that arose from the space colonization thread, was whether trading commodities was communist, or would it lead to communes exploiting each-other. I was reading fundamentals of the communist revolution by amadeo boriga, and in his critique of anarcho-syndacalism he says, that a market would still exist between communes and inter-commune trade would lead to exploitation.

my question is how will trade lead to exploitation?

how will local supply/world demand resources be distributed. for instance rare-earth-metals or minerals

[Lynx]

Need will be limited by opportunity costs associated with full production, and by the laws of physics.

[ckaihatsu]

Another aspect of complexity and ambiguity in all of this is about *variety* -- sure, we could probably keep everyone *alive* on a diet of roots and insects, with minimal labor, but would that be considered "food" by today's standards -- ? And, of course, it would look very bad politically and would be unpopular and unsupportable as actual arbitrary policy.

So if we're not shooting for the literal bare minimum and we're not going to be dependent on the market mechanism anymore, then how *would* a post-capitalist economy make these decisions -- ?

I'm just begging the question here, though -- I've developed a framework, at my blog entry, that I'd be glad to elaborate on.





my question is how will trade lead to exploitation?


The fundamental problematic with *any* kind of trade is that it is *item*-centric, and therefore *externalizes* the concept of value outside of human labor itself. If our conceptions of value reside in the already-produced, "dead labor" materials and items, then we're effectively *dehumanizing* ourselves and each other in the process.

It would be far better to think in terms of "What remains to be done?" and "Who's available to do it?" rather than "What can I get for it?" or "What does it cost?"

Obviously it's a slippery slope from talking about material *items* in these terms to then objectifying human labor and talking about people's *lives* in these terms.





how will local supply/world demand resources be distributed. for instance rare-earth-metals or minerals


This may actually not be as complicated as it initially sounds -- the unmet needs of various defined localities could be assessed, maybe as easily as with a basic journalistic approach, and labor estimates for delivery to each place could be made, and then this information could be made available to those concerned parties, and to the public, for political consideration.

In the case of a dead-heat vying for limited resources perhaps the pool of supply could be expanded to more geographical locations so as to add options.





[Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs]


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://postimage.org/image/1bxymkrno/

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

another question that arose from the space colonization thread, was whether trading commodities was communist, or would it lead to communes exploiting each-other. I was reading fundamentals of the communist revolution by amadeo boriga, and in his critique of anarcho-syndacalism he says, that a market would still exist between communes and inter-commune trade would lead to exploitation.

my question is how will trade lead to exploitation?

how will local supply/world demand resources be distributed. for instance rare-earth-metals or minerals

Exploitation can only come from people ruling over other people, which would never be possible in a communist society. Exploitation only comes from violently forcing the ruled people to work for the rulers and owners of the means to produce society's necessary needs. Exploitation frankly can only come from the worker being given less in return value than he produced in value for his ruler, having invested 10 hours of labor into the manufacturing of shirts but being only rewarded by the owner/ruler with 2 hours of labor, 100$ daily shirts and 2$ daily wage.

There would be no use for trade in Communism, as there would 1. be no more money 2. be no more rulers; only co-operation and collective ownership of the means of production and their direct democratic operation by the people who work in them.

Direct Democratic, decentralised operation of production cannot though be achieved overnight in Socialism, it will take a few decades of socialist society to democratically accumulate enough capital to invest into the advance of the productive forces and reach automation of production. Only once production is automated, efficient and its products are speedily available, can the truly democratic and free communist society really be realised in which "free development of each [individual] is the development of all".

[campesino]

so the communes that have the demand and that have the supply, would get together to meet their needs. So let's say the needs of one commune is 300 hours worth of lumber and the other communes need is 5000 hours of textiles, will the communes produce enough for each other and give it to each other solely based on proletarian solidarity, or will they agree to meet each others needs by mutually satisfying them(trade I guess), or will there be new workers from the needy commune going to the supply commune and producing it for their needy commune.

[ckaihatsu]

so the communes that have the demand and that have the supply, would get together to meet their needs. So let's say the needs of one commune is 300 hours worth of lumber and the other communes need is 5000 hours of textiles, will the communes produce enough for each other and give it to each other solely based on proletarian solidarity, or will they agree to meet each others needs by mutually satisfying them(trade I guess), or will there be new workers from the needy commune going to the supply commune and producing it for their needy commune.


