Needs

[Lowtech]

here is a current debate i'm having with someone, could my responses have been better? how would you respond to these comments?


Is this guy dyslexic? Seems like it with how he reads a book and comes up with his ideas on Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith. I am surprised he is a linguist considering he misses the most fundamental issue with his argument. That being the use of Capitalism in Libertarian dogma. Libertarian and Classical Liberalism as a foundation attempt to maximize personal freedom. Socialist Libertarianism is a person being subject to the desires of the group.there is a difference between desires and needs. a certain metric of food or amount of materials needed to build x amount of required homes is a need not a desire. in our current "system" desires rule, not needs, and this is why everything runs batshit crazy not meeting needs but catering to the wants of those with money and via profit, money goes into fewer and fewer hands while the rest of us do more and more work. backwards, top down economics.
The only real needs are food, water, and air. I think people have confusion on this point and think they NEED a house. No one needs a house, the desire it for comfort. I think the idea of many people deciding what they need and who will accomplish that need is unproductive compared to one person deciding what they want and figuring out how they can get it.people have been sheltering themselves and feeding themselves since before the advent of agriculture, what is "needed" is academic. so there's no one "deciding" this. you're confusing consumerist society with economics. the real economic process is converting raw resources into usable items and materials. this does not require markets, money, nor the rich.

living in a shelter is healthier than not, people have become accustomed to it, there is enough materials and already built homes to shelter everyone. there's no reason not to consider it a need.

also, current observation of capitalism shows that the majority of "productivity" you're referring to is realized via money, and the majority of money is concentrated in the rich and actually expended without anything to offset it (as the rich do not produce value). thus due to this plutocratic structure, the majority of work we do is not productive as the value it produces is expended fruitlessly.

EDIT: more...
I think this comes down to freedom. Who decides what is productive? Who decides what value is? Its the individual in Capitalism which makes it so effective. Food shortages and poor planning of resources has been shown over the last century to be an issue with planned societies, not capitalist. Capitalist as a system is extremely effective in distributing resources where the majority wants it and provides enough goods to meet demands. It does it with no real effort because its formed by everyone.you had asserted that capitalism was productive, so you have some sort of definition of productivity, even if it is false. and value must be determined accurately if there is going to be any kind of cohesive economic system. value is not something that can be arbitrarily defined (i.e. it is not subjective.) the feeling of weight may be subjective, however the effect of gravity is tangible and can be measured, so actual weight is not subjective. the same is true of economic value. irrational and disorganized production (markets) may treat value subjectively, but value itself is not subjective.

capitalism "distributing resources" is a myth. today, resources and commodities are produced for exchange value not use value. and being that markets treat value subjectively, money cannot accurately determine actual supply and demand does not equate to need, as stated above, commodities are not designed to meet need.

capitalism itself is very planned. stores order to replace stock, prices are set above production cost to make a profit, even the design of a chair is planned. the location and layout of stores are planned. the idea that capitalism is not planned is a myth. markets are disorganized production, but being disorganized doesn't equate to being unplanned.

it is not formed by everyone, capitalists make the decisions and workers produce the value. it is economic subjugation imposed onto the majority by a plutocratic class. there's no freedom here, only tyranny.

[Hivemind]

Burn his house down and tell him he doesn't need it, and then make him live in a forest or something similar, not allowing him to live indoors because he doesn't need to. See what he thinks then.

Chances are that his head is too far up his ass, which renders debate pointless. Try a bit more if you're so inclined but if he's walled up inside his mind, it's a pointless uphill battle.

[Thirsty Crow]

No one needs a house? Suppose I don't need clothes as well. Healthcare, eh don't even mention it.

So I might just as well shiver in rain until I catch pneumonia and drop dead. I assume the person in question would be just fine with that.

Now, onto something a little less absurd.

Maximization of personal freedom - the person focuses on ideological proclamations. You can easily show how social and economic practice contradicts these fairy tales - in capitalist society, and if we conceptualize freedom as total control over one's own time, it is clear that a whole class of people maximize their freedom by means of diminishing the freedom of another class of people, by means of wage labor-capital relationship.

As far as the portrayal of libertarian socialism goes, the first step is wrong: it pits "the individual" against a whole host of, supposedly, like-minded individuals (the group), presuming that this amounts to oppression. But as we already saw, the elimination of capital and wage labour amounts to an elimination of a class which actively diminishes the freedom of another class. Furthermore, an individual would not be subjected to the tyranny of the group as herself would be part of that group, and empowered to both a) participate in discussion regarding public affairs, and b) participate in decision making.

[Philosophos]

Hmmm... Yeah we don't need a home. We also don't need societies... We can all live in woods it would be awesome especially with all these wild animals that want to feed. We are all extremely powerful as humans we can take bears and stuff all alone.

Oh we can also live without sex. Even though at some point we will become like grumpy cats and crazy people thinking they are Napoleon or whatever. We won't be living BUT WE CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT IT....

