The Concept of Desert

[Decolonize The Left]

I would like to have a discussion regarding the concept of desert, that is, the noun-form of the verb "to deserve."

I want to open this discussion by asking: do we actually deserve anything? In other words, is the concept of desert applicable in a real material sense? It would seem to me that animals operate on a need-basis; they act in order to fulfill their needs. But needs are completely different than deserts. Needs are the basis upon which deserts are established. In this way it wouldn't make sense to say one deserved something one needed. One just needs things - one doesn't deserve food or water or clothing. One needs them.

However we do like to say that one deserves things above and beyond needs. An easy example within the context of postmodern industrial capitalism would be equal treatment under law, or electricity, or perhaps even internet access. We formulate entire theories and political programs on the basis of deserving things- we also commit horrible atrocities in this very name.

My question is: do we deserve things at all? And if so, what justification do we have for such a claim other than simple, sheer arrogance and self-interest?

[Blake's Baby]

I think it's a question about the difference between what we are and what can be. What we have is x, y, z, but what we could, and should in a decently-organised world, is a, b, and at least half of c as well.

[Palmares]

Etymology 1 Middle English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_language) from the Old French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French_language) deserte (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deserte#Old_French), from deservir (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deservir#Old_French) (“to deserve”). This in turn is from the Vulgar Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin) deservire (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deservire#Latin) (“to gain or merit by giving service”)
...


desert (plural deserts (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deserts#English))
​(usually in plural) That which is deserved (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deserve) or merited (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/merit); a just (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/just) punishment (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punishment) or reward (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reward)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desert

I guess it boils down to whether you believe in a meritocracy or not. Of course that's what our societies try to espouse, but without a level playing field, it's not really the case. However, in the kind of future societies we envisage, I think it's an important element to incorporate.

In individualist societies (like our current ones), I do think it is also problematic. It's puts us in competition, benefiting only "winners". But in a more collectivist or cooperative society or community, due to such things as interdependence merit becomes a multiplicity, rather than simply a singularity.

I don't believe merit as a canonical morality, but more as social contract or simply natural tendency (it could be encouraged of course). We do it instinctively at least to some degree, at least by saying thanks or similar. So I guess I don't think we inherently deserve anything, but socially, it's very beneficial. If we need things, like food, water, shelter, we certainly deserve them if we source them ourselves.

I think another important question is, what kind of merit do we deserve? What kind of punishment? How different would a individualist reward be different to a collectivist? How about punishment?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To me it seems that socialism dispenses with the notion of desert entirely - as distribution in socialism is based on the principle of free access, material goods and services in a socialist society are like Malebranche's rain, falling on the deserving and the undeserving, productive and lazy, brilliant and tragically daft, amiable and reclusive.

Nor do I think this is a bad thing - after all, moral notions are (1) notoriously hard to make sense of without some serious special pleading; (2) tools of the ruling classes entirely opposed to the oppressed and minorities. Desert in particular seems to inexorably lead to some form of unfree access if not the market.

[Hit The North]

Whether something is deserved by the recipient is entirely a value judgement so I don't think your question can be answered in the abstract.

[BIXX]

In reply to 870: while the concept of desert may not exist individually under socialism, what about socially?

[Rafiq]

As a rule, or a pre-requisite, we must first establish that no one deserves anything. As any materialist must recognize, by no inherent characteristics with any significance outside of our consciousness does anyone or anything 'deserve' anything. At least within the context of this discussion, or how we commonly view the notion of desert. But as I imagine you yourself would like to - I think we should re-approach the notion of desert to begin with. Firstly, we should confront the two notions of 'desert' as such - People deserve, or are inferred to accord certain characteristics, products, or whatever we like based on a societal standard rising out of our relationships with each other. Which brings us to our second, better notion - To deserve designates a relationship between one or more things, and must. I do not mean to here mean to be vulgar, or reductionist - I am talking about more than relationships to production, or class relationships or whatever. The notion of deserve cannot exist as an abstraction, nothing deserves anything by merit of its existence - but by merit of its existence in relation to something else, or in relation to another conscious subject/object. The notion of desert cannot exist outside of consciousness, it cannot exist outside of our relationships to each other.