With all due respect, this continues to be an artificial, right-wing-influenced formulation that would not be realistic in actuality.

A planned economy would take into account a wide-ranging survey / inventory of inputs and outputs, for each productive or consumptive entity.

I prefer to think of it as a journalism-driven, news-of-the-day politics that hashes out a kind of 'equilibrium', or 'homeostasis', as within the body. So, to get away from the meeting-for-an-exchange paradigm we might instead use a journalism-and-wiki-page paradigm, for everything.

[Blake's Baby]

so the communes that have the demand and that have the supply, would get together to meet their needs. So let's say the needs of one commune is 300 hours worth of lumber and the other communes need is 5000 hours of textiles, will the communes produce enough for each other and give it to each other solely based on proletarian solidarity, or will they agree to meet each others needs by mutually satisfying them(trade I guess), or will there be new workers from the needy commune going to the supply commune and producing it for their needy commune.

The way the question is set up doesn't work. All communes require enough electricity and water supply and food and medical care and transportation in and out and clothing and everything else, for 1,000 people (or whatever) every week...

On top of that communes will have specific needs - both directly related to things happening in and for the commune (we're building a new swimming pool in my commune because we've decided we want to get fitter, at the commune next door, they're building a new multi-purpose hall for meetings and a bit of light badminton); and also for production geared to supplying needsoutside the commune (we have a lightbulb factory that needs inputs of glass and metals, as well as increased energy consumption for the machinery; the commune next door primarily makes clothing and other textile products and needs vast quantities of yarn but lower levels of energy use).

'Swapping' all of that makes little sense. We don't send 2 boxes of lightbulbs to the power-generating commune, while the textile commune sends them 50 t-shirts and 6 duvet covers, for x-amount of power. That would be daft, I think.

I assume that there would be regional planning - we have 4 power stationsin this region, they can produce x-kilowatt hours, we need y-kilowatt hours, how can we trim usage while improving supply to make the one meet the other? After the meeting (which is a bit stuffy because we switched off the air-con to save power) we go and get ourselves some new t-shirts.

[campesino]

the reason i ask about "swapping" is that the workers need to receive in order to produce, I hate to use this word but the workers need "incentive" to produce. why should any worker produce more than what is necessary for his livelihood and of his commune, and not receive anything he wants in return. lets say, all i want to do is live with electricity, basic food and sanitation, I don't want anything else, the total amount of labor to produce such things is 4 hours a day three days a week. I am barred from using the community pool, because the commune has dictated i must work 50 hours extra to what i work, I never work those hours and never get to use the pool. I don't care, I keep on living my leisurely life.

under Blake's Baby or ckaihatsu system will I have the freedom to do that?

what will happen when there is a lazy commune, they will need to swap in order to produce, or maybe they won't produce beyond their needs, and worker's from other communes have to be sent to produce.

[ckaihatsu]

the reason i ask about "swapping" is that the workers need to receive in order to produce,


If this is really the premise you subscribe to then that sums up practically your entire political outlook.

You seem to think -- again, because of too-readily valuing material items in the same way as human labor -- that the *material* world runs according to *moral* calculations. Granted, in our current situation there is much cultural baggage that recommends such an outlook, but especially in a fully mechanized, automated, collectivized post-capitalist society such an outlook would be *far less* tenable.

Let me put it this way: Who exactly would take an interest in *denying* some item to you if that item was readily available and you could find a way to physically obtain it for yourself? Or, to extend it out further, who would have the 'right' to deny you access to machinery or equipment that you deem necessary to produce something for yourself?

The answer to both, then as now, is 'social relations'. I won't make promises about a perfect socialist fantasyland in the not-too-distant future, but will just note that with today's capabilities there is no more objective justification for any kind of heavy-handedness when it comes to material availability. This is why we need to end capitalism and *its* particular norms of social relations.





I hate to use this word but the workers need "incentive" to produce. why should any worker produce more than what is necessary for his livelihood and of his commune, and not receive anything he wants in return.


Logistics, I guess -- if a worker does what's materially necessary for one's livelihood and for a proportion of what's needed for the immediate surrounding area, what *would* that person receive in return, given overall conditions -- ?