Now that I'm thinking about it we can also live without food for months so that's practically not a need too. I have to consider it about water and air I'm not quite sure yet...

[Vireya]

I'd say the very basic necessities that all citizens should be afforded are; food, water, clothing, education, health care, and shelter.

I think anyone that doesn't find shelter a vital necessity is completely out of phase with reality.

[danyboy27]

I think this comes down to freedom. Who decides what is productive? Who decides what value is? Its the individual in Capitalism which makes it so effective. Food shortages and poor planning of resources has been shown over the last century to be an issue with planned societies, not capitalist. Capitalist as a system is extremely effective in distributing resources where the majority wants it and provides enough goods to meet demands. It does it with no real effort because its formed by everyone. And there where no artificial ressources scarcity in Europe before capitalism took over communal lands.

Hell Classical economists like David humes and james Stuart mills at the time even advocated food scarcity in order to keep the worker industrious,


The thing is, if i make a product that is required for peoples to live, i might just decide to put a relatively limited quantity of that item in circulation to jack up the price.

Markets couldnt function without the state, you need it to enforce silent compulsion of wage work, and without a state you just cant do it.

[Sotionov]

The oldest definition of needs I know of is by Buddha, who calls them four requisites. They are food (and drink), housing, clothes, and medicine (including hygiene). I don't think that anyone can further reduce this list of necessities that make a sustainable life possible. It still remains a fairly comprehensive list of things that really are needs when you think about what these four things entail.

Being that poverty is connected to needs, it is interesting that there is a story by Buddha about how crime is partly the consequence of society allowing poverty, the story tells about how when the kings decided to punish those who committed theft out of need, instead of giving them property in order not to be poor, that was the start of the spiral of crime and violence that ended the mythological golden age of mankind.

Also, I see that Adam Smith was mentioned, the supposed "hero" of free-market capitalists, who are ready to say that if theft to establish progressive taxation or to guarantee living standards to the workers. Smith's had a few words to say on the topic:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

And also:

"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged. "

Also Thomas Jefferson didn't have any kind words for banking and also didn't think that being a wage-laborer is much better condition then being a slave.

[ckaihatsu]

I'd say the very basic necessities that all citizens should be afforded are; food, water, clothing, education, health care, and shelter.

I think anyone that doesn't find shelter a vital necessity is completely out of phase with reality.


It's a shame that leftists even have to take a *defensive* position around this issue -- alternatively I think we should put it in terms of why society can't just produce a *bunch* of all this shit, and then see how people choose from it for themselves. Leaving 'needs' within the context of a question allows it to remain on the *adversary's* turf, with us having to reassure about the feasibility of it all, social relations, logistics, etc.

Also, on a separate note, we're *more* than animals, and we deal with more than basic utilitarian needs, like those listed above -- I'd argue that 'entertainment' and 'creativity' are *also* needs for any person, albeit at a higher level than existential basics.

[the demoralist]

Also, on a separate note, we're *more* than animals, and we deal with more than basic utilitarian needs, like those listed above -- I'd argue that 'entertainment' and 'creativity' are *also* needs for any person, albeit at a higher level than existential basics.

This is exactly right. In the Paris manuscripts Marx differentiated between animal needs (food, water, shelter) and human needs.
Necessary to understanding the latter is the Marxist conception of human nature, which is historically variable. Humans change themselves when they labour and transform their environment. This means humans are able to unlock their own potentialities through technology, and once this is done, those potentials are human needs. Marx, his his critique of JS Mill, also describes socialism as a radical need of the proletariat. We have given rise to the potential of a socialist society, but it is unrealised due to class society. In order to realise our full potential, we need socialism. And with a Hegelian idea of being as becoming, that's just as valid a need as being able to eat, if not quite so pressing (for the fed working class at least).

[liberlict]

It's all relative. I suppose "needs" could be somewhat objectively defined as whatever is required to keep people alive. But alcoholics 'need' a drink every day, are their needs valid? Probably not in comparison to people who are starving. A homeless person 'needs' a house, but should their needs come before a dying cancer patient who needs extensive treatment? It inevitably reduces to a point where you have to prioritize peoples needs/wants, and there's no morally satisfying way to do this. That's why Carlyle called economics "the dismal science".

[danyboy27]

But alcoholics 'need' a drink every day, are their needs valid? Probably not in comparison to people who are starving.
Both needs are somehow valid. One person need alchool to fufill a psychological need, the other person need food beccause its a physiological need. I totally dismiss the alchoolic exemple, its more fitting to replace it by the need for a person to enjoy alchool.




. A homeless person 'needs' a house, but should their needs come before a dying cancer patient who needs extensive treatment?
Both needs are valid, one person need a house tu live and the other need medecine to live.


It inevitably reduces to a point where you have to prioritize peoples needs/wants, and there's no morally satisfying way to do this. That's why Carlyle called economics "the dismal science".
Except we dont live in the prehistoric era, we could verry well fufill the needs of humankind without doing that sort of triage.

The thing is, this appeal to let the markets do the painful distribution of ressources instead of leaving the peoples take that decision is just yet another falacie made up by classical economists to justify the inability of the markets to actually meet the needs of the population.

[liberlict]

Both needs are somehow valid. One person need alchool to fufill a psychological need, the other person need food beccause its a physiological need. I totally dismiss the alchoolic exemple, its more fitting to replace it by the need for a person to enjoy alchool.




Both needs are valid, one person need a house tu live and the other need medecine to live.


Except we dont live in the prehistoric era, we could verry well fufill the needs of humankind without doing that sort of triage.

The thing is, this appeal to let the markets do the painful distribution of ressources instead of leaving the peoples take that decision is just yet another falacie made up by classical economists to justify the inability of the markets to actually meet the needs of the population.

No sorry I wasn't saying we should have market distribution, didn't mean to imply that. Just saying that distribution needs to be done somehow, and at some point it's gonna involve saying 'no' to people in need.

[ckaihatsu]

It's all relative.


Yes, but not *chaotically* relative, as could be implied here -- needs and desires are relative *on a continuum*, so the gradations are incremental and may follow a form that resembles 'punctuated equilibrium'.





I suppose "needs" could be somewhat objectively defined as whatever is required to keep people alive.


Correct -- you're "anchoring" 'needs' on an objective (physiological) basis. This is covered well by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which I've incorporated into a couple of illustrations -- please note that if we contextualize Maslow's pyramid into the realm of politics we can define Maslow's 'self-actualization' as 'being able to actively participate in an event'.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

http://s6.postimage.org/vjwkgr759/2006400620046342459_Kej_CCu_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/vjwkgr759/)





But alcoholics 'need' a drink every day, are their needs valid? Probably not in comparison to people who are starving. A homeless person 'needs' a house, but should their needs come before a dying cancer patient who needs extensive treatment?


This is a spurious lumping-together of different categories / vectors of needs-and-supplies, as though society uses some kind of generic stem-cell-like viscous matter from which all material goods are created. There's no good reason to artificially bottleneck housing needs along with a hospitalized cancer patient.





It inevitably reduces to a point where you have to prioritize peoples needs/wants, and there's no morally satisfying way to do this. That's why Carlyle called economics "the dismal science".


You're imputing your own suppositions about morality onto everyone else, with your statement -- which has nothing to do with bourgeois economics, by the way.

But if triage-like decisions *did* have to be made, here's a methodological approach for that:


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://s6.postimage.org/9rs8r3lkd/10_Supply_prioritization_in_a_socialist_transi.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/9rs8r3lkd/)


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://s6.postimage.org/jy5fntvcd/17_Prioritization_Chart.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/jy5fntvcd/)





[D]istribution needs to be done somehow, and at some point it's gonna involve saying 'no' to people in need.


You're assuming that a per-item scarcity would exist for *all* items, particularly for those with the most humane potential.

[Lowtech]

ckaihatsu and others have fantastically responded to you far better than i could, but i feel compelled to give my own take on it as well.


It's all relative.need is hardly relative at all. people are so alike, parameters like the amounts of water we need, food, shelter, adequate infrastructure is very uniform. you can look and recognize easily structures meant for human habitat or usage. calling need relative is ridiculous.
I suppose "needs" could be somewhat objectively defined as whatever is required to keep people alive. But alcoholics 'need' a drink every day, are their needs valid?who would mistake a physical addiction to a drug to be a need?
Probably not in comparison to people who are starving. A homeless person 'needs' a house, but should their needs come before a dying cancer patient who needs extensive treatment?this is an odd question coming from a proponent of capitalism;as the same question can be reformulated as; a rich person may believe he needs a mansion, but should his "need" for the mansion come before the needs of the homeless?
It inevitably reduces to a point where you have to prioritize peoples needs/wants, and there's no morally satisfying way to do this. That's why Carlyle called economics "the dismal science".so lets make things even worse by sapping up the economic value workers create and giving the majority of it to the rich in one giant hand out?

capitalism: the non-solution.

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu and others have fantastically responded to you far better than i could, but i feel compelled to give my own take on it as well.

need is hardly relative at all. people are so alike, parameters like the amounts of water we need, food, shelter, adequate infrastructure is very uniform. you can look and recognize easily structures meant for human habitat or usage. calling need relative is ridiculous.who would mistake a physical addiction to a drug to be a need?this is an odd question coming from a proponent of capitalism;as the same question can be reformulated as; a rich person may believe he needs a mansion, but should his "need" for the mansion come before the needs of the homeless?




so lets make things even worse by sapping up the economic value workers create and giving the majority of it to the rich in one giant hand out?

capitalism: the non-solution.


The only possible silver lining here is that this economic development to-date -- such as it is -- has standardized common economic participation and given us all *samplings* of the forms of material value, administration, consumption, democracy, collective production, technology, education, etc. The world's ever-spreading cosmopolitanism / diversity gives us the "tour" of what *could* be realistically possible, but denies us the *agency* for achieving it -- the full rationalization of (collective) mass production.