But contextually, we find the notion of "to deserve" existing on a philosophical level, too, which can be confusing. Our first reaction to the word "deserve" translates into a fundamentally market-based form of logic, i.e. as though it is like a transaction. I "deserve" this or that based on something I do. Thinking outside of this logic allows us to re-approach the idea of deserving, for example, for Communists, we regard our enemies as deserving no mercy so long as it gets in the way of our aims. Desert can exist by merit of being rather than single acts or single series' of acts. It sounds pretentious, or even blatantly obvious, but I think that if we recognize Communism as composing of a distinct form of morality - we should also recognize that the notion of desert ideologically is fundamentally different: Not simply re-coordinating who deserves what, while still approaching the notion of desert in the same way, but re-conceptualizing what it even means to deserve.

All in all, our understanding of desert is created by men and woman - but not as we please. We do not have to justify ourselves or frame our questions within the boundaries of the ruling order without also having to resort to bare bones "self interest" as an explanation, either. We can deserve, we can demand, simply because we exist within a ruling order in which that which we deserve or demand is irrevocably something that, in the active process of living and surviving, cannot exist independently of us. The ruling order creates our standards of morality - but Communists do not simply abolish the ruling order or reduce it to nothing - they supersede it. We are a part of the world which we lay claim to, - just as we do not have to justify our existence in being subordinate to the state, we also don't have to justify the aim for the conquest of the state. This justification is an imposition, men and woman do not act historically because they are existentially justified in way that is cosmically significant - they do so because they are justified on an immediate ideological level. i.e. in their relationship to the conditions of life.

[Rafiq]

Nor do I think this is a bad thing - after all, moral notions are (1) notoriously hard to make sense of without some serious special pleading; (2) tools of the ruling classes entirely opposed to the oppressed and minorities. Desert in particular seems to inexorably lead to some form of unfree access if not the market.

If Communism is about consciously creating moral values, than moral values as such will cease to exist. If Communism is about the conscious creation of ideology, likewise - ideology as such will cease to exist. Morality relies on the absence of the widespread, and legitimized consciousness of it. Even if you are conscious about morality in the existing order, you will not morally violate things to an extant, because in your very daily routine, your practices, in your very being in the ruling order, you are actualizing these moral principles, codes, or whatever you want (like the Atheist Jew who does not eat pork).

A hypothetical, abstract, "classless" society will not have codified morals. Because in our very relationships with each other, certain things will simply be rendered impossible without the existence of mental disorders and so on. Or, let me put it another way: No one is claiming there will be things in a hypothetical classless society 2000 years from now which will be looked down upon, or which will be discouraged (I think though, on a mass-scale, this won't be a problem, because again, our behavior will exist within the confines of our relationships with each other, as it always has) - but that this is different from a codified morality. We would, if I am to retort in an act of guilty pleasure to Young Marx - no longer be alienated by morality, so that that which we would call morality would be actualized by the process of living itself. Morality implies class antagonism, which is why Communists possess a distinct morality - and certainly, so long as we are not living in this "hypothetical society" or at least in the "higher stages" of Communism, there will be a form of codified morality - so long as the struggle against the ruling order or the remnants of it exist, an affirmative and strong morality will inevitably exist with it. Of course - our morality is different from theirs, but it is still there, mind you (and this difference, heads up - isn't manifested in the condoning of necrophilia, it concerns the actual points of difference that can be traced on a class based level - including racism, patriarchy - and so on).

Also, it's incredibly naive to think that in any point in history, we will be living in a society where people can just take things whenever they want without any problems. This is nothing more than a desperate abstraction with absolutely no bearing in present, or even inferable future reality. People will deserve things based on a variety of different complicated factors - acts of bravery, hard work, whatever you want. These are all ideologically refined, of course.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think it's a question about the difference between what we are and what can be. What we have is x, y, z, but what we could, and should in a decently-organised world, is a, b, and at least half of c as well.