Probably whatever is logistically available -- again, subject to social relations. If there happened to be many magazines, for example, floating around in the vicinity, or maybe a public library, or a community swimming pool, then there's your answer.





lets say, all i want to do is live with electricity, basic food and sanitation, I don't want anything else, the total amount of labor to produce such things is 4 hours a day three days a week. I am barred from using the community pool, because the commune has dictated i must work 50 hours extra to what i work, I never work those hours and never get to use the pool. I don't care, I keep on living my leisurely life.

under Blake's Baby or ckaihatsu system will I have the freedom to do that?


What you've done is provided your own specifics here -- my system, being a generalized overarching *system*, cannot speak to specifics, by definition. You've laid out detailed parameters that indicate an answer to your question, within that scenario.

If it helps, I invite you to find any part of *any* of my politics that could conceivably *disallow* the situation you've presented, and to bring it to my attention.





what will happen when there is a lazy commune, they will need to swap in order to produce, or maybe they won't produce beyond their needs, and worker's from other communes have to be sent to produce.


Again, all I can say is that either the locality can be self-sufficient for the inhabitants' particular needs and desires, or else some more extensive logistics would be required, with accompanying social relations.


Generalizations-Characterizations

http://postimage.org/image/1d6itveo4/

[campesino]

I'm not talking about
fully mechanized, automated, collectivized post-capitalist society


I'm talking about the day after the revolution. and the revolution took place in 1988.


Again, all I can say is that either the locality can be self-sufficient for the inhabitants' particular needs and desires, or else some more extensive logistics would be required, with accompanying social relations.


what if the locality is self-sufficient and has a rare-earth-mine and the locals don't want to extract minerals. Who is going to extract the minerals? and why are they going to extract the minerals?

[ckaihatsu]

I'm talking about the day after the revolution. and the revolution took place in 1988.


I definitely don't understand your meaning here -- you may want to clarify.





what if the locality is self-sufficient and has a rare-earth-mine and the locals don't want to extract minerals. Who is going to extract the minerals? and why are they going to extract the minerals?


Again, I can't speak to the possible permutations arising out of a hypothetical scenario. If you like you could build up this scenario some more, but all I could give you would be a personal *opinion* on it, not an *analysis* based on my model.

[campesino]

I meant technology isn't advanced.

let's say we have tomato farmers who are self-sufficient and live on a mountain that has chromium. the rest of the world has a demand for chromium(lets suppose chromium is needed to make microprocessors,) and the farmers don't care if it is mined, but they refuse to mine it. so who will mine the chromium and what will be their reasons for mining it. if you can't give me an analyses give me an opinion rather than an analyses.

thank you for being patient and working out this issue with me.

I see what you mean, I know understand the worker receives anything the commune provides and what he is able to enjoy, in exchange for his labor.

[Blake's Baby]

the reason i ask about "swapping" is that the workers need to receive in order to produce, I hate to use this word but the workers need "incentive" to produce. why should any worker produce more than what is necessary for his livelihood and of his commune, and not receive anything he wants in return...

Well, precisely. Why should workers care if other people's lights don't work, if their own do? Oh, wait, their own don't, because the guys at our lightbulb factory never sent any lightbulbs to the powerplant, because we don't give a shit, and the guys at the powerplant never bothered to send the juice down the cables, they just made enough power for themselves (what's the point in doing anything else?) and the farmy-food guys just ate all the cows and now we've all died of starvation in the dark, just because our guys didn't bother to box up some lightbulbs. Man we feel like chumps.



lets say, all i want to do is live with electricity, basic food and sanitation, I don't want anything else, the total amount of labor to produce such things is 4 hours a day three days a week. I am barred from using the community pool, because the commune has dictated i must work 50 hours extra to what i work, I never work those hours and never get to use the pool...

I'd advise you to move to a more relaxed commune.


I don't care, I keep on living my leisurely life...

Oh, well, that's alright then.


...
under Blake's Baby or ckaihatsu system will I have the freedom to do that?...

I really can't speak about ckaihatsu, but under the system I'm outlining... if you insist on only doing 4 hours of useful work a week, then I guess the commune might want to sanction you. Why should you be afforded the benefits of a society based on 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need', if you aren't giving according to your ability? Why should you get what you need? There is a quid pro quo - not an 'exchange' but at least something like a social contract. Society functions because we all do our bit. If you don't, the rest of society is entitled to tell you to fuck off.

