maslow's hierarchy of needs

[edwad]

what's your opinion on the chart and it's relevance to leftist causes? do you think that you're more likely to achieve class consciousness when your lower needs are met?

[ChrisK]

Its a strange pyramid. Its ultimate culmination of self-actualization is idealist non-sense. Some aspects at the bottom make sense. However, I get the feeling that pyramid engages on an individual level alone and ignores the role that society plays.

As to the second question, its hard to say. When strikes lead to reforms, more strikes tend to follow. But in the case of Russia 1917 it was a case of just not being able to take it anymore. I think the issue of class consciousness is more complex than this.

[tuwix]

what's your opinion on the chart and it's relevance to leftist causes?


In case of fulifilling the most required needs, indeed.



do you think that you're more likely to achieve class consciousness when your lower needs are met?

On the contrary. When the lower needs aren't met, the revolutionary ideas start to be the only solution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, it will never be used for leftist political causes, or at least it shouldn't, because it was never intended as such, and therefore any attempt to appropriate it for leftist political causes would be mis-use and inaccurate.

It's quite a solid hierarchy, in the sense of providing a fairly simple answer to the question of 'what is need'. Maslow actually improved the theory to include 6th and 7th elements a few years after the initial theory, I think it was visual and aesthetic needs, which somewhat updated the theory in line with the literature.

The whole economics literature on need is actually very interesting and is a very topical debate for the left, given the statement 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Something that leftists could be focusing on, is better defining this hitherto ill-defined statement of Marx's, focusing especially on the definition of 'need'.

[robbo203]

Well, it will never be used for leftist political causes, or at least it shouldn't, because it was never intended as such, and therefore any attempt to appropriate it for leftist political causes would be mis-use and inaccurate.

It's quite a solid hierarchy, in the sense of providing a fairly simple answer to the question of 'what is need'. Maslow actually improved the theory to include 6th and 7th elements a few years after the initial theory, I think it was visual and aesthetic needs, which somewhat updated the theory in line with the literature.

The whole economics literature on need is actually very interesting and is a very topical debate for the left, given the statement 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Something that leftists could be focusing on, is better defining this hitherto ill-defined statement of Marx's, focusing especially on the definition of 'need'.

I think Maslow's hierachy has considerable potential application for socialists and, as you say, can help us refine what we mean by "need". There is in humanistic economics a vital distinction that is made between needs and wants which I think is broadly legitimate. A need is something that grows in intensity the longer it remains unfulflilled (think of the need for food). With a want the opposite is true.

Bourgeois economics, of course, does not recognise this disitnction nor the assymmetry of bargaining power that comes with it - a fact that is nicely demonstrated by the expression that in a strike "hunger always works on the side of the bosses" Their reduced revenue might curtail their personal spending on extravagances somewhat but since these are not vital to their wellbeing they can afford to outlast the workers if push came to shove becuase they can still comfortably guaranatee the satisfaction of their own needs

Of course, the distinction between needs and wants is often difficult to make in practice. Take the case of food again. Food is a need but the form in which it is presented is arguably a want. My desire for chicken vindaloo is is a want even though at the same time it satisfies my need for food.


One fiurther point - the idea of a hierachy creates the impression that needs are satisfied sequentially. In other words, in order to devote attention to satisfying a higher need one must first satsify those needs lower down the hierarchy. This is clearly false. Consider the archetypical example of the starving artist cooped up in his garret striving after "self actualisation" at the apex of the hierarchy. Maslow subsequently modifed his theory to allows for the possibility of simultaneously striving after a range of needs and came to argue that there was a certain dynamic tension that existed between the various levels of need. We can strive after satisfying all our needs at the same time but how we go about doing that , the emphaiss we place on our different needs, is heavily influenced by such things as character and social context


I think that is correct. One of the things that concerns me about many Leftists is the kind of crude assumption that things have to get worse in order to get better, that only a severe economic crisis can generate the necessary revolutionary impulse to overthrow capitalism. This is a disastrous and dangerous dogma which even Marx and Engels flirted with - though their immiserisation theory was ultimately based on a notion of relative poverty rather than absolute poverty. For them, workers could get poorer even though their wage levels increased

For many leftists, however, working class immiserisation means increasing absolute poverty and this is considered to be a precondition for a socialist revolution. On the contrary, the weight of evidence suggests quite the opposite. Economic hardship tends to breed conservative and even fascist ideas. It is when capitalism is expanding and and workers expectations and confidence are growing along with their relative bargaining power in the labour market that they are more inclined to look beyond the mere day to day struggles to some larger vision of changing society itself.

Of course it can work the other way as well. A working class that is more comfortably off can also become more complacent and more apt to link its alleged fortunes to the maintenance of capitalism. Im aware of that but on balance I would say booms are better for the spread of revolutionary ideas than slumps and underlying this claim is nothing other than Maslow's model of the hierarchy of needs.

[cyu]

do you think that you're more likely to achieve class consciousness when your lower needs are met?

It depends - if people are so weak that they can't get out the door because of hunger or disease, then the revolution will not happen today. However, if they see that the economic system has failed them, that there is no longer the same amount of food or health care in their future as there was last week, then people start to ignore the lies of their politicians more boldly. One reason Greece is a powderkeg today.

[robbo203]

It depends - if people are so weak that they can't get out the door because of hunger or disease, then the revolution will not happen today. However, if they see that the economic system has failed them, that there is no longer the same amount of food or health care in their future as there was last week, then people start to ignore the lies of their politicians more boldly. One reason Greece is a powderkeg today.

Not a very good example though given the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece!

I dont think people necessarily "start to ignore the lies of their politicians more boldly." when economic hardship increases. On the contrary there is a marked tendency towards conservatism and an increased desire to look to "strong men" and strong arm tactics as the road to salvation. Hitler and his ilk came to power on the back of just such sentiments and the economic depression was a clear factor in his case.

The people may be more prone to start ignoring the lies of some politicians but only on the basis of being seduced by the lies of others. In fact their faith in a dictator of some sort may very well be predicated on the assumption that his or her opponents have been engaging in lies all along , that finally the truth will prevail and things will get better if only we unite behind and put our trust in the Glorious Leader,

At any rate, it sure as hell does nothing to pave the way to socialist revolution and the emancipation of the working class by the working class itself

[cyu]

Perhaps it would be more clear to say that they ignore the lies of establishment politicians more boldly. If things are going fine, people may have doubts about what establishment politicians are saying, but if the present is acceptable to them, they just shrug their shoulders and carry on with their day. However, when the future looms and it all looks grim, then what the politicians say start mattering. They know the past lies are what brought them to their current situation, so establishment parties lose influence.

Of course, if there are new lies that they never heard of before, how would they be able to tell new lies from the truth? All they can be sure of is that the new lies are different from the old lies.

What happens when times are bad is that people want to either see action or take matters into their own hands. If everybody else looks paralyzed, and only one group is taking action, what are you going to do? If you know inaction would lead to death, then only action remains - if you've never bothered following politics much before, then you don't have any ready-made strategies prepared. You see only the certain-death of inaction and the who-knows-what of the only people doing anything.

If leftists aren't active and are just wringing their hands and dragging their feet, it would be their own dawn fault for losing Greece. Either that, or the leftist parties aren't leftist at all, and their top ranks have already been infiltrated by pro-capitalists, and their inaction is in fact to be expected.

[ckaihatsu]

Some aspects at the bottom make sense. However, I get the feeling that pyramid engages on an individual level alone and ignores the role that society plays.


I agree with this part, and will generalize it to psychology as a whole.





Its a strange pyramid. Its ultimate culmination of self-actualization is idealist non-sense.


I'll take issue with this, as someone who has borrowed from MHON to springboard into larger / more-societal frameworks (below).

Perhaps if we simply revisit the pyramid and 'self-actualization' as being *dynamic* -- since it's a framework, after all -- we might see that *any* of the levels are subject to loss, necessitating rebuilding and reconstruction afterwards.

So 'self-actualization' doesn't have to be seen as an idealist '1st place trophy' that is won once and remains timeless thereafter.





As to the second question, its hard to say. When strikes lead to reforms, more strikes tend to follow. But in the case of Russia 1917 it was a case of just not being able to take it anymore. I think the issue of class consciousness is more complex than this.


Agreed.


[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/)


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

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


[12] G.U.T.S.U.C.

http://s6.postimage.org/l6opvpxwt/12_G_U_T_S_U_C.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/l6opvpxwt/)