Perhaps, but this is not sufficient. For I could have a flying skateboard but that in no way necessitates my deserving such a thing.


I guess it boils down to whether you believe in a meritocracy or not. Of course that's what our societies try to espouse, but without a level playing field, it's not really the case. However, in the kind of future societies we envisage, I think it's an important element to incorporate.

I'm not so sure this is the case. For example, my partner may have made a terrible dinner but they would feel as though they deserve to have me sit down at the table and enjoy a meal with them. This desert is not necessarily based upon merit, but upon custom and, to a larger degree, responsibility.


If we need things, like food, water, shelter, we certainly deserve them if we source them ourselves.

Is this so? If I source some water and walk but someone who is thirsty, could I not give them some water on the grounds that I deserve the water I sourced myself? Wouldn't we say that is an injustice?


I think another important question is, what kind of merit do we deserve? What kind of punishment? How different would a individualist reward be different to a collectivist? How about punishment?

But I am of the opinion that we don't deserve anything and that the notion of desert is a languishing religious relic. So I would argue against the idea of desert, even within a collectivist society.


Nor do I think this is a bad thing - after all, moral notions are (1) notoriously hard to make sense of without some serious special pleading;

I fail to see what you mean by this.


(2) tools of the ruling classes entirely opposed to the oppressed and minorities.

Morals are tools of the ruling class only? There can be no such thing as a working class morality?


Desert in particular seems to inexorably lead to some form of unfree access if not the market.

I'm not sure that desert leads to the market, but it certainly necessitates unfreedom in some sense as it applies judgement upon actions and legislates punishment/reward by definition.

[Decolonize The Left]

But contextually, we find the notion of "to deserve" existing on a philosophical level, too, which can be confusing. Our first reaction to the word "deserve" translates into a fundamentally market-based form of logic, i.e. as though it is like a transaction. I "deserve" this or that based on something I do. Thinking outside of this logic allows us to re-approach the idea of deserving, for example, for Communists, we regard our enemies as deserving no mercy so long as it gets in the way of our aims. Desert can exist by merit of being rather than single acts or single series' of acts. It sounds pretentious, or even blatantly obvious, but I think that if we recognize Communism as composing of a distinct form of morality - we should also recognize that the notion of desert ideologically is fundamentally different: Not simply re-coordinating who deserves what, while still approaching the notion of desert in the same way, but re-conceptualizing what it even means to deserve.

Indeed. It would appear as though we could reformulate the maxim as 'one deserves what one needs, and (as a logical consequence,) one ought give what one is able.' This is precisely a moral maxim and one which exists in direct opposition to ruling class ideology. This said, it appears to piggyback off of liberal theory and the notion of "rights" being unalienable and universal. A right is, in this light, nothing other than a desert.


All in all, our understanding of desert is created by men and woman - but not as we please. We do not have to justify ourselves or frame our questions within the boundaries of the ruling order without also having to resort to bare bones "self interest" as an explanation, either. We can deserve, we can demand, simply because we exist within a ruling order in which that which we deserve or demand is irrevocably something that, in the active process of living and surviving, cannot exist independently of us.

Bold added: this is the premise of communism, no? Working class interest is nothing other than this demand to the means of production. The question then becomes, and certainly deserving of a new thread, does mechanization and technological automation of the means of production alter or change the premise of this demand?

[Palmares]

I'm not so sure this is the case. For example, my partner may have made a terrible dinner but they would feel as though they deserve to have me sit down at the table and enjoy a meal with them. This desert is not necessarily based upon merit, but upon custom and, to a larger degree, responsibility.

Of course. I'm not arguing for some sort of absolutist approach to merit. But indeed, merit is also social. If you made an amazing dinner, you would perhaps get more merit than if it wasn't as good. But you of course it is still reasonable to deserve respect. Any merit based system should certainly come with some common sense: like you said, perhaps custom, but definitely responsibility.


Is this so? If I source some water and walk but someone who is thirsty, could I not give them some water on the grounds that I deserve the water I sourced myself? Wouldn't we say that is an injustice?