I'm a great believer in compromise and negotiation. If you really can't find anything socially useful to do perhaps you could suggest some things the commune could organise to put your talents to use? OK, you don't the lightbulb factory - it's not for everyone. Maybe cleaning, or extra cooking duties, or childminding or something might be more up your ally. If you just refuse to be part of the community, though, if you just won't contribute, yeah I guess in the end the community has the right to refuse to have you.



what will happen when there is a lazy commune, they will need to swap in order to produce, or maybe they won't produce beyond their needs, and worker's from other communes have to be sent to produce.

If there is a 'lazy' commune I think the most likely thing is that less-lazy people will move there and try to get it working properly. If my commune only produces 20 lightbulbs a year I'm pretty sure that people who need lightbulbs will soon be coming along and seeking to make our production more efficient.

[Blake's Baby]

...
I see what you mean, I know understand the worker receives anything the commune provides and what he is able to enjoy, in exchange for his labor.

No I think you're still misunderstanding because I don't think ckaihatsu is talking about 'exchange' the way you mean it here.

The 'exchange' isn't economic, it's moral, which is why I mentioned the 'social contract' in my earlier post; there is a moral equivalence between giving what you can, and taking what you need. Someone who can give a lot, but only needs a little, gives a lot and takes a little; someone who needs a lot, and can only give a little, gives a little and takes a lot. They don't go 'oh I did 85 engels of giving so I that works out at 170 luxemburgs of luxuries, you only did 25 engels of giving so you only get 50 luxemburgs'. It's not, you know, capitalism.

[campesino]

No I think you're still misunderstanding because I don't think ckaihatsu is talking about 'exchange' the way you mean it here.

The 'exchange' isn't economic, it's moral, which is why I mentioned the 'social contract' in my earlier post; there is a moral equivalence between giving what you can, and taking what you need. Someone who can give a lot, but only needs a little, gives a lot and takes a little; someone who needs a lot, and can only give a little, gives a little and takes a lot. They don't go 'oh I did 85 engels of giving so I that works out at 170 luxemburgs of luxuries, you only did 25 engels of giving so you only get 50 luxemburgs'. It's not, you know, capitalism.

well he said


Probably whatever is logistically available -- again, subject to social relations. If there happened to be many magazines, for example, floating around in the vicinity, or maybe a public library, or a community swimming pool, then there's your answer.

I understood that, as the worker enjoys/receives living in a healthy vibrant community created by liberated labor.

[ckaihatsu]

let's say we have tomato farmers who are self-sufficient and live on a mountain that has chromium. the rest of the world has a demand for chromium(lets suppose chromium is needed to make microprocessors,) and the farmers don't care if it is mined, but they refuse to mine it. so who will mine the chromium and what will be their reasons for mining it. if you can't give me an analyses give me an opinion rather than an analyses.


Okay, with this expanded scenario, my analysis is that the farmers would have to figure it out with whoever wants to get at the chromium. Would mining the chromium interfere with the farmers' livelihood? Would many more people benefit from the chromium being available than a few dozen who benefit from the local tomatoes? Etc.

If you're inquiring about the social organization required for more-complex manufacturing processes, like that for making computers, then it would simply be a public enterprise that is collectively administrated, run solely by liberated labor, and responsive to public mass demand. One arm, or department, of it would be tasked with sourcing raw materials, or however they decided to organize themselves and their own liberated labor.





thank you for being patient and working out this issue with me.


No prob.





I see what you mean, I know understand the worker receives anything the commune provides and what he is able to enjoy, in exchange for his labor.


Well, you can look at it from the vantage point of a single local commune if you *like*, as you've been doing, or you can look more big-picture.

Let me put it this way -- currently, even under capitalism's remorseless expropriation and privatization dynamic, there is a certain amount of 'civil society' that allows us (even strangers) to be relatively civil and considerate with each other. If I'd like to know the time I may just ask someone on the street or find it freely provided somewhere nearby. If I want to keep up with current events and I can find Internet access I will be able to do that. Water, too, is not that difficult to come by, either -- I would probably not have to pay for it if I explained that I happened to be very thirsty at the moment.

So while these seem like relatively *trivial* examples, nonetheless there is *no exchange* involved in obtaining the time of day, the news of the day, or some water for my thirst. Communism is simply about expanding that 'civil society' to include *everything*, even the greatest heights of luxurious goods and services (I would argue).

BB is correct to point out that we wouldn't somehow just all turn into shiftless imbeciles if we had sizeable resources at our collective disposal -- there would be enough 'hands-on' types among us, particularly younger generations, who would actually be *enthusiastic* about the reality of just plowing ahead to make things happen.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/450px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png
^That is need. 'Morality' is questionable, but the rest work.
Need is literally that which is necessary to result in specified conditions. Need is created by the material conditions and our biology. Hunger is satisfied by eating, horniness by sex/masturbation, exhaustion by rest, security by favorable material conditions, and so forth.

lol, you're kidding me. You're not seriously using Maslow to explain Marx? Fuck me.

Anyway, would a mod like to join this with my thread on this EXACT topic from Theory recently, that had some very useful contributions from various posters. I think that would be very helpful for the OP.

[Blake's Baby]

.... Would mining the chromium interfere with the farmers' livelihood? Would many more people benefit from the chromium being available than a few dozen who benefit from the local tomatoes? Etc...

Campesino has already said -


...
let's say we have tomato farmers who are self-sufficient and live on a mountain that has chromium. the rest of the world has a demand for chromium(lets suppose chromium is needed to make microprocessors,) and the farmers don't care if it is mined, but they refuse to mine it. so who will mine the chromium and what will be their reasons for mining it. if you can't give me an analyses give me an opinion rather than an analyses...

So I think we can assume that they've decided there will be no significant negative impact on agricultural production.

It seems to me that this is a pretty much open and shut case - except for one thing I'll mention below. If the local agriculturally-based community doesn't have the skills to exploit the mineral reserves (no reason why they should, mining is as much a specialist task as agriculture) but they're happy enough for the resources to be mined by others, and there is a need for the resources, then miners will come from other places to do the mining (and train up any agricultural workers who want to get involved).

As to the social organisation that would depend on many things. Are there enough houses in the area for this influx of miners? Is it necesary to establish a whole new community (which might take time) or can the miners live at the agricultural commune? Might some miners start by living in the agricultural commune (probably some sort of transportation system will have to be dedicated to getting the miners to the mine as well as transportation for plant in and minerals out) and later when more houses and infrastructure has been built more miners can move there, either into a larger dual-purpose commune (now half agricultural, half extractive), or into a mining commune close to the agricultural commune.

My only problem, and I've ignored it for the sake of explanation, is the notion of a 'self sufficient tomato-producing commune'. I don't think this is possible. Their power water clothes internet glassware non-tomato-based food bedclothes soap shoes toothpaste and a gazillion other things will come from outside the commune. A self-sufficient commune is a nonsense. It's as likely as saying 'just suppose humans are psychic and can eat sunshine, how does communism work then?' No idea. You work out impossible dreams, it's not our job. So; no self-sufficient communes in my explanation, just productive groups in particular places sharing the products of their production.

[ckaihatsu]

Campesino has already said -



So I think we can assume that they've decided there will be no significant negative impact on agricultural production.


Yes.





My only problem, and I've ignored it for the sake of explanation, is the notion of a 'self sufficient tomato-producing commune'. I don't think this is possible. Their power water clothes internet glassware non-tomato-based food bedclothes soap shoes toothpaste and a gazillion other things will come from outside the commune. A self-sufficient commune is a nonsense. It's as likely as saying 'just suppose humans are psychic and can eat sunshine, how does communism work then?' No idea. You work out impossible dreams, it's not our job. So; no self-sufficient communes in my explanation, just productive groups in particular places sharing the products of their production.


I'll readily agree politically here -- as a side-note I would maintain that it's probably *technically* possible for this-or-that area to be mostly self-sufficient, if its efforts were *directed* that way, but, again, there's no *practical* point to it when much greater, more-varied economic activity is possible.

[Blake's Baby]

... as a side-note I would maintain that it's probably *technically* possible for this-or-that area to be mostly self-sufficient...

I think the only area that's definitely actually completely capable of being self-sufficient is 'The Earth'.

Any smaller area I'm sure will run into problems. Sure, we'll run into problems with 'The Earth' too, but I think more problems with 'This Bit'.

99% of any given community's inputs might be from a 50km radius (or whatever) but that other 1% will be from all over the globe. Not sure if by 'self-sufficient area' you meant 'commune', which I think of as having a population of a couple of hundred up to a couple of thousand and not-huge area; or a 'region' of say 100km (or more) across. But I don't really think it matters much.