And I said:


In individualist societies (like our current ones), I do think it is also problematic. It's puts us in competition, benefiting only "winners". But in a more collectivist or cooperative society or community, due to such things as interdependence merit becomes a multiplicity, rather than simply a singularity.


But I am of the opinion that we don't deserve anything and that the notion of desert is a languishing religious relic. So I would argue against the idea of desert, even within a collectivist society.

But I said:


I don't believe merit as a canonical morality, but more as social contract or simply natural tendency (it could be encouraged of course). We do it instinctively at least to some degree, at least by saying thanks or similar. So I guess I don't think we inherently deserve anything, but socially, it's very beneficial.

[Rafiq]

Indeed. It would appear as though we could reformulate the maxim as 'one deserves what one needs, and (as a logical consequence,) one ought give what one is able.' This is precisely a moral maxim and one which exists in direct opposition to ruling class ideology. This said, it appears to piggyback off of liberal theory and the notion of "rights" being unalienable and universal. A right is, in this light, nothing other than a desert.

Bold added: this is the premise of communism, no? Working class interest is nothing other than this demand to the means of production. The question then becomes, and certainly deserving of a new thread, does mechanization and technological automation of the means of production alter or change the premise of this demand?

When I say desert by merit of being, I do not mean in the sense of innate rights. I mean by merit of your place in the relations of power - in the struggle for which, and so on. Of course, for me being and existing are quite different things. I mean being in the sense of social being, or even political being. I think this proletarian demand, while including claim to the means of production, is much more. It is a demand for emancipation and ideologically, the annihilation of servility between humans and humans alone (I.e. - that does not mean "servility" towards the commons will cease to exist, or servility towards a greater cause). Ultimetly, proletarian interests coincide with the revolutions and changes in capitalist production - even on a technological level. Because the demand for the abolishment of their condition necessarily rests upon the nature of their conditions and its relationship to capitalist production - which has been revolutionized technologically. If Communism derives from capitalism, than a new Communism must necessarily derive from a new capitalism.

What I mean to say, is that while we can recognize that the idea of deserving is man-made, we must also recognize that it is not established at will - but from our relationships to each other. The demands of the proletarian class, rather on a practical level or on a revolutionary level derive from their social being within capitalist relations, which they are actively a part of. The question of dessert therefore does not require any sort of divine providence or grand ordain, but from their very lives and from the very coordinates of their demand.

[Tim Redd]

It would seem to me that animals operate on a need-basis; they act in order to fulfill their needs. But needs are completely different than deserts.

Many species play among themselves and with other species and things. Some play is vital to development, but some play seems to be for play itself. Do they deserve such latter play? Is desert/deserved an appropriate question to be applied to the latter kind of play? Not in my opinion.


Needs are the basis upon which deserts are established. In this way it wouldn't make sense to say one deserved something one needed. One just needs things - one doesn't deserve food or water or clothing. One needs them.Does someone attempting to poison a village well deserve water? Maybe, maybe not.


However we do like to say that one deserves things above and beyond needs. An easy example within the context of postmodern industrial capitalism would be equal treatment under law, or electricity, or perhaps even internet access.I think if you analyze this paragraph, you'll see there seem to be problems with how you are using/defining/juxtaposing the terms 'necessity' and 'desert' (the deserved).

Is some kind of meritricious behavior required to 'deserve': equal treatment under law, or electricity, or perhaps even internet access? Aren't they necessities in many contexts?


My question is: do we deserve things at all? And if so, what justification do we have for such a claim other than simple, sheer arrogance and self-interest?It seems to me there are necessities we deserve to have without requiring some kind of behavior or action first. Necessity should be seen as not limited to phyiscal sustenance, but applicable to political, moral, ethical, etc. realms as well.

[Rad]

I think the whle idea is Abrahamic in nature - the nature of the desert, not desert itself. Primitive cultures had a simplistic view - eye for an eye, sometimes literally. Later on questions were asked reg. how the very nature of the desert itself. I think this is significant. But maybe the time has come for humanity to go beyond